| Bharat Rakshak http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/ | |
| Distorted History - Causes, Consequences and Remedies http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=3417 | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 01 Sep 2007 11:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Distorted History - Causes, Consequences and Remedies |
You are cordially invited to participate in a Seminar titled 'Chronology and Distinguishing Characteristics of the Indic Civilization', to be held in Dallas, TX (Oct 12-14th, 2007). Please find attached a Call for Papers detailing the issues, background, purpose, and deliverables for the seminar. The objective of the seminar is to increase awareness of the importance of learning the accurate History of India. The seminar is a small step towards questioning the establishment, present new research, uncover new facts, and propagate the correct history to the public at large in general, and the classrooms in particular. In addition to indologists and historians, the seminar is equally relevant to parents of school-going children, community and educational leaders, and public service professionals. Cultural self-esteem among impressionable young minds is a direct derivative of correctness of history taught in schools. Also the representation of the community in the media and in public space is a consequence of the same. Thus, there is a veritable need from all quarters, scholars and general public alike to come together and effect a joint program of correction and propagation of true history. A paper submission is not necessarily required to participate in the session deliberations. You may choose to contribute ad-hoc to the process of corrections of history, and be part of the plan for propagation among students and general public including the media. Conference attendance is highly recommended but not mandatory to be a valuable asset to the session deliberations. You can submit your paper which will be tabled at the session in absentia, and deliberated upon by the session participants. If I can answer any of your questions, feel free to give me a call at 925-998-2529 (mobile). You can reach me via e-mail by replying to this communique. Looking forward to your response. Sincerely yours, Kosla Vepa, Ph.D. Session Chair Indic Studies Foundation Inc. Tel.: 925-998-2529 (mobile) E-Mail: history-seminar@heconf.com PL. contact me for further details. my website indicstudies.us has my email address webmaster at indicethos dot org Abstract The issues It is clear that much of what we learned in our school history books is suspect if not downright erroneous, starting from the chronology of ancient India to the postulation of an Aryan Invasion, the location of the ancient home of the Zoroastrian people, the dating of Chandra Gupta Maurya's reign, the dating of the Buddha himself, the origin of the Brahmi script, the embellishment of the Caste system by the Colonial overlord, the dating of the impregnation of Indic culture in countries of South East Asia to name a few. More importantly, the Eurocentric approach to the narration of the fascinating story of Indian History taken by English authors is at variance with the facts and the history as we knew it prior to the arrival of the Europeans in the Indian subcontinent. We will do our best to peel the layers of the onion, but it is too large a task to be undertaken by a handful of individuals, especially as the narration of this history is firmly in the grip of individuals with certain ideologies who are deeply ensconced in New Delhi and whose viewpoint is for all intents and purposes in conformance with the story as told by the British. The underlying premise here is that the history of ancient India as taught today to our children is substantially at variance with reality, and with the facts as we now understand them The Rationale - How to remedy the situation Obviously we need to inform ourselves as to the truth of the matter , apply criteria such as logical consistency to assess the data as it is available and determine whether a particular event or that a substantial portion of the current chronology passes the tests. We invite individuals to contribute in various ways to such a project by participating in the seminar. We are particularly interested in the contributions to the exact sciences such as Astronomy mathematics and linguistics in ancient India, not only to assess the content of the contribution but to use this event to see if it can give us clues and markers which will help us decipher the occurrences of the past several millennia. For example in the many delightful problems that Indian mathematicians pose, such as In Lilavati by Bhaskara II, he may make reference to a currency or a social and legal practice that is particular to a specific era, that would tilt the evidence in the direction of that era. Another example may be the dating of Panini. If texts in classical sanskrit started appearing at a certain date, then it stands to reason that Panini must have completed his monumental work on the Ashtadhyayi prior to this date. This explains why amongst all the dates assigned by Western Indologists , the dating of Panini is one of the oldest. However reluctantly they may have done so , the conclusion that classical sanskrit literature must have post dated Panini is inescapable, since he was the most famous one to codify the language and its grammar. The Topics We request interested authors to 1. Identify key distinguishing characteristics and dates of the Indic civlization 2. Indicate those areas of Indian history which are egregiously in error 3. Propose methodology and criteria to evaluate the accuracy of the current or future proposed narratives 4. Discuss the extent to which India borrowed astronomical concepts, such as the Nakshatra system of the precession of the equinoxes from Baylonian, Greek and Chinese sources 5. Discuss the possible connections between Panini’s Linguistic efforts with the invention of the place value system We encourage individuals to think out of the box and suggest related topics that fall under the overall rubric of the heading above Objective The goal of the seminar is to increase awareness of the importance of learning the accurate History of India and to extricate ourselves from the present situation where we have relinquished control of our history to individuals who have little stake in India and hardly any accountability for any errors that they make. Methodology Interested people can take part in the seminar that will be held at the Human Empowerment Conference at Dallas, Texas on 13th October 2007. (Conference dates are 12th, 13th, 14th October 2007). Research papers can be either presented at the seminar or be submitted for publication in the conference proceedings in absentia or both. I request the admins to put a sticky on this for a period of a week, and i thank them for entertaining my request | |
| Author: | shiv [ 02 Sep 2007 12:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Distorted History - Causes, Consequences and Remedies |
Kaushal wrote: I request the admins to put a sticky on this for a period of a week, and i thank them for entertaining my request This will be done as requested. History is too important a subject to be left in the hands of a few. Unfortunately "timeless" Indians have historically rejected a sense of history and any increase in awareness of history and other humanities among Indians is a step forward. | |
| Author: | Babui [ 02 Sep 2007 12:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Would appreciate any BR attending to put "findings" in this forum in Oct. Its time we move away from a Euro-centric view of our history and heritage and "discover" the truth. | |
| Author: | sanjaykumar [ 02 Sep 2007 03:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Suggest looking at histories of mathematics such as the recent The History of Infinity. Not one mention of Indian thought or mathematics. Begins with Aristotle and only leaves Aristotle in the 17 century with modern European developments. This is a pattern in such tomes-Eurocentric with no acknowledgement or a positive belittling of Indian or Chinese contributions. Mathematics is especially fertile as history as there is a more compete record and it is generally less open to fatuous opinion. Further it is tacitly held as a crow(n)ing achievemnet of specifically European civilisation. | |
| Author: | shiv [ 02 Sep 2007 03:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
If I may add a caterwaul that I have been making for a while: - I believe that "history" - especially ancient history in India has (thus far) come either from archaeological, stone carving or numismatic evidence rather than from written records. Written records of ancient India history seem to be only from Chinese travellers or Arabs, and in more recent times Europeans. To me this reflects a cultural lacuna in Indian attitudes that needs correction. Histories in Europe not only come from various narrations, but from writings/records of individuals. To select a well known example - Anne Frank's diaries. Since the type of people who will take part at this meet are likely to be invariably educated, I urge that everyone takes time out to record the narrative or family history from his own family and ancestors in India. I believe India alone can fill up 30% of "information-space" in the world - but I guess that Indian information probably amounts to about 2%. Just my thoughts. | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 02 Sep 2007 04:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
sanjaykumar, completely agree with what you said about the Mathematics aspects . In fact Indic mathematicians and astronomers have been very characteristically quite precise about the dating of their own efforts,, which provides in many instances a clear marker. Incidentally my life long love affair with the general history of mathematics was given a boost by BR when we had extensive discussions (some of which are archived as of now) on ancient Indian mathematics. Shiv, your point about the indic record is well taken but somewhat ironic. The manuscript wealth of India now stands at about 5 million mss (in various languages including Skrit,, pali, and other prakrit languages). About 1 million of these have been catalogued. The rest are/or were in various stages of decay and neglect till recently. In my recent trip to India (Blore,Thiruvananthapuram, Pune and Chenai) I was struck by the casual manner in which these manuscripts are treated. But this is changing as we speak. Many more have been lost over the centuries, due to wars and neglect due to ignorance of their contents. about 250,000 manuscripts are preserved in foreign libraries (the Bodeliean library, the Bibliotheque national and at harvard and other universities Despite this huge wealth in manuscripts, which exceeds anything available in the rest of the world by a huge margin,the Brits(with few exceptions) spread the word that Indics had no sense of history and were poor at recording anything much less history, and when they did acknowledge the existence of many a manuscript they tried to downgrade its significance and antiquity by every means possible.That they did so is not the surprise. The surprise is that like many other myths they spread about India,we believed them. I have one telling anecdotal remark to make. David Pingree, the late professor of history of mathematics at Brown university in RI (an Ivy league school), compiled a multi volume 'Census of the exact sciences' (one volume alone contains all the citations with titles from pa,pha,ba,bha,ma ) in ancient India . Truly a remarkable job. What is even more remarkable is that he always maintained (starting from his PH.D thesis) that India borrowed everything from Greece). If that was indeed the case, how is it (my question) that he did not find even a fraction of the manuscripts he found in India , elsewhere in the ancient world such as in Greece and that he never found the need to do a similar census for greece or Babylon. I know i will get facile explanations on this one. so i iwll leave it that. | |
| Author: | Raj Malhotra [ 02 Sep 2007 04:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
British historians also wanted to show that we were slaves for 2000 years so Mughal empire was highlighted and all else was given passing reference. In fact hardly any Indian student will know that for 4000 years of civilization from 2500 BCE to 1600 AD Indian constituted 40% of world GNP equivalen to value of US & EU combined | |
| Author: | Rakesh [ 02 Sep 2007 12:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Distorted History - Causes, Consequences and Remedies |
Kaushal wrote: I request the admins to put a sticky on this for a period of a week, and i thank them for entertaining my request Kaushal, it would be better if this was left on as a sticky till after the event is over. This thread can get more views that way. Also, it would be nice if you or someone else attending this event, post a brief summary about it. Thanks. | |
| Author: | SriKumar [ 02 Sep 2007 01:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kaushal wrote: Shiv, your point about the indic record is well taken but somewhat ironic. The manuscript wealth of India now stands at about 5 million mss (in various languages including Skrit,, pali, and other prakrit languages). About 1 million of these have been catalogued. The rest are/or were in various stages of decay and neglect till recently. In my recent trip to India (Blore,Thiruvananthapuram, Pune and Chenai) about 250,000 manuscripts are preserved in foreign libraries (the Bodeliean library, the Bibliotheque national and at harvard and other universities Despite this huge wealth in manuscripts, which exceeds anything available in the rest of the world by a huge margin,the Brits(with few exceptions) spread the word that Indics had no sense of history and were poor at recording anything much less history I too have been under the impression that a social, political and even historical record of India by Indians is on the lower side. If Shiv thinks the same, I am in very good company. And this is, IMHO, a symptom of a problem. Per your comment, if indeed there are millions of manuscripts in Sanskrit/Prakrit/other languages, may I suggest that this be a one of the topics for a presentation: A list/compendium of social/political/historical literature that is known to exist today and where (libraries/musems in the UK, in remote villages in India etc.). In essence, what is available and where? I would say, in the spirit of Shiv's 'narrative' approach, even personal comments/statements from people could be encouraged....something along the lines of 'In my village, I know so-and-so who has these really old manuscripts that were handed down from his great grand-father....etc. | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 02 Sep 2007 05:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
This is exactly what is happening , with the launching of the national mission for manuscripts. Once they are cataloged, the real job starts of evaluating the contents. Google is digitizing, 800000 ms at the university of mysore. Not surprisingly the biggest repositories of manuscripts are inthe so called princely states Mysore, Travancore, baroda and Jaipur. But still there are more manuscripts bin lost everyday and there is a resulting national amnesia about events prior to 1700 CE and even moreso about events before 1200 ce. Hence the tendency of the Indic to judge himself by what he sees in the years after independence.... .completely ignoring the 5 to 6 millennia of events prior to that. This is also one of the main reasons for the absence of a strategic culture in the Indian mindset http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... DD4LL1.DTL (06-26) 04:00 PDT New Delhi -- In the walled quarters of the old city, a Sanskrit language scholar walks purposefully along the packed, narrow and twisting alleyways, jostling past rows of jewelry shoppers, cycle rickshaws, bullock carts and beggars. When he comes upon an old temple with an ornately carved doorway, he stops, sweating profusely in the sweltering sun. "Do you have any ancient handwritten manuscripts here?" Dilipkumar Rana, the scholar, asks in a whisper. The stunned temple manager nods. "The government is doing a survey of old manuscripts," Rana says. "But I have very few left now," temple manager Jaipal Jain says. "I threw many old manuscripts into the river last year." "Why?" Rana asks anxiously. "I had put them in the attic. Last year during the monsoon, the ceiling leaked. And the water destroyed many of the manuscripts," Jain says, sighing. "White ants attacked some others." And so it goes, as India's 30,000 manuscript hunters fan out nationwide, seeking the nation's heritage in old temples, madrassas, mosques, monasteries, libraries and homes. Launched two years ago, the National Mission for Manuscripts is a five- year project to catalog for the first time India's ancient documentary wealth and ensure that basic conservation practices are followed to halt their rapid decay. Officials say that India is the largest repository of manuscripts in the world, with an estimated 5 million texts in hundreds of languages. Linguistic scholars and history students involved in this adventurous hunt for ancient volumes use not only expertise but also social skills, coaxing and cultural sensitivity to gain access to manuscripts. After Rana takes off his shoes and washes his hands, he prays at the shrine. Then Jain leads him to the temple's dimly lighted manuscript room. He opens a creaky steel cupboard and reveals rows of old texts, bundled in yellow cotton cloth. Rana cautiously holds some pages up to the window light to examine the writing. "It is in Prakrit language," he says, referring to a popular dialect of classical Sanskrit, no longer spoken. "The period is early 1600s. It prescribes a model code of living for Jain monks," a religious order that arose with Buddhism in the sixth century B.C. The manuscript project's officials say the nationwide survey will open a window to India's ancient knowledge systems: religion, astronomy, astrology, art, architecture, science, literature, philosophy and mathematics. "We are creating a manuscript map of India. The survey will present new facets to our intellectual heritage," says Sudha Gopalakrishnan, chief of the National Mission for Manuscripts. The project will not take the volumes from their owners but merely document what is available and help in conservation. "The key abstracts of all the ancient knowledge found in our manuscripts will be available digitally for the world to see," Gopalakrishnan says. Art historians are eagerly watching this massive cataloguing process, hoping for new clues to India's past. "What we find will answer many nagging doubts about our knowledge tradition," says Lokesh Chandra, an art historian and manuscript scholar. "For example, we came very close to modern mathematics in the 8th century. But what happened after that? Why was there a hiatus in the evolution of ideas in India? How did we miss the bus to the future?" In the 18th century, some European scholars began translating ancient Sanskrit and Buddhist manuscripts and made them accessible to the world. Many valuable manuscripts were taken out of the country and are now in European libraries and private collections. Chandra says unearthing the manuscripts will also forge national pride for India's 4,000-year history and will "give us a psychological boost for future advances." The oldest manuscripts that India possesses are a set of sixth century Buddhist texts that were found buried in the hills of Kashmir about 60 years ago. In the last two years, the surveyors have found rare ancient Sanskrit and Arabic treatises on such subjects as diabetes, astrophysics, interpretation of dreams, surgical instruments, concepts of time and the art of war. A 400-year- old handwritten Koran was found in a locket measuring 3 inches. But Gopalakrishnan says manuscripts are being lost at an alarming rate because of neglect and ignorance. Most ancient manuscripts, found on paper, palm leaves, birch bark, cloth, wood and stone, are languishing because of improper care in this humid, tropical and dusty country. "By the time we find them, they are moth-eaten, edges falling apart, attacked by fungus," says Ritu Jain, a conservator with the manuscript project. She recently discovered a yellowing and brittle 18th century Arabic manuscript on a traditional Islamic healing procedure in a dusty, cobweb- filled corner of a college library in New Delhi. "I shudder in pain when I hold them," she says. "Some pages are so fragile that they just become powder in our hands." The manuscript mission also trains librarians, private collectors and temple priests in conservation, advising them to keep the documents wrapped in starch-free cotton and in a space free of dust and moisture. Basic training is also given in chemical conservation. But few homes and temples handle the religious manuscripts with reverence and ritual purity. Some also follow indigenous methods of preservation such as using margosa leaves, clove and black pepper. On a recent morning, an Arabic scholar at the mission office received a letter from a New Delhi resident, Afzal-ur-Rahman, who wanted his decaying ancestral collection of Arabic literature examined by experts. Later, as a scholar leafed through the frayed, fungus-infected pages of a book about the nuances of Arabic grammar, Rahman, 61, spoke of his great- grandfather, whose literary work was honored by a Mughal king in the early 1800s. "I am emotionally attached to these manuscripts," he says. "It is a family heirloom. I never let anyone touch it. But it contains knowledge that must be shared with the world." This article appeared on page A - 3 of the San Francisco Chronicle | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 03 Sep 2007 07:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Kaushal, it would be better if this was left on as a sticky till after the event is over. This thread can get more views that way. Also, it would be nice if you or someone else attending this event, post a brief summary about it. Thanks. Thank you for the offer, rakesh | |
| Author: | Rakesh [ 03 Sep 2007 11:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I did not know where else to post this, but this is a fantastic link. The Colonial Legacy - Myths and Popular Beliefs http://india_resource.tripod.com/colonial.html Basically the article states how the British deliberately kept India intellectually dumb, ruined her urban and agricultural development, virtually stopped India from experiencing her Industrial Revolution, while in turn accelerating its own with India and other colonized nations acting as a direct catalyst. So much for India benefiting under British rule! While these barbaric acts almost destroyed the Indian fabric of society, it is interesting to note how Dr Swami Vivekananda's words ring true even today, although he said it 114 years ago at the Parliament of Religions held in Chicago in 1893. "Sect after sect arose in India and seemed to shake the religion of Vedas to its very foundations, but like the waters of the seashore in a tremendous earthquake it receded only for a while, only to return in an all-absorbing flood, a thousand times more vigorous; and when the tumult of the rush was over, these sects were all sucked in, absorbed and assimilated into the immense body of the mother faith." | |
| Author: | Sanku [ 03 Sep 2007 12:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rakesh wrote: Basically the article states how the British deliberately kept India intellectually dumb, ruined her urban and agricultural development, virtually stopped India from experiencing her Industrial Revolution, while in turn accelerating its own with India and other colonized nations acting as a direct catalyst. That obviously can not be true; for if it were; why would the Indian Prime Minister proudly thank UK for all the good that India has had from the colonial period; that too in 60 years of our independence? At a time when even the Japanese are praying at their war shrines. Rakesh I must say you have to be mistaken; because surely Dr Singh being a learned economist would know of this; or are you imputing his motives? | |
| Author: | Rakesh [ 03 Sep 2007 12:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well Sanku, if I was in Dr Manmohan Singh's position...I would say the same thing. After all Oxford is his alma mater. What else is he going to say? However, to state that India benefited from the British rule is only partially correct and tells only one side of the story. India benefited from British rule because of a 'trickle-down' effect and not because of the overtly benevolent British government. Everything they did in India, was for their own economic benefit. They basically raped the country. Take a look at this link... Integration into the Market - Globalisation and the Impact on Health http://www.phmovement.org/pubs/issuepapers/hong03.html Quote: To feed the global market economy, new crops mainly for export were introduced in the colonies; new laws and social structures were imposed; new technologies and consumption patterns, which were totally alien, took hold. Subsistence food production gave way to commercial crops and raw materials to feed Europe’s industrialisation. Agrarian societies in the colonies were profoundly transformed. Fertile lands were given to grow cash crops with less land to grow food to feed the local population. Food scarcity became a permanent feature and this affected the nutritional and health status of the people. For example, Bengali peasants under East India Company (EIC) rule in India were forced to grow indigo and kept in extreme poverty as a result of very high land taxes imposed by the Company. Within a few years of Company rule, Bengal’s economy was in ruins. Fertile agricultural lands became barren and useless and famine killed some ten million Bengalis. The frequency and severity of famines which occurred under the rule of the EIC, accelerated under direct British rule when food production was increasingly displaced by commodities like jute, dyes, and cotton. By the second half of the 19th century, India’s industry and economy were in complete ruins. India became one huge plantation for the British to grow tea, indigo, and jute for export. Famine became endemic and reached epidemic proportions under British colonial rule. During this period, more than 20 million Indians died from famine. All told, British exploitation of India, not only pauperized more than 90 percent of the Indian masses, it left behind a weakened population, susceptible to disease and destroyed indigenous coping mechanisms that had been developed over the course of centuries. This story was replayed in many Third World societies under colonial conquest. | |
| Author: | Sanku [ 03 Sep 2007 12:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ah well; I wish Dr Singh did not have to give a clean chit them on such weak grounds then. After all though Oxford is his alma mater; India is his mater; he has literally grown up on Indian milk has he not? To whom would his loyalties be expected to be stronger too? There is certainly no point in him joining the debate of how the Brits were bad; but at least he could have refrained from overt praise in the capacity as the Indian head of Govt. Anyway that is said and done now. | |
| Author: | Rakesh [ 03 Sep 2007 12:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
His strategy of reaching out to the world  I guess it is safe to assume that you are not particularly fond of Pradhan Mantri Singh! But on the issue of his loyalties, like virtually most Congress party members, we all know where that lies! | |
| Author: | Sanku [ 03 Sep 2007 12:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
 | |
| Author: | Calvin [ 03 Sep 2007 12:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kaushal - this is a wonderful effort. I am reminded of an essay I read a long time ago by GK Chesterton on "history and historians". A google search turned it up, and I quote it here, not only because Chesterton's wit and words and worthy in and off themselves, but because they suggest precisely what you are suggesting - that we look beyond the historians to the manuscripts of the day. Quote: History Versus the Historians By G.K. Chesterton From Lunacy and Letters In my innocent and ardent youth I had a fixed fancy. I held that children in a school ought to be taught history, and ought to be taught nothing else. The story of human society is the only fundamental framework outside of religion in which everything can fall into its place. A boy cannot see the importance of Latin simply by learning Latin. But he might see it by learning the history of the Latins. Nobody can possibly see any sense in learning geography or in learning arithmetic - both studies are obviously nonsense. But on the eager eve of Austerlitz, where Napoleon was fighting a superior force in a foreign country, one might see the need for Napoleon knowing a little geography and a little arithmetic. I have thought that if people would only learn history, they would learn to learn everything else. Algebra might seem ugly, yet the very name of it is connected with something so romantic as the Crusades, for the word is from the Saracens. Greek might be ugly until one knew the Greeks, but surely not afterwards. History is simply humanity. And history will humanise all studies, even anthropology. Since that age of innocence I have, however, realised that there is a difficulty in this teaching of history. And the difficulty is that there is no history to teach. This is not a scrap of cynicism - it is a genuine and necessary product of the many points of view and the strong mental separations of our society, for in our age every man has a cosmos of his own, and is therefore horribly alone. There is no history; there are only historians. To tell the tale plainly is now much more difficult than to tell it treacherously. It is unnatural to leave the facts alone; it is instinctive to pervert them. The very words involved in the chronicles - "Pagan", "Puritan", "Catholic", "Republican", "Imperialist" - are words which make us leap out of our armchairs. No good modern historians are impartial. All modern historians are divided into two classes - those who tell half the truth, like Macaulay and Froude, and those who tell none of the truth, like Hallam and the Impartials. The angry historians see one side of the question. The calm historians see nothing at all, not even the question itself. But there is another possible attitude towards the records of the past, and I have never been able to understand why it has not been more often adopted. To put it in its curtest form, my proposal is this: That we should not read historians, but history. Let us read the actual text of the times. Let us, for a year, or a month, or a fortnight, refuse to read anything about Oliver Cromwell except what was written while he was alive. There is plenty of material; from my own memory (which is all I have to rely on in the place where I write) I could mention offhand many long and famous efforts of English literature that cover the period. Clarendon's History, Evelyn's Diary, the Life of Colonel Hutchinson. Above all let us read all Cromwell's own letters and speeches, as Carlyle published them. But before we read them let us carefully paste pieces of stamp-paper over every sentence written by Carlyle. Let us blot out in every memoir every critical note and every modern paragraph. For a time let us cease altogether to read the living men on their dead topics. Let us read only the dead men on their living topics. http://www.chesterton.org/gkc/historian/historians.html | |
| Author: | Surya [ 03 Sep 2007 01:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Just returned from the UK and saw the intial episode of the The Story of India by Michael wood. Did anyone else catch it? | |
| Author: | Rakesh [ 03 Sep 2007 01:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Story Of India With Michael Wood http://www.a2mediagroup.com/?c=175&a=17248 | |
| Author: | ashish raval [ 03 Sep 2007 01:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Surya wrote: Just returned from the UK and saw the intial episode of the The Story of India by Michael wood. Did anyone else catch it? I have seen all of them presented so far. | |
| Author: | SriKumar [ 03 Sep 2007 02:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kaushal wrote: [ they are trying to locate and catalogue old manuscripts ]...... with the launching of the national mission for manuscripts. A 1-minute google search turned up their website under Ministry of Tourism and Culture. This is an amazing effort, and it seems to reach out in all directions, and at all levels (district and village). Hats off to GOI for this. http://namami.org/ Check out the photo-gallery. There are jpegs of manuscripts and art collated thus far. There's stuff on music (can see a picture of a mridangam) art, calligraphy and some others not as obvious. http://namami.org/photogallery.htm (Admins: If this is considered off-topic, please move to appropriate thread). | |
| Author: | Nandu [ 05 Sep 2007 06:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Distorted History - Causes, Consequences and Remedies |
May I request a brief synopsis of what these distortions are? In particular what exactly is wrong about the commonly held views on the following? Kaushal wrote: .... the location of the ancient home of the Zoroastrian people, the dating of Chandra Gupta Maurya's reign, the dating of the Buddha himself, the origin of the Brahmi script, .... the dating of the impregnation of Indic culture in countries of South East Asia. In quoting, I have removed a few from Kaushal's list because those particular items are discussed here often, esp. in the psyops thread. I'd love to see some details on these others. Thanks. | |
| Author: | ramana [ 05 Sep 2007 07:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I request Sanku and any others not to bring in politics or criticism of exisiting persoanlities for it will only serve to derail the thread. | |
| Author: | Sadler [ 05 Sep 2007 10:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
This is a subject i am extremely interested in but know virtually nothing about. To remedy that, i asked an Indian friend to help out. She (based on advice from Acharya/Tanaji) looked up the multivolume set on Indian history by one Majundar (sp?). I did not realize at that time but this is an eleven volume set!! And it cost a pittance. Apparently less than $80!! For an eleven volume set on what i have been told is one of the most authoritative collection of books on indian history!! The volumes came to about 60 lbs and had to be shipped (literally), so i should receive them in about 2 months from now. However, this event is certainly of some interest. Would the organizer/editors consider posting the proceedings on BRF?? It would be one heck of a resource for folks like me and i suspect Indians as well. | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 06 Sep 2007 09:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Till the discovery of the paleo channel of the dried up Saraswati river, the chronology followed by the Historians of India who were for the most part British followed the basic framework laid down by sir William Jones during the 1780's and despite significant discoveries such as the Sarasvati Sindhi Civilization aka the Indus valley civilization, stuck to the revised history as they envisioned it, ever since. Even Majumdar,, who is otherwise very credible, does not break lose from the "Steel Frame' version of the Indic past in his multi volume compilation of Indic history. In short, the authoritatiive history of India in the English language yet to be written excerpt from the press release for the conference, "In his constant strategic quest to perpetuate his empire the colonial overlord employed several approaches which may (taxonomically) be characterized as being a paradigm shift in the way empires are run. The British had an overwhelming desire to be regarded as a benign Imperial power only remaining behind in India because of the overwhelming obligation to civilize the natives of the subcontinent, at least according to Thomas Babington Macaulay. After the systematic looting of the country for over a half century beginning in the 1760’s, as described by Nicholas Dirks in The Scandal of Empire, and having reduced the bulk of the populace to a penurious condition, he then set about systematically to change the mindset of the Indic by various means. In particular he set himself the task to Devalue the INDIC IDENTITY and the cohesiveness of Indic traditions in the subcontinent by insinuating that the idea of India is essentially a colonial notion Exaggerate the cultural and racial diversity in order to create fissions within Indian society (in this they have largely succeeded thanks to the frequently and regularly run census of India beginning in the latter half of the 19th Century, and Macaulay’s minute on education) by trying to separate the intellectual sections of Indic society from the rest of the populace. Create a new ethnic taxonomy peculiar only to India (Aryan vs. Dravidian) where none existed before Confuse and negate the antiquity of the Indic civilization by introducing spurious and invalid postulates such as the Aryan Invasion theory to create the FUD factor (fear. , uncertainty and doubt) and totally obfuscate the chronology of India Devalue the contributions to the exact sciences in antiquity, which is only now being redressed by the work of the Neugebauer School (to a very limited extent) and the group at University of Exeter in UK. The result of this handiwork is that the History and chronology of India prior to 700 CE has been completely mangled and any resemblance to reality is purely coincidental. The goal of the seminar is to increase awareness of the importance of learning the accurate History of India and to extricate ourselves from the present situation where we have relinquished control of our history to individuals who have little stake in India and hardly any accountability for any errors that they may make. Our aim is to 1. Identify key distinguishing characteristics and dates of the Indic civilization 2. Indicate those areas of Indian history which are egregiously in error 3. Propose methodology and criteria to evaluate the accuracy of the current or future proposed narratives 4. Discuss the extent to which India borrowed astronomical concepts, such as the Nakshatra system of the precession of the equinoxes from Baylonian, Greek and Chinese sources 5. Discuss the possible connections between Panini’s Linguistic efforts with the invention of the place value system Indic Studies Foundation is committed to devising and executing plans that will focus awareness on the antiquity, diversity, intellectual vibrancy, the logical rigor and ontological scope of Indic civilization, the profound contributions it has made to many spheres of activity of humanity. comprehend the nature and breadth of adversarial theologies which seek to malign the Indic ethos, dispel lacunae and misconceptions in the understanding of Indic traditions in India and the Western hemisphere, as exemplified by the case of the California Text Book Misrepresentation of Ancient India in 2005/2006 explore the progress in realizing the unfulfilled promise and potential of this nation and its talented populace the Foundation will undertake a series of seminars annually with an exclusive focus on Indic history to specifically research the distorted history, investigate its consequences,assess its consequences, and remedy the situation by facilitating impartial/professional research into Indic history, and in addition will conduct programs to correct the history in the academia, media and in public perception. | |
| Author: | Sadler [ 06 Sep 2007 10:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kaushal wrote: Even Majumdar,, who is otherwise very credible, does not break lose from the "Steel Frame' version of the Indic past in his multi volume compilation of Indic history. Thanks for the tip. I am sure i'll have a lot of questions as i begin to read these books. I'll post my questions here at that time. Thanks and Shalom. | |
| Author: | Airavat [ 11 Sep 2007 09:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kaushal wrote: Even Majumdar,, who is otherwise very credible, does not break lose from the "Steel Frame' version of the Indic past in his multi volume compilation of Indic history. Yes that is because at the time these volumes were first compiled (1950s) Majumdar could not have gone against the established 'steel frame'. More so because a variety of historians contributed different chapters in each volume...some of them were ardent colonialists while others were what we call today 'leftists'. Instead Majumdar and KM Munshi provided space to alternative views on controversial topics like the Aryan Theory, Puranic history from the earliest times, The Vikrami Samvat, etc, which at least left the conclusions open for the individual reader. | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 11 Sep 2007 10:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I concur with you and do not make a judgement of Majumdar, for whom I have great respect. Remember at that time there was as yet no discovery of the sarasvati paleo channel via satellite, which for all practical purposes clinches the argument against AIT. I am less charitable towards those (e.g Romilla Thapar) who argue in favor of AIT even today. | |
| Author: | UPrabhu [ 11 Sep 2007 11:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ramana wrote: I request Sanku and any others not to bring in politics or criticism of exisiting persoanlities for it will only serve to derail the thread. I agree, these existing personalities mentioned are one of the ill-effects of British, and only time will cure us of them, they have secondary side effect of derailing threads on important discussions. Seriously... discussing Sanku mentioned personality is hopeless.. only time will cure us, 60 years is too less. It is interesting that it took Sinzo Abe, person born after WWII to bring about some assertiveness in japanese policy. May be it will take some PM born after 1947 to do the same for us. | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 15 Sep 2007 03:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
There is no question that 750 years of domination by people of a different culture and value system, who had little respect for our traditions has taken its toll on the collectiive psyche of the Indic. Few have escaped its effects unscathed. No need to wring our hands forever about it. Make a note of it and move on. Time heals everything. | |
| Author: | JE Menon [ 15 Sep 2007 10:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Guys, is the michael wood series anywhere on youtube or anything like that. Is it out on DVD??? Want to see it yesterday.... | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 16 Sep 2007 04:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hello Jaideep old friend, how goes it with you. Nice to see you are still active. | |
| Author: | JE Menon [ 16 Sep 2007 01:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hello Kaushal. Fine boss, fine. Good to see you are still fighting the good fight. Yeah, still active..  Keep well... Sorry for thread diversion people... | |
| Author: | Jagan [ 16 Sep 2007 02:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kaushal garu, can we keep the font size to normal please? | |
| Author: | Rudranath [ 16 Sep 2007 04:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kaushalji take a look at this 2 threads on other forum. A historian by the name Dharampal is mentioned. Link1 Link2 This 2 threads have very good material and if possible should be cloned on BR. | |
| Author: | JE Menon [ 16 Sep 2007 07:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rudranath, No need for cloning. You have provided the links. Anyone on BR who wants to read it can go to IF and do so... BR Admins have often recommended IF as a source for such material, and will continue to do so, primarily because these discussons tend to spill into areas outside the mandate of BR. And IF has provided a fine platform. | |
| Author: | emsin [ 16 Sep 2007 08:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
IT's ridiculous that people say that Dalits were not educated for thousands of years etc..this is blatantly false. Facts left by British scholars in the last century point otherwise..they point even to the fact that primary education is something the West learnt from us..not otherwise. Quote: According to the Survey of Indigenous Education in the Province of Bombay (1820-1830), Brahmins constituted only 30% of the total scholars in that province. Adam tells the same story about Bengal and Bihar. In the five districts he investigated, the total number of Hindu students was 22,957. Out of these 5,744 were Brahmins, or about 25%. Kayasthas were about 12%. Students belonging to 95 castes find representation in his Report. It includes 66 ChanDals, 20 Muchis, 84 Doms, 102 Kahars, and 615 Kurmis. As teachers, the Brahmins were even less represented. Out of a total of 2,261 teachers in these districts, Brahmins were only 208, or about 11%. In this region Kayasthas were the teachers par excellence. They were 1,019 in number, or a little less than half the total. Other teachers belonged to other 32 castes. ChanDals had six, Goalas had five, Telis had eleven; while Rajputs had only two, and Chhatri and Kshetriya taken together had only three. It will not be out of place here to compare the state of instruction in India at this period with the one prevalent in the West, and particularly in England, the country with which we have better acquaintance. The West was at this time acquiring monasteries and new-style universities which were gaining fame for teaching theology, but it still had no national system of elementary education for instructing its younger ones In England, the attempt to introduce any semblance of wider instruction was first made in mid-fifties in the nineteenth century under factory laws. But the legislation "provided nothing more than that the children shall on certain days of the week, and for a certain number of hours (three) in each day, be inclosed within the four walls of a place called a school, and that the employer of the child shall receive weekly a certificate to that effect signed by a person designated by the subscriber as a schoolmaster or schoolmistress" (Report of the Inspector of Factories, Parliamentary Papers, June 30, 1857). The Indian national education system was no freak. It was grounded in Hindu culture and its system of local self-government. Ludlow's British India says that "in every Hindu village which has retained anything of its form ... the rudiments of knowledge are sought to be imparted; there is not a child... who is not able to read, to write, to cipher; in the last branch of learning they are confessedly most proficient". The same source says at another place that "where the village system has been swept away by us, as in Bengal, there the school system has equally disappeared". Leitner quotes a report of a British Inspector of Schools in the Punjab which too brings out the intimate link between indigenous educational system and it underlying system of ideas and polity. It says: "The indigenous education of India was founded on the sanction of the Shastras, which elevated into religious duties and conferred dignity on the commonest transactions of every-day life. The existence of village communities, which left not only their municipal, but also in part their revenue and judicial administrations, in the hands of the people themselves, greatly helped to spread education among all the different members of the community." When the British started studying indigenous education, they had already been in control of the territory for over fifty years; and during these years much harm had already been done. The land grants were already stopped or curtailed. There was a general breakdown in the economy at large. The old classes which supported local institutions were impoverished. These and other causes combined to bring about a fast deterioration is Ancient India was celebrated for its learning all over civilized Asia and Europe. Megasthenese (ca. 302 BC) was struck by the depth of this learning during his mission to the court of Chandragupta. Fa-hien, the famous Chinese traveller (399413 AD) spent some years at the Pataliputra and Tamralipti monasteries. He also spent two years in Ceylon which too had its monasteries after the India fashion. These monasteries were a big affair, housing and teaching several hundred monks each. Two centuries after came Hiuen Tsang undertaking a hazardous journey across Central Asia and northern parts of India. During the seventeen years he spent in India (629-645 AD) he visited many monasteries belonging to the Mahayana and the Hinayana schools. He visited Hiranyaparvata, the Golden Hill (Munghir), a city on the bank of the Ganges, which had 10 Sangharamas with 4,000 priests, and 12 Deva temples. At Tamralipti (at the mouth of Hoogly), there were 10 monasteries with a thousand monks. The same story is told of many other towns he visited. I-tsing (671-695 AD) came to India by sea-route. He spent ten years studying at the Nalanda University, the most dominant at his time. It was supported by a revenue of 200 villages and housed more than 3,000 monks. The building contained eight halls and three hundred apartments. On the way back, he spent seven years in Sribhoja (Sumatra), which was a cultural extension of India. In the face of continued Muslim onslaught from across the north-west frontier, Hindu Buddhist sciences began to retire into the ineterior. Alberuni tells us how "Mahmud ruined the prosperity of the country (India)", how they (Hindus) were turned into "atoms of dust scattered in all directions", how "this is the reason, too, why Hindu sciences have retired far away from those parts of the country conquered by us, and have fled to places which our hand cannot yet reach, to Kashmir, Benares, and other places." As time passed and the Muslim inroads became deeper, Hindu centres of learning were destroyed in the interior too. Eventually, from there they retired into neighbouring countries like Tibet. http://www.voiceofdharma.org/books/ohrr/ch07.htm | |
| Author: | Acharya [ 16 Sep 2007 08:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sadler wrote: This is a subject i am extremely interested in but know virtually nothing about. To remedy that, i asked an Indian friend to help out. She (based on advice from Acharya/Tanaji) looked up the multivolume set on Indian history by one Majundar (sp?). I did not realize at that time but this is an eleven volume set!! And it cost a pittance. Apparently less than $80!! For an eleven volume set on what i have been told is one of the most authoritative collection of books on indian history!! The volumes came to about 60 lbs and had to be shipped (literally), so i should receive them in about 2 months from now. However, this event is certainly of some interest. Would the organizer/editors consider posting the proceedings on BRF?? It would be one heck of a resource for folks like me and i suspect Indians as well. I got this 11 volume book recently from Blore which my freind helped me. It is deep and will give an exhaustive amount of information. The list of contributors will tell the list of eminent historians who are the real Historians of India. There are some criticism of RC Mazumdar since he still uses Aryan Invasion Theory and other colonial referenes. But overall this the best | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 17 Sep 2007 05:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
an we keep the font size to normal please ? i have vision problem with the small font size. I consistently use 12 pt size for all the work that i do at the keyboard. | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 17 Sep 2007 05:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
May I request a brief synopsis of what these distortions are? In particular what exactly is wrong about the commonly held views on the following? This is discussed by me elsewhere (indicstudies.us). These are in some cases lengthy arguments and should be discussed either in a seminar setting or in a classroom or dig into the literature which is fairly voluminous.... I am also losing dexterity with my fingers to do extensive typings | |
| Author: | Jagan [ 20 Sep 2007 11:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kaushal wrote: an we keep the font size to normal please ? Kaushal garu,i have vision problem with the small font size. I consistently use 12 pt size for all the work that i do at the keyboard. This might be a remedy that would address the small font size. If you have Internet Explorer 7, there is a zoom button in the lower right corner that automatically enlarges a page size to 100 125 150% even more...that way you can also increase the size of posts of other people. (alternative way - press CTRL and the + key together ). This is one feature that encourages upgrading to Version 7 Right now you are composing the message, you will still see small font in the message box and it no way helps address your problem. you will only be able to read your own posts in large font after you post it and not before and the posts from other members still appears small. | |
| Author: | shiv [ 20 Sep 2007 02:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Distorted History - Causes, Consequences and Remedies |
Kaushal wrote: You are cordially invited to participate in a Seminar titled 'Chronology and Distinguishing Characteristics of the Indic Civilization', to be held in Dallas, TX (Oct 12-14th, 2007). Please find attached a Call for Papers detailing the issues, background, purpose, and deliverables for the seminar. The objective of the seminar is to increase awareness of the importance of learning the accurate History of India. The seminar is a small step towards questioning the establishment, present new research, uncover new facts, and propagate the correct history to the public at large in general, and the classrooms in particular. The meeting is still 3 weeks away. I think this thread has been a sticky long enough and I will unsticky it - but the thread will remain, and can always be brought "up" as information is added. | |
| Author: | JwalaMukhi [ 20 Sep 2007 04:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Here are some interesting tidbits provided by local guides during a recent visit to the Halebeedu temple complex. Does any of the gurus here know more about these on the veracity of the narration of the local guides? Please note the attire of the sculpture in image 1 at Halebeedu. The Hoysala halebeedu and Belur temple complex were built in 12th century and barbarians led by MaliKafur ransacked it in 14th century and the firangis showed up much later.  Local Guide’s narration: This kind of attire was adapted by firangi’s after local encounter for their jury/justice practices.  Please note what looks like a viewing device in the image 2 at Halebeedu. Local Guide’s narration: The optical device was in vogue and used in warfare at 12th century itself. (Telescopes come much later) Local Guide’s narration: There were 80 beautiful sculptures (most of which were installed at roof levels – difficult to get to) depicting various poses of dance and only 14 are left today at Halebeedu with rest of them stolen by British (many of them could be found in various museums and private collections in UQueendom. | |
| Author: | anupmisra [ 20 Sep 2007 07:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kaushal wrote: May I request a brief synopsis of what these distortions are? In particular what exactly is wrong about the commonly held views on the following? This is discussed by me elsewhere (indicstudies.us). These are in some cases lengthy arguments and should be discussed either in a seminar setting or in a classroom or dig into the literature which is fairly voluminous.... I am also losing dexterity with my fingers to do extensive typings Kaushal, What is your contact information? Thanks, Anup | |
| Author: | anupmisra [ 20 Sep 2007 07:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
JwalaMukhi wrote: Here are some interesting tidbits provided by local guides during a recent visit to the Halebeedu temple complex. Does any of the gurus here know more about these on the veracity of the narration of the local guides? Please note the attire of the sculpture in image 1 at Halebeedu. The Hoysala halebeedu and Belur temple complex were built in 12th century and barbarians led by MaliKafur ransacked it in 14th century and the firangis showed up much later. Local Guide’s narration: This kind of attire was adapted by firangi’s after local encounter for their jury/justice practices. Please note what looks like a viewing device in the image 2 at Halebeedu. Local Guide’s narration: The optical device was in vogue and used in warfare at 12th century itself. (Telescopes come much later) Local Guide’s narration: There were 80 beautiful sculptures (most of which were installed at roof levels – difficult to get to) depicting various poses of dance and only 14 are left today at Halebeedu with rest of them stolen by British (many of them could be found in various museums and private collections in UQueendom. On a closer look, it does not seem like a telescope or a viewing device. It looks more like a bottle or something that apsara is drinking from. | |
| Author: | emsin [ 20 Sep 2007 10:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kaushal i have been independently doing some work on this..i'm sure though you may have gone through this. But still posting it here.. Quote: Stereotypes about India and Hinduism when taught as fact in American classrooms may negatively impact students of South Asian origin who are struggling to work out their identity in a multicultural, predominately Anglo-Christian environment. The first section of this article explores the reactions of Hindu students who have studied about India in social studies classes in American secondary schools. The data was drawn from surveys distributed at the University of Texas at Austin to students of South Asian descent who attended high school in the USA, as well as from personal interviews with several American-educated students of Indian heritage. The second section of this article is a discussion of the coverage of India in four world history textbooks, with a closer look at the textbook that was used in the Austin Independent School District for six years during the 1990s. The final section is a statistical analysis of the preparedness of secondary social studies educators, graduating from the University of Texas at Austin, to teach about India and other non-Western regions. This article is addressed not only to educators, but to parents and citizens from all ethnic groups concerned about fostering a non-prejudicial society and international understanding and cooperation. This article offers no solutions. But, it is hoped that by pointing out the problems, remedies may be found to improve the discourse about South Asia and other non-Western regions of the world that predominates in World history classrooms and textbooks, and to encourage greater preparedness of secondary social studies teachers in the area of global/international education. Unfortunately, the dilemma of negative stereotypes about Hinduism remains endemic in American academia. http://www.mssu.edu/projectsouthasia/ts ... Rosser.htm | |
| Author: | emsin [ 20 Sep 2007 10:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
some more excerpts from the above..that many may not read.. Quote: One informant complained that "Hinduism" was described as "some sort of bizarre mystic religion in which people do dances and worship strange things. India is full of poor uneducated starving people, a country on the verge of collapse." Critical of the stereotype-as-fact orientation, another young man stated "The poverty of India was blown out of proportion and no Asian countries were credited with the artistic and literary contributions they made to the world. Islamic nations were presented as fanatical, China was the 'communist enemy', Japan was an economic and educational threat and India was overpopulated." The majority of the informants agreed that when India was studied, "Religion and the caste system were emphasized." Several noted that when studying Gandhi, in the context of Partition, "animosity between Hindus and Muslims" was discussed. There was no mention of post-independence secular India's efforts toward national integration of its minorities and low caste citizens. Another informant contrasted the emphasis on South Asia—"poverty, religion, reincarnation, British rule, Gandhi, caste" with the emphasis placed on China and Japan which focused on "forms of government, religions, main exports, imports." This essentialist stereotypical representation of India can be summed up by one student's list of topics, "polytheism and a poor and very big population, [which is] highly underdeveloped. . ." and, she adds as did many of the informants, "we worship rats and eat monkey brains." The wholly fictional depiction of India in the Steven Spielberg film, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, seems to have been taken as a valid portrayal of India by many teachers, since a large number of students surveyed complained that teachers referred to the eating of monkey brains. We all remember that the worshipping of rats was widely discussed during the "epidemic" in Surat in the early nineties. In my own experience, while training teachers to teach about India, I have been amazed at how many people really think that Hindus worship rats. When I point out this is an absurd way to think about Hinduism, and ludicrous to teach their students, they argue that they read it in an AP news wire. The way that I deal with this issue is to compare the worship of rats among Hindus, at an obscure temple in Rajasthan, to the worship, among Christians, of David Koresh at the Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. It is a good analogy since the teachers respond that though some Christians did worship David Koresh, it is certainly not a defining characteristic and actually abhorrent to most Christians. Thus it is for rat worship among Hindus. | |
| Author: | menon [ 20 Sep 2007 10:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
JwalaMukhi wrote: ************* Please note what looks like a viewing device in the image 2 at Halebeedu. Local Guide’s narration: The optical device was in vogue and used in warfare at 12th century itself. (Telescopes come much later) Local Guide’s narration: There were 80 beautiful sculptures (most of which were installed at roof levels – difficult to get to) depicting various poses of dance and only 14 are left today at Halebeedu with rest of them stolen by British (many of them could be found in various museums and private collections in UQueendom. I would like to state only two things. 1. That the viewing device is held by the lead soldier resting it on the top of the shield. So, in all probablity it is a viewing device. (Please remember that cocacola has not yet been issue to soldiers of that time, nor PET bottles). 2. The second pic looks like a military greatcoat not yet designed and made. | |
| Author: | JwalaMukhi [ 21 Sep 2007 01:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
This image covers the panel more and the depiction looks like a war scene. Watch the artillery pieces in the middle of the photo. It is unlikely to be a drinking container. Definitely, not an apsara...  | |
| Author: | anupmisra [ 21 Sep 2007 12:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
JwalaMukhi wrote: This image covers the panel more and the depiction looks like a war scene. Watch the artillery pieces in the middle of the photo. It is unlikely to be a drinking container. Definitely, not an apsara... Could it be a horn or a conch shell? | |
| Author: | Sagar [ 21 Sep 2007 02:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
anupmisra wrote: JwalaMukhi wrote: Could it be a horn or a conch shell? May I request you to rewrite "Conch" as Shankh? Sagar | |
| Author: | JwalaMukhi [ 21 Sep 2007 03:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The degree of representation of most object are of extreme finesse, very little crude representations, if any. The attention to details is amazing and the depiction technique is quite thought out. Some examples are finger nails, bulging of eyes of the bull, stance of the bull when it is free versus when it is carrying load. To indicate poision (either a vish-kanya or putana demoness carrying poison) a scorpion is put right on th belly. The object is not shown to be hollow, for horn. The conch shell (shank) would have been obvious and not a crude representation. P.S. A request when replying, edit out the image. | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 21 Sep 2007 09:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
emsin, i presume you are YR. Of course i am familiar with your work for a number of years. I trust you will participate in my session also since i understand you will be in Dallas. We didnt have much of a chance to chat at LA, but i plan to arrive in Dallas on thursday evening, so i look forward to an update from you on various issues and hopefully you will take part in the sessiojn or the workshop afterwords. Kaushal | |
| Author: | emsin [ 21 Sep 2007 10:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kaushal, i'm not YR. I have gone through the work though. All i meant was i have been independently doing my own homework on this front for a few years. I have been collecting data etc. I am totally appreciative of your effort. Keep to the truth..and yes good work and my very best wishes for your efforts. | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 22 Sep 2007 05:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I apologize for the error | |
| Author: | emsin [ 22 Sep 2007 08:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kaushal do raise in your programme issues like hijacking vegetarianism, Yoga, historical exclusivity of religios like Buddhism, Jainism, from overall Indian thought. We discussed some of these things briefly in another thread. I have loads of core material on this. not compiled, but if you need something, i would be extremely pleased if i can help out. | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 23 Sep 2007 04:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
emcin, JI do not know whether every one of the subjects you brought up will come up. My objective is not to recite a littany of grievances against the Occidental (rhymes with oriental)but to give a phiolosophical underpinning to the long and steady evolution of the Indic civilization it breadth and what is indeed remarkable its staying power. The other great civilizations have either altered signicantly or been driven extinct. There is nothing left of the Greek civilization (although the west fancies itself the successor to the Greco Roman civilization. The ancient Greeks would be considered Pagans by the established churches today, and hardly any of their life style remains. The Indic civilization is the only one surviving virtually intact. The Gayatri mantra and the invoking of Savitur is at least 7000 years old. It already asks for enlightenment and not for bread, because they had mastered agriculture and had no problem with adequate food. People (west of the Urals)wonder what happened to the Indus Valley civilization. Nothing dramatic happened they just moved on and their descendants became the Gujaratis , Maharashtrians and other residents of modern India. Itis this unbroken continuity tht rankles with the Occidental, because he is all to conscious that his own history is replete with wars (e.g.the hundred years war between England and Frnace),extinct civilizations, destructioin. hence his obsession to endow India with a similar heritage. We iwho are of Indic heritage realize only too well that a mere claim of antiquity will not gain us the respect of the world, but it is indeed remarkable to see the great lengths the occidental will go to deny us the antiquity which we feel is the right one. The ferocity with which he argue s against our historical heritage is only matched by the tenacity with which he would deny us a place at the table with other major powers, and that is another story unto itself | |
| Author: | ramana [ 28 Sep 2007 06:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
JwalaMukhi, I posted your image of Halebid in IF in the following thread. There is some discussion if you would lik to partake. Pre-Modern Warfare in India | |
| Author: | JwalaMukhi [ 28 Sep 2007 07:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ramana wrote: JwalaMukhi, I posted your image of Halebid in IF in the following thread. There is some discussion if you would lik to partake. Pre-Modern Warfare in India Thanks Ramana. Shall participate. Actually thought of writing about these temples , as there is paucity of information on the net. Probably, I will write in IF. The wikipedia has vague information on these temples and some incorrect info too. | |
| Author: | ramana [ 01 Oct 2007 04:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sulekha Blog on Rama and Krishna Its about antiquity of Hindu civilization to 20000 BC. This was a point that Kaushal made at the combined mtg in Milpitas. | |
| Author: | ramana [ 01 Oct 2007 04:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Folks there are couple of short books <100 pages in Telugu about Guptas(92 pages) and Andhras (50 pages). I would like to know if someone would like to translate them into English for a wider audience and put it in pdf format? Its ok is there is a commercial entity in Hyderabad that can do the job. Thanks, ramana | |
| Author: | ramana [ 02 Oct 2007 01:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Two books in Telugu and one in Hindi Sri Kota Venkatachalam: 1) Who are the Gupta Kings ? Guptarajuluevaru? 2) Who are the Andhras? Andhruluevaru? 3)Bharat Rajaniti- Krishna Kumar Bharata Rajniti Please download the pdfs and give us synopsis. Thanks. Mother lode of such digital manuscripts: Internet Search Archive This one has many types of e-books. | |
| Author: | JwalaMukhi [ 06 Oct 2007 04:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
How to create a DIE right from a young age? X-posted from education thread: Not sure, if this needs to be posted in Nation on the March thread. Good news: you can access what school kids learn. More Good News: Distortions and social engineering aspects are laid bare for scrutiny. Bad News: As more non eminent historians/JNU types scrutinize, the online viewing could be restricted or completely pulled down. I suspect these textbooks are indicative what NCERT and many other states put together. http://www.textbooksonline.tn.nic.in/ Sampler from class XI and class XII history books posted without comments (ensoi): Quote: Quote: [i]The cities of the Harappan Culture had declined by 1500 B.C. .... Around this period, the speakers of Indo-Aryan language, Sanskrit, entered the north-west India from the Indo-Iranian region. Initially they would have come in small numbers through the passes in the northwestern mountains. Their initial settlements were in the valleys of the north-west and the plains of the Punjab. Later, they moved into Indo-Gangetic plains. As they were mainly a cattlekeeping people,( ) they were mainly in search of pastures. By 6thcentury B.C., they occupied the whole of North India, which was referred to as Aryavarta. This period between 1500 B.C and 600 B.C may be divided into the Early Vedic Period or Rig Vedic Period (1500 B.C -1000 B.C) and the Later Vedic Period (1000B.C - 600 B.C). They include the Arctic region, Germany, Central Asia and southern Russia. BalaGangadhara Tilak argues that the Aryans came from the Arctic region on astronomical calculations. However, the theory of southern Russia appears to be more probable and widely accepted by historians.From there, the Aryans moved to different parts of Asia and Europe.They entered India in about 1500 B.C. and came to be known as Indo-Aryans. Female infanticide was another inhuman practice afflicting the 19th century Indian society. It was particularly in vogue in Rajputana, Punjab and the North Western Provinces. ... Factors such as family pride, the fear of not finding a suitable match for the girl child and the hesitation to bend before the prospective in-laws (:-? ) were some of the major reasons responsible for this practice. Therefore, immediately after birth, the female infants were being killed either by feeding them with opium or by strangulating or by purposely neglecting them. The condition of women, by the time the British established their rule, was not encouraging. Several evil practices such as the practice of Sati, the Purdah system, child marriage, female infanticide, bride price and polygamy had made their life quite miserable. The place of women had come to be confined to the four walls of her home.[/i] Bentinck was a “straightforward, honest, upright, benevolent, sensible man†| |
| Author: | ramana [ 08 Oct 2007 02:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Op-Ed in Pioneer, 8 Oct., 2007 Quote: Kerala School absent in annals Second opinion: KL Jhingan This has reference to the article, "From Kerala to infinity", the interview with George G Joseph "Knowledge Travels" (August 20) and the editorial, "This is to certify" (August 14). On going through AL Basham's books, The Wonder that was India and A Cultural History of India, and the chapter on mathematics in ancient India in Jawaharlal Nehru's Discovery of India, one gets a clear indication as to who were the leading lights of Indian mathematics in the past: Aryabhatt (5th century) Brahmagupta (7th Century) Mahavir (9th century) and Bhaskar (12th Century). There is no reference, even obliquely, to the so-called 'Kerala School'. Basham says that some progress happened in trigonometry, spherical geometry and calculus chiefly in connection with astronomy. He only mentions the above-mentioned doyens of ancient Indian mathematics. And Will Durant states, "Bhaskar crudely anticipated the differential calculus." The book, A Cultural History of India, says, "KS Shukla lists a minimum 28 commentaries on it (the reference is to Surya Sidhant) by known authors mostly in Sanskrit but two in Telugu reaching to the early 18th century together with at least 17 works based essentially upon its theory, his recent edition includes the commentary of Parameswar (AD 432) written in Kerala in south India." Discovery of India talks of Narayan (1150 AD), Ganesh (1545 (AD), and mentions a book, History of Hindu Mathematics, by B Dutta and AN Singh 1935. There were earlier books also Baudhayan (eighth century BC) Apastamb and Katyayan (both fifth century BC). From the above, it can be inferred that the roots of ancient Indian mathematics go back to Vedic times with the flowering of the genius. Such mathematics reached its zenith from fifth to 12th centuries AD. The observations in The Wonder that was India and Our Oriental Heritage regarding ancient Indian mathematicians' acquaintance with calculus during the above period was decidedly prior to the claim of so-called Kerala School. Thereafter, very little original work on mathematics was done in India after the 12th century, as opined by Nehru; other works being mere repetitions. There is no reference to Madhava and Nilakantha of the 'Kerala School', to whom the knowledge of infinite series - one of the basic components of calculus in attributed in the said article. Will try to get the Aug 20th article and post here. Quote: From Kerala to infinity In their stunning new research, Dennis Francis Almeida and George Gheverghese Joseph show how mathematicians in Kerala developed the infinite series more than 250 years before Isaac Newton is credited to have done so. It was Jesuit missionaries who carried Kerala's knowledge to Europe According to literature the general methods of the calculus were invented independently by Newton and Leibniz in the late 17th century after exploiting the works of European pioneers such as Fermat, Roberval, Taylor, Gregory, Pascal, and Bernoulli in the preceding half century. However, what appears to be less well known is that the fundamental elements of the calculus including numerical integration methods and infinite series derivations for 'pi' and for trigonometric functions such as sin x, cos x and tan-1 x (the so-called Gregory series) had already been discovered over 250 years earlier in Kerala. These developments first occurred in the works of the Kerala mathematician Madhava and were subsequently elaborated on by his followers Nilakantha Somayaji, Jyesthadeva, Sankara Variyar and others between the 14th and 16th centuries. In the latter half of the 20th century there has been some acknowledgement of these facts outside India. There are several modern European histories of mathematics which acknowledge the work of the Kerala school. However it needs to be pointed out that this acknowledgement is not necessarily universal. For example, in the recent past a paper by Fiegenbaum on the history of the calculus makes no acknowledgement of the work of the Kerala school. However, prior to the publication of Fiegenbaum's paper, several renowned publications detailing the Keralese calculus had already appeared in the West. Such a viewpoint may have its origins in the Eurocentrism that was formulated during the period colonisation by some European nations. In the early part of the second millennium evaluations of Indian mathematics or, to be precise, astronomy were generally from Arab commentators. They tended to indicate that Indian science and mathematics was independently derived. Some, like Said Al-Andalusi, claimed it to be of a high order: "(The Indians) have acquired immense information and reached the zenith in their knowledge of the movements of the stars (astronomy) and the secrets of the skies (astrology) as well as other mathematical studies. After all that, they have surpassed all the other peoples in their knowledge of medical science and the strengths of various drugs, the characteristics of compounds, and the peculiarities of substances." Others like Al-Biruni were more critical. He asserted that Indian mathematics and astronomy was much like the vast mathematical literature of the 21st century - uneven with a few good quality research papers and a majority of error strewn publications. Nevertheless a common element in these early evaluations is the uniqueness of the development of Indian mathematics. However by the 19th century and contemporaneous with the establishment of European colonies in the East, the views of European scholars about the supposed superiority of European knowledge was developing racist overtones. This inclination for ignoring advances in and priority of discovery by non-European mathematicians persisted until even very recent times. For example there is no mention of the work of the Kerala School in Edwards' text on the history of the calculus nor in articles on the history of infinite series by historians of mathematics such as Abeles and Fiegenbaum. A possible reason for such puzzling standards in scholarship may have been the rising Eurocentrism that accompanied European colonisation. With this phenomenon, the assumption of White superiority became dominant over a wide range of activities, including the writing of the history of mathematics. The rise of nationalism in 19th century Europe and the consequent search for the roots of European civilisation, led to an obsession with Greece and the myth of Greek culture as the cradle of all knowledge and values and Europe becoming heir to Greek learning and values. While we understand the strength of nationalist pride in the evaluation of the achievements of scientists, we do find difficulty in the qualitative comparison between two developments founded on different epistemological bases. It is worthwhile stating here that the initial development of the calculus in 17th century Europe followed the paradigm of Euclidean geometry in which generalisation was important and in which the infinite was a difficult issue. On the other hand, from the 15th century onwards the Kerala mathematicians employed computational mathematics with floating point numbers to understand the notion of the infinitesimal and derive infinite series for certain targeted functions. -- Excerpted from 'Kerala Mathematics and its Possible Transmission to Europe' by Dennis Francis Almeida, University of Exeter & George Gheverghese Joseph, University of Manchester. This was originally published in Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal. and Quote: Knowledge travels In the light of recent research at the University of Manchester which shows that the "infinite series" -- and the "Pi series" therein -- were determined by Kerala scholars 250 years before Isaac Newton is credited to have done so, Nandini Jawli spoke to head researcher Dr George Gheverghese Joseph. Excerpts from the interview: Q. Did you have an inkling of the fact that the "infinite series" and the "Pi series" must have originally been discovered outside Europe? A. Certainly there was information about it. While researching on my first edition, I did find out that there were quite a number of papers published in India and elsewhere that discussed this. Here I would like to specify that when you talk of Infinite series, the Pi series is part of it. They are not separate series. Infinite series involve trigonometric functions - sines, cosines and circular functions. I don't think Indians then knew something called 'pi', that has come later. They were interested in finding out some sort of a way to calculate the circumference of a circle for a given diameter, which virtually comes to the same thing as pi. Q. How do you think the knowledge of the Infinite series must have finally reached Sir Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibnitz? A. This is a conjecture. We do not have any direct evidence. It is unlikely that Newton or Leibnitz knew anything about Kerala mathematics. But they might have obtained their mathematics from a number of European mathematicians, who lived before them. like Fermat, Wallis, James Gregory, who were at some point in touch with the Jesuits for professional reasons. Some of the prominent Jesuit mathematicians and astronomers - like Matteo Ricci, Antonio Rubino and Johann Shreck - had gone to Kerala between middle of 16th to early 17th century. They were sent on a project to know how Indians constructed calendar and did stellar navigation. Newton and Leibnitz did not directly know about Kerala mathematics. But they were dependent on some of the mathematical ideas of Fermat and others, who could actually have very well been informed by Jesuits. Probably, Jesuits had got the original idea from Kerala. Q. While the Jesuit missionaries were studying calendars used in different parts of the world, how come they chanced upon scholarly works on calculus, a completely different field of study? Was it a chance finding? An accident? A. Certainly, it was! The Jesuits were sent to India on an information-gathering mission to find out about Indian calendar. It was the time when Pope had formed a committee to reform Julian calendar. Clavius, the renowned teacher in Rome, had instructed his students to look out for information on Indian calendars. So if there was any connection to the infinite series, it was not directly the calendar but stellar navigation, which involves accurate values of sines and cosines. Q. You have told the media: "There were many reasons why the contribution of the Kerala school has not been acknowledged - a legacy of European colonialism and beyond." What is the solution to this prejudice? A. This is one reason but there are other reasons as well. The activity of the Kerala school was highly localised, just confined to a small area north of Cochin. Then there was the linguistic problem. Very few people who studied, knew the old Malayalam. Many Western scholars knew Sanskrit but not many knew Malayalam. Another reason was its being a former colony. It's not been part of any colonial power, not just British, to acknowledge that they owe a debt to anybody, particularly someone from a colony. The solution: We have to more and more excavate the knowledge, make sure we have strong evidence to support any claims. The solution is to break down this prejudice whether from India , Europe or Islamic countries. We would be making same mistakes like Europeans if we try to monopolise mathematical knowledge. Q. Would it not have been ethical of Newton to acknowledge the contribution of received wisdom to his works on analytical dynamics? A. Newton was a great scientist. He will be remembered for his genius for a long time. There is nothing unethical about it. His greatness lies in bringing together a number of strands, putting them in a coherent framework and creating something new. His calculus was the starting point of modern mathematics. I am simply saying that one particular aspect of something attributed to Newton, may have come from Kerala or India. Maybe the info about the Kerala school of mathematics was no known outside Kerala? | |
| Author: | harbans [ 08 Oct 2007 05:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ramana, the best book on the history of numbers is by a French- Moroccon researcher Georges Ifrah. It's in 3 volumes. He goes gaga and proves meticulously how the West and Middle East took credit for a huge number of mathematcial advances made in India and claimed as their own for colonial and other reasons. This book is brilliant and a must in every Indian household. An absolute must read! | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 08 Oct 2007 06:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I agree Georges Ifrah's book is phenomenal. Incidentally it was pointed tout to me many years ago by Jaideep Menon, one of the moderatores of BR when we had a thread running on Indic Mathematics. Ijncidentally i resurrec ted those portions of the thread that were attributable to me and have used them over the years as notes. The Kerala story is still developing. There is a tendency for the UK based Mathematicians George Gevhergese and Dennis Almeda to omit the work of India based Mathematicians and to present their work of discovering the Kerala origin of the Calculus in Vacuo. In reality there has been a steady stream of research starting from Independence by well known indian mathematicians CT Rajagopal, Ramasubramanian, MD Srinivas, and others culminating in the epoch making treatise of CK Raju on the Cultural Foundations of Mathematics (which may be available in Amazon shortly which is a seminal work, explaining the nature of Indic mathematics and how it differs fundamentally from the Greek conception of mathematics which hobbled western science for centuries if not millennia. Stay tuned for updates on this and my own proposal for a TV series on the the development of Indic Quantitative and linguistic sciences. I hope to launch the fund raising for this project in the near future . I Have a particular interest in this since i have had a longstanding interest in greek mathematics for the last few decades (my interest in Indic mathematics grew out ogf my pior preoccupation with Greek math)and intend to be associated with the project in an editorial capacity. This will need beau coup $ and those who are interested in the progress of the project should request to be put in my mailing list for these activities. Stay tuned for more, Kaushal | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 08 Oct 2007 06:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
There has been a thread running on India-Forum for a quite a while now On Indic Mathematical traditions , where most of us who are interested in historical matters had migrated, after BR frowned on such topics. | |
| Author: | Arun_S [ 11 Oct 2007 08:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
How about secular science that has distorted and negated history? So modernism and science made myth of what they cant explain or not sanctioned in the only true encyclupedia know as the Bible. So Indian scriptures, and all its sacred entities including Hanuman is made myth by these secular-christinophiles. I earlier stated how the Indian scriptures recollecting Historical events from deep historical antiquity; and how modern Science has continuously evolved to converge with Indian scriptures in terms of age of universe and also human/humenioid presence on Earth that has been continuously rolled back. For those old enough will recall, Science being on slipper slope of determining Arrival of Human/Humaniod on Earth from, 20,000 years to 150,000 -> 200,00 - 0.5 million, 1.2 million and 2 million years. (Much beyond the Christian/Bible taught absolute truth of God created Man recently and no more than 5000 BC. Now Bible truth bites dust on this matter.) And now per following news report >15 million years. New Findings Solve Human Origins Mystery Quote: The critical event involves a dramatic embryological change unique to the human lineage that was not previously understood because the unusual human condition was viewed as "normal." by Staff Writers Los Angeles CA (SPX) Oct 11, 2007 An extraordinary advance in human origins research reveals evidence of the emergence of the upright human body plan over 15 million years earlier than most experts have believed. More dramatically, the study confirms preliminary evidence that many early hominoid apes were most likely upright bipedal walkers sharing the basic body form of modern humans. On October 10th, online, open-access journal PLoS ONE will publish the report based on research from Harvard University's Museum of Comparative Zoology and from the Cedars Sinai Institute for Spinal Disorders that connects several recent fossil discoveries to older fossils finds that have eluded adequate explanation in the past. Recent advances in the field of homeotic genetics together with a series of discoveries of hominoid fossils vertebrae now strongly suggest that a specific genetic change that generated the upright bipedal human body form may soon be identified. The various upright "hominiform" hominoids appear to share this morphogenetic innovation with modern humans. Homeotics concerns the embryological assembly program for midline repeating structures such as the human vertebral column and the insect body segments. The report analyses changes in homeotic embryological assembly of the spine in more than 200 mammalian species across a 250 million year time scale. It identifies a series of modular changes in genetic assembly program that have taken place at the origin point of several major groups of mammals including the newly designated 'hominiform' hominoids that share the modern human body plan. The critical event involves a dramatic embryological change unique to the human lineage that was not previously understood because the unusual human condition was viewed as "normal." "From an embryological point of view, what took place is literally breathtaking," says Dr. Aaron Filler, a Harvard trained evolutionary biologist and a medical director at Cedars Sinai Medical Center's Institute for Spinal Disorders. Dr. Filler is an expert in spinal biology and the author of three books about the spine - "Axial Character Seriation in Mammals" (BrownWalker 2007), "The Upright Ape" (New Page Books 2007), and "Do You Really Need Back Surgery" (Oxford University Press 2007). In most vertebrates (including most mammals), he explains, the dividing plane between the front (ventral) part of the body and the back (dorsal) part is a "horizontal septum" that runs in front of the spinal canal. This is a fundamental aspect of animal architecture. A bizarre birth defect in what may have been the first direct human ancestor led to the "transposition" of the septum to a position behind the spinal cord in the lumbar region. Oddly enough, this configuration is more typical of invertebrates. The mechanical effect of the transposition was to make horizontal or quadrupedal stance inefficient. "Any mammal with this set of changes would only be comfortable standing upright. I would envision this malformed young hominiform - the first true ancestral human - as standing upright from a young age while its siblings walked around on all fours." The earliest example of the transformed hominiform type of lumbar spine is found in Morotopithecus bishopi an extinct hominoid species that lived in Uganda more than 21 million years ago. "From a number of points of view," Filler says, "humanity can be redefined as having its origin with Morotopithecus. This greatly demotes the importance of the bipedalism of Australopithecus species such as Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) since we now know of four upright bipedal species that precede her, found from various time periods on out to Morotopithecus in the Early Miocene." Environmental setting of human migrations in the circum-Pacific Region A new study by Kevin Pope of Geo Eco Arc Research and John Terrell of The Field Museum adds insight into the migration of anatomically modern humans out of Africa and into Asia less than 100,000 years before present (BP). The comprehensive review of human genetic, environmental, and archaeological data from the circum-Pacific region supports the hypothesis, originally based largely on genetic evidence, that modern humans migrated into eastern Asia via a southern coastal route. The expansion of modern human populations into the circum-Pacific region occurred in at least four pulses, in part controlled by climate and sea level changes in the Late Pleistocene and Holocene epochs. The initial "out of Africa" migration was thwarted by dramatic changes in both sea level and climate and extreme drought in the coastal zone. A period of stable climate and sea level 45,000-40,000 years BP gave rise to the first major pulse of migration, when modern humans spread from India, throughout much of coastal southeast Asia, Australia, and Melanesia, extending northward to eastern Russia and Japan by 37,000 years BP. The northward push of modern humans along the eastern coast of Asia stalled north of 43 N latitude, probably due to the inability of the populations to adjust to cold waters and tundra/steppe vegetation. The ensuing cold and dry Last Glacial period, about 33,000-16,000 year BP, once again brought dramatic changes in sea level and climate, which caused abandonment of many coastal sites. After 16,000 years BP, climates began to warm, but sea level was still 100 m below modern levels, creating conditions amenable for a second pulse of human migration into North America across an ice-free coastal plain now covered by the Bering Sea. The stabilization of climate and sea level in the early Holocene (8,000-6,000 years BP) supported the expansion of coastal wetlands, lagoons, and coral reefs, which in turn gave rise to a third pulse of coastal settlement, filling in most of the circum-Pacific region. A slight drop in sea level in the western Pacific in the mid-Holocene (about 6,000-4,000 year BP), caused a reduction in productive coastal habitats, leading to a brief disruption in human subsistence along the then densely settled coast. This disruption may have helped initiate the last major pulse of human migration in the circum-Pacific region, that of the migration to Oceania, which began about 3,500 years BP and culminated in the settlement of Hawaii and Easter Island by 2000-1000 years BP. | |
| Author: | Prem [ 11 Oct 2007 09:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
If the existence of species like Hanuman is accepted then antiquity of Vedas will be pushed even much farther.  This will make Semetic God just a new kid on the block. | |
| Author: | mandrake [ 11 Oct 2007 09:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The human migration from Africa to India to Europe has been comfortably proven and extremely well illustrated and a scientifically widely accepted fact by Oppenheimer as well. www.bradshawfoundation.com/ Interestingly he is one of highly reputed Genetics professor, what is even more interesting has comfortably disproven AIT (he did not wanted to work on AIT or something), but his work clearly and scientifically suggests there has been no AIT. I'm not posting his particular work and its relevance how it comfortably disproves AIT here as of now. Afterall, to explain European ancestory you have to assume a Indian mTdna line, while to explain a Indian ancestory you dont have to do so. | |
| Author: | Arun_S [ 12 Oct 2007 09:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Facts need to speak for themselves, and not a no-body like Oppenheimer or Micheal Jackson be quoted on matters they have no mastry. | |
| Author: | Nandu [ 13 Oct 2007 03:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
joey, The human journey as shown in the bradshaw foundation website has no bearing at all on AIT. Please do not confuse time scales. Bringing in such unfounded arguments discredits the opposition to AIT. | |
| Author: | SwamyG [ 13 Oct 2007 04:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
And maybe someday the land body connected with earlier Sangam era would also be identified. | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 19 Oct 2007 05:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Some notes and observations from HEC2007 1. Most of the papers are now in and and can be perused in my google document space. You can access it by asking me (do a google on my name) for approval..... Or you can access it at my web site www.indicethos.org/History/HEC2007.htm However this will be password protected for the next 3 months until it appears in print in the Hindu renaissance magazine usually in the 2nd issue of 2008. My introductory talk cann be found at kaushal42.blogspot.com. for the password email me at history-seminar at heconf dot com. I plan to bring out a book based on the lectures (target April 2008) 2. There are several folllow ons a. Hold a seminar in india in 2008 (if you know people in India who would take the initiiative to host a mini seminar (a half day) or a full seminar for 2 days let me know and have them get in touch with me (abhishek and others if you are reading this pl. .get in touch with me if you are interested in exploring this. b' Teach teachers about indian contributions in math and astronomy c. produce a TV series on Math and astronomy along the lines of The ascent of man (target 2q2009) d. hold seminars in USa throughout the year (need names for this too) Generally my session had the most papers (12 papers over 2 days and 6 hours) and very good attendance and the consensus was we need more of the same. | |
| Author: | sanjaychoudhry [ 19 Oct 2007 06:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: how modern Science has continuously evolved to converge with Indian scriptures in terms of age of universe We have this on the authority of Carl Sagan. 'Hindu cosmology's time-scale for the universe is in consonance with modern science' http://www.rediff.com/news/jan/29sagan.htm | |
| Author: | Sanku [ 19 Oct 2007 06:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kaushal wrote: name) for approval..... Or you can access it at my web site www.indicethos/History/HEC2007.htm . Kaushal; link not working. Regards Sanku | |
| Author: | abhischekcc [ 19 Oct 2007 07:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Prem wrote: If the existence of species like Hanuman is accepted then antiquity of Vedas will be pushed even much farther. This will make Semetic God just a new kid on the block.Prem, notice that the studies were conducted by Harvard and the Cedars Sinai Institute for Spinal Disorders. Expect people to cover up these findings or to expalin them away. And to think, these people ask up to be fair (pun intended).  | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 20 Oct 2007 03:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Fixed the link | |
| Author: | bala [ 20 Oct 2007 04:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
From the sanjaychoudary link which i had read sometime back, but could not find, is this from the great Carl Sagan. Couple this observation with the multiverse concept of String Theory and things make sense. Of course the "sense" is from the ancient Hindu cosmology.. Quote: But the main reason that we oriented this episode of COSMOS towards India is because of that wonderful aspect of Hindu cosmology which first of all gives a time-scale for the Earth and the universe -- a time-scale which is consonant with that of modern scientific cosmology. We know that the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old, and the cosmos, or at least its present incarnation, is something like 10 or 20 billion years old. The Hindu tradition has a day and night of Brahma in this range, somewhere in the region of 8.4 billion years. As far as I know. It is the only ancient religious tradition on the Earth which talks about the right time-scale. We want to get across the concept of the right time-scale, and to show that it is not unnatural. In the West, people have the sense that what is natural is for the universe to be a few thousand years old, and that billions is indwelling, and no one can understand it. The Hindu concept is very clear. Here is a great world culture which has always talked about billions of years. Finally, the many billion year time-scale of Hindu cosmology is not the entire history of the universe, but just the day and night of Brahma, and there is the idea of an infinite cycle of births and deaths and an infinite number of universes, each with its own gods. And this is a very grand idea. Whether it is true or not, is not yet clear. day of Brahma 4320000000 sidereal years night of Brahma 4320000000 sidereal years | |
| Author: | sanjaychoudhry [ 20 Oct 2007 04:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hi Bala. Here is the link: http://www.rediff.com/news/jan/29sagan.htm | |
| Author: | JwalaMukhi [ 20 Oct 2007 07:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Bala Wrote: Quote: From the sanjaychoudary link which i had read sometime back, but could not find, is this from the great Carl Sagan. Couple this observation with the multiverse concept of String Theory and things make sense. Of course the "sense" is from the ancient Hindu cosmology.. Reading the Soundarya Lahari (Inundation of Divine Splendour)(a short book of 181 pages by Ramakrishna Math - especially starting from verse 42) and then comparing notes with The elegant Universe by Brian Greene (even there is Video series) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elegant_Universe one cannot help but wonder that modern science still coming to grips to describe the phenomena of universe. | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 28 Nov 2007 03:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
As a follow on to the seminar held in Dallas we are planning a number of seminars in India and the U S . I am seeking individuals who will help assist in setting up these seminars, especially in the major metropolitan areas of US and India. I pefer individuals who have an abiding passion and interest in these areas, especially in history and its impact on the strategic security of the Indic civilization and the only nation state that is still extant . The only remuneration that we can offer is a chance to work on one of the most fascinating subjects. I mention this as the commitment in hours could be substantial. I can be reached at history-seminar at heconf dot com Kaushal Request for Intent to participate Delhi Seminar (2008/2009) Proposed Venue Center for Policy Research, New Delhi What is Past is Prologue (to the Future) said the bard You are cordially invited to participate in a Seminar titled The Impact of a Distorted History on Strategic issues confronting the Indic civilization". Tentative date January 9-11,2009. This is a request for intent to participate, a preliminary response will help us plan the event as optimally as possible. It is generally accepted by the cognoscenti in India that the Geopolitical and Strategic Environment facing India during the early decades of the 21st century remains a challenging one.Such a reality was part of the set of assumptions made by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. As India's first Prime Minister ,in the aftermath of the gaining of independence from the authoritarian centuries of colonial rule, a rule where the Colonial overlord was extremely solicitous in shielding us from the burden of making choices relative to our own governance, Pundit Nehru fashioned his own unique response to these challenges by formulating a non alignment policy premised on the reality that the world had to contend essentially with 2 superpowers. The fact of the matter was he leaned heavily towards the western alliance at least till the end of his tenure in office. It was only during subsequent years and decades that India and the Congress Party interpreted the policy of non alignment as if it were a canonical principle of Indian foreign policy. In other words, there is ample evidence that at least in the conception of Pundit Nehru , non alignment was a means to an end rather than an end in itself , a subtlety that was frequently forgotten during subsequent decades. In so doing India veered away from its roots as enunciated by Chanakya (aka Kautilya) as laid out in his Arthasastra. How so , is a legitimate question ? We can only cite a couple of examples. Chanakya was firm that there was little room for morality in the conduct of foreign policy or in dealings with other powers. The paramount question in such dealings with adversaries, was whether the action being contemplated was in the self interest of the Kingdom. Among the many other remarks he makes are the use of spies or human intelligence as it is now called . The vision of the Arthasastra is truly breath taking, its practical utility timeless and the clarity of its exposition unique. The techniques of manipulating public opinion and creating disinformation, propounded by Chanakya anticipated modern intelligence systems by several centuries. It is not surprising then, that the lessons taught by that Master strategist, Chanakya alias Kautilya should have served as an appropriate example for India in the fashioning of its own modern intelligence apparatus. We like to think all would have been well had India adhered to Chanakyan principles at least in dealing with potential adversaries and those who would attempt to dominate India's role in the world. But alas the sad reality is that India has been far from Chanakyan, preferring indeed to adopt a moralistic tone(during the first 3 or 4 decades) in its conduct of foreign policy and it is Pakistan that has done a far more creditable job in adopting Chanakya-niti than has India. It is our premise that such a laissez faire attitude towards the conduct of foreign policy stems from the propensity to amnesiacal bouts that the Indic periodically inflicts upon himself when it comes to his/her history. This brings us to the motivations for holding the seminar. There is widespread nonchalance to the history of India amongst the body politic and a certain amount of disdain that the ancients have anything to teach us. We wish to do our part in dispelling such attitudes . The objective of the seminar is to increase awareness of the importance of learning the accurate History of India. The seminar is a small step towards questioning the established narrative of Indian history, present new research, uncover new facts, examine the relevance to the current strategic environment and propagate the correct history to the public at large in general, the classrooms and eventually influence those who would make policy for India. In addition to Indologists, historians, and the community of think tanks specializing in strategic issues, the contents of the seminar are equally relevant to parents of school-going children, community and educational leaders, and public service professionals. Cultural self-esteem among impressionable young minds is a direct derivative of correctness of history taught in schools. Also the representation of the community in the media and in public space is a consequence of the same. Thus, for all of the above reasons and many more there is a veritable need from all quarters, scholars and general public alike to come together and effect a joint program of correction and propagation of the true history of the subcontinent. We request interested authors to submit presentations in related areas including but not restricted to, the following 1. Identify key distinguishing characteristics and dates of the Indic civilization of relevance to the current strategic environment facing india 2. Indicate those areas of Indian history which are egregiously in error and the resulting impact on the manner in which India is viewed in the world today 3. Provide examples of policy based on an erroneous interpretation of History 4. Propose methodology and criteria to evaluate the accuracy of the current or future proposed narratives 5. Discuss the extent of India’s contribution to technology and the sciences in the past and the consequences for Indian policy makers in dealing with other civilizations and nation states 6. Discuss the implications of the location of the Sarasvati Sindhu civilization on the posture of Pakistan and the relationship between India and Pakistan A paper submission is not necessarily required to participate in the session deliberations. You may choose to contribute ad-hoc to the process of corrections of history, and be part of the plan for propagation among students and general public including the media. Conference attendance is highly recommended but not mandatory to be a valuable asset to the session deliberations. You can submit your paper which will be tabled at the session in absentia, and deliberated upon by the session participants. If I can answer any of your questions, feel free to reach me via e-mail by replying to this communique. | |
| Author: | Rudranathh [ 27 Jan 2008 02:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Must Read This is a very interesting scientific finding which debunks the Aryan Invasion Theory(AIT) and the aryan v/s dravidian divide. The scientific study also shows "even the high castes share more than 80 per cent of their maternal lineages with the lower castes and tribals." And “it was not possible to confirm any of the purported differentiations between the caste and tribal pools,†| |
| Author: | Rudranathh [ 29 Jan 2008 08:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | The Caste System and Aryan Invasion Theory |
The Caste System and Aryan Invasion Theory Marianne Keppens Abstract The controversy about the Aryan Invasion Theory has occupied scholars from several domains over the last few decades. The advocates of this theory claim that a Sanskrit-speaking Aryan people invaded or entered India around 1500 BC and brought along a language, religion and social structure, which they imposed on the indigenous population. The opponents claim that the Aryan people, their language and religion have always been present in India and hence that an invasion could never have happened. When we analyze the arguments from both sides, these sustain only one general conclusion: India has a long history of co-existence and cross-fertilization of different groups of people, cultural traditions, languages, etc. Given the trivial nature of this conclusion, the question becomes: why have so many scholars debated the Aryan Invasion Theory with such passion? To answer this question, my paper looks at how the Aryan Invasion Theory was developed in the nineteenth century. I argue that the theory itself did not emerge from empirical evidence or scientific theorizing about the Indian languages, archaeology or history. Instead this theory developed as an explanation of two entities central to the European experience of India: the caste system and Hinduism as a degeneration of Vedic religion. The Aryan Invasion Theory not only explained how the caste system came into being, it also accounted for the degeneration of the religion of the Vedas and allowed for the classification of its evolution into three main phases: Vedism, Brahmanism and Hinduism. The contemporary debate shows that it remains impossible to defend the occurrence of an Aryan invasion on the basis of the available linguistic, archaeological and other evidence. However, the significance of the Aryan invasion controversy becomes intelligible when one realizes that this theory did not emerge as a description of real historical events. Rather, it is a theory that explained entities which exist only in the European experience of India. As such, if we desire to understand how the ‘Aryan invasion' as well as the ‘caste system', ‘Brahmanism' and other related concepts came into being, we need to study the development of Western culture. | |
| Author: | JE Menon [ 29 Jan 2008 09:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
about time, honey | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 21 Feb 2008 11:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
That explanation does not peel the layers of the onion sufficiently, although , it is significant that Europe has taken the leaD IN DEBUNKING THIS absurd theory (as opposed to the Americans). The real reasons which impelled William Jones and Max Mueller to put forward this theory is twofold 1. one is their inability to come to terms with the signjificant advances in mathematics and science that the Indian had made. This is the loin cloth syndrome where the sophistication of a civilization is measured by the number of layers of clothing one wears. Ergo, people who habitually clothe themselves in loin cloths are incapable of making civilizational progress . 2. In order for the indians to have come up with the sigificant advances, they would therefore have to had copied it from somebody else and so, the answer was that the Indians borrowed it from the Greeks. 3. But the Greeks come into the picture only late in the game, circa 500 BCE and hence nothing could have originated from india before 500 bCE. 4. So the logical conclusion was that the Aryans came in and seeded the civilization at some point in time and then all the discoveries started to appear aided by copious plagiarism from the greeks. The trick was to fix the date as late as possible without making it absurd. sothey fixed 1300 BCE as the earliest date of the migration and that would would leave enough time for the Aryan barbarians to freshen up and transform themselves to sophisticated purveyors of philosophy and mathematics. That would also solve the very inconvenient problem of explaining how their own language derived from Sanskrit and claim that sanskrit was infact a language of the invaders, and avoid pesky questions as to how loin cloth wallahs could have developed a sophisticated grammar for sanskrit in 1300 BCE. So great was their success with this theory that till the 90's a majority of Indians bought into this very dubious set of assumptions, and this happens to be still the official version taught to Indian school children I have summarized the sequence of events with a more plausible set of assumptions andchronology in the book 'Astronomical dating and select vignettes from Indian History' , which is also an anthology of papers presented at Dallas in 2007 (trhe same confernece that is the title ofthis thread and it is nowe available at http://www.lulu.com/author/content_revi ... ID=2060969 This has a lot of useful info , not easily found elsewhere and is definitely worth owning as a reference or as a cofee table book (even though my opinion maybe slightly biased) | |
| Author: | ramana [ 21 Feb 2008 11:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kaushal, Only if you autograph it! Would copies be available at our meet? | |
| Author: | shiv [ 21 Feb 2008 11:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I need a copy - aha - looks like I have to register. Hmm - looks like I am unable to access the book to buy. | |
| Author: | shiv [ 22 Feb 2008 01:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I am cross posting my own post on this thread because I believe it has relevance here: shiv wrote: mayurav wrote: shiv wrote: This statement and the suggestion that the Pakistan army must be somehow discouraged from doing all this looks good on paper, but it probably is not taking into consideration several governing facts that form the basis of Pakistaniyat or the ideology of Pakistan. Pakistan was created out of a religious bias - that of domination of Pakistani Muslims by Hindus. This bias was strongest among those Muslims of the Indian subcontinent who felt that they had been rulers and kings in India and that the British, who took away their kingdoms were not going to restore them. These people called the Ashraf formed the leadership in Pakistan. Are these Americans clueless or are they pretending to be clueless? They don't acknowledge the importance of Islam in partitioning of India because they would have tried to partition India anyways. India, a new country had to be partitioned to keep it weak and Islam presented itself as a convenient means. If not Islam, it would have been something else according to these western folks. Look how Tim takes it as a given that Pakistan has a right to exist as an independent state. And upon that he wants to make it "stable, peaceful, economically strong" etc. Of course he wants it that way so that it remains viable to keep India tied down. The best thing for India is the destruction of the Pakistani state which is the worst thing for America. All this Tim asking for desi opinion is hog wash. Our aims towards Pakistan are diametrically opposite and irreconcilable. Tim, lets fight it out in Pakistan and may the best man win. Stop pretending that you really care about what we think. We want end to Pakistan, and you cannot take that. Another article to be copied over to Psy Ops thread. Well this is one viewpoint I guess. What I believe is possible is that the affront that Hindus feel for being dubbed and assumed as bigots who are "naturally against Islam" is ignored and does not come into conscious thought, and the Islamic grievance story of Pakistan's creation is swallowed whole by entities such as US policymakers. No credence is given to the effort put in by India and Indians to have a united society, and Pakistan's horribly hate-filled Islamist birth is glossed over, giving credibility to the story of Hindu bigotry. That concoction of Hindu bigotry, having been internalized by the US, is then forgotten and Pakistan is declared a great new state and a loyal ally. And part of the process of this alliance between the US and Pakistan is a regular reminder by Pakistanis to their elder brother the US that Hindu bigots may take over Islamic Pakistan, so we (the Paki army) need to be strong before we can help you out. A second or third generation consequence of such a distorted and egregious view of history is the likes of Tim Hoyt making the statement: http://www.americansecurityproject.org/ ... lancingThe Relationship.pdf Quote: As the U.S. relationship with India improves, for example, the United States will act as an implicit security guarantor for the region—a role it has already played in the nuclear crises of 1999 and 2001-2002. From the Indian viewpoint this statement means: Quote: The US will continue to let the Pakistani army off the hook for starting wars like the 1999 Kargil war, and using terrorists to attack the Indian parliament in 2001, and will do all it can to prevent India from kicking Pakistani butt and then take credit for that and prove its friendship credentials to its Pakistan army allies by saying "the United States will act as an implicit security guarantor for the region—a role it has already played in the nuclear crises of 1999 and 2001-2002. " Tim is a longstanding BRF member and i am certain that he does not intend any such meaning to be taken from what he has written. But I am equally sure he does not realise the implication of the words from an Indian viewpoint. He has grown up in an environment in which things have been taken for granted and he speaks from that vantage point, unable to see that the story is quite different from an Indian view and will not go away. I believe it is our duty to make the Indian stand clear to generations of students of history and geopolitics of how spin given to a story in a bygone era can have consequences decades or centuries later. | |
| Author: | SwamyG [ 22 Feb 2008 01:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Is that book available elsewhere - like Amazon or something. | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 22 Feb 2008 01:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I should have mentioned that , I have yet to receive my version and after i have proofread it and uploaded the corrections,then (and only then) will it be available. I plan to be in UK for a week (any BRites interested in meeting me let me know)and so the book will be available after 3 weeks. | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 22 Feb 2008 01:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
There are 2 book s that are worth owning There is the book by Narendra Singh Sarila, called Shadow of the great game who held high level posts before and after indepedence and was ADC to Mountbatten and then there is a lesser know book by Prodosh Aich , an Indian professor in Germany called Lies with long legs. The first book complements my presentation on the South ASia file (and nmy BR monitor article on the great game) very well.. Considering tht he was so close to the centres of power, that is remarkably good for what i said in the South Asia file. But still i wihs i had weitten that book. I would have been able to give more coherent explanations for the preordained tilt to towards Pakistan. But th ebook remains highly readable. As for my book, it will appear on AMazon, and most likely i will make it available on Amazon Kindle also, It is 450 pages with copious tables and figures | |
| Author: | ramana [ 28 Feb 2008 10:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
We got to see the pre-print copy at the BRF meet. Looks good and hope to get a copy when it comes out. Meantime does any one know about this book in Marathi? Sahā Sonerĩ Pānẽ by Savarkar. | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 29 Feb 2008 03:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The book is now available both in hardcover and soft cover | |
| Author: | ramana [ 29 Feb 2008 07:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Re the post on Saha Soneri Panne Ananth wrote: Thanks, Ananth | |
| Author: | Shankk [ 29 Feb 2008 10:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ramana wrote: Meantime does any one know about this book in Marathi? Sahā Sonerĩ Pānẽ by Savarkar. Ramana, full name of that book by Savarkar is "Bhartiya Itihasachi Saha Soneri Paane" (Six golden eras of Indian History) The motto and core idea of the book is about debunking the theory that India was never a single unit in any way but rather an area with princely states constantly fighting with each other and it was first Islam and then British who united this land to present as one coherent piece. It talks about six kings/kindoms/eras to show that this Islam/British theroy is nothing but a hogwash. India was united as one unit many times before Islam first set it's foor in this land. In a way it is an attempt to deny outsider's claims that India is what they (Islam/British) created and hence they have as much right on the land as native Indians do. | |
| Author: | Tilak [ 01 Mar 2008 05:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ramana wrote: Re the post on Saha Soneri Panne Ananth wrote: Chapter I of Saha Soneri Panne: rar format PDF is here: http://files.filefront.com/6+Glororious ... einfo.html Does anybody have links to the full book ? Kaushal wrote: The book is now available both in hardcover and soft cover Name of the book/ISBN number, please.. TIA | |
| Author: | Acharya [ 01 Mar 2008 06:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Review of "Astronomical Dating of Events & Select Vignettes from Indian history" Edited by Kosla Vepa PhD ISBN 978-1-4357-1120-4 http://www.lulu.com/content/2060969 Quote: This is an anthology of essays on the distortions that have accreted in the historical narrative of the Indic peoples and their civilization. Most of these egregiously erroneous accretions have been initiated at the behest of the colonial overlord and are the result of preconceived notions on the part of the Colonial Power . These preconceived notions include The set of assumptions underlying the Aryan Invasion Theory . The most important assumption was that the Indic civilization could not possibly have been the product of the autocthonous peoples of the subcontinent and must have been seeded by a superior race of people from elsewhere. In order to make this hypothesis stick with some degree of credibility, the other major postulate was that the seeding occurred after the Golden age of Greece (400-600 BCE)and that all of the science developed in the subcontinent was a derivative of the Greeks The inherent contradictions of the Aryan Invasion Theory by the mythic and yet to be identified Aryan race. The insistence on clinging to a racial terminology even when it is widely discredited and abandoned elsewhere The insistence that Indic astronomy , geometry and mathematics was not autochthonous to India but was borrowed from the Greek or the Babylonians,without any evidence The origin of the Brahmi script becomes a victim of the 'anywhere but India' syndrome Devaluation and denigration of the extent of the ancient Indic contribution to Mathematics and Astronomy There are resulting inconsistencies in the chronology of the Indic historical narrative, which is now horribly mangled to fit the straightjacket of British assumptions. The result is a tectonic shift in the Chronology of the Indic civilization, with the resulting falsification of most of the important dates Dating of the Mahabharata Dating of the Satapatha Brahmana Dating of the Veda Dating of the Vedanga Jyotisha Dating of the Sulva sutras Beginning of the Vikrama era Dating of the Buddha Dating of the Arthashastra Dating of Chandragupta Maurya Dating of Panini's Ashtadhyayi and consequentially the dating of Panini himself Dating of Aryabhata Such a distortion has resulted in vast gaps in the narrative of the history of the Indics and has resulted in absurdities such as the naming of the calendar after a person who is yet to be born. This collection of papers , summarizes these lacunae in the chronology and advocates the use of Astronomical Software to determine the accurate dates. | |
| Author: | shiv [ 04 Mar 2008 02:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.hindu.com/2008/03/04/stories ... 850900.htm [quote] Eminent Finnish Indologist Asko Parpola on the status of research on the undeciphered script, the new Dholavira finds, whether the Indus script was a system of writing, the Dravidian-Aryan question, the present state of Sanskrit and Vedic studies in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, and the Tirukkural. Asko Parpola’s field of specialisation is Sanskrit, especially Vedic Sanskrit, and the Indus Valley Civilisation, particularly its script, on which he is one of the world’s leading authorities. This renowned Indologist from Finland has done significant research on the Sama Veda, having studied it under the guidance of a Namboothiri scholar of eminence from Panjal, Kerala. Dr. Parpola is Professor Emeritus of Indology and South Asian Studies at the University of Helsinki. About 4,000 seals have survived from the Indus Valley Civilisation, which flourished around 2600-1900 BC. The two volumes he co-edited, Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions (Helsinki, 1987 & 1991), are considered the standard work in the field. His study concludes that the Indus script encodes a Dravidian language. The Indus script is perhaps the most important among ancient systems of writing that are undeciphered. Excerpts from an interview with Dr. Parpola, who was in Chennai recently to deliver a lecture at the Indus Research Centre at the Roja Muthiah Research Library: I learn that you have come to Chennai straight from Dholavira in Gujarat. Have the new finds in Dholavira, like the signboard, made any difference to our understanding of Indus script? Yes... the Dholavira signboard is the first example of what we could call monumental inscriptions. Each sign is about 30 cm high. The usual sign on a seal is less than one cm, as you know. The board itself is three metres long. We have also got some new seals and artifacts. However, though these are important finds, they do not bring about any fundamental change in our understanding of the Indus script. What is the present status of research on the Indus script? We shall soon have all the material relating to the script in an easily accessible form, in good photographs, or as good as we can get, and also all sorts of indexes and concordances. Thus, good manuals will soon be at hand. As far as decipherment is concerned, we can run various computer programmes that can help in classifying the Indus signs into groups of functionally similar signs. But the real decipherment can only come from making detailed informed guesses and then testing them, seeing if they have enough support from different kinds of evidence. The main thing is that the hypotheses follow strict rules and agree with generally accepted knowledge: the history of writing, proven methods of decipherment, and linguistic and historical evidence. You have stated in your book Deciphering the Indus Script (London, 1994) that the script cannot be fully deciphered in the present state of our knowledge. Are you hopeful of an eventual full decipherment of the Indus script? I do not believe in a full decipherment. But I am convinced that some two dozen specific signs have already been deciphered, because in these cases there appears to be sufficient confirmation — it all makes good sense together. In principle, we have a real chance of decipherment only with those signs that we can clearly identify pictorially. There is a recent controversy that the Indus script is not a system of writing at all. What are your comments on this? In December 2004, Steve Farmer and his two colleagues published an article where they mention several reasons why the Indus script cannot be writing. In the paper I presented here in Chennai, I examined each one of their nine arguments, concluding that none holds water. For instance, they claim that there is no repetition of signs within a single Indus seal, emphasising this as the most important indicator. But I can quote many examples where such repetition is found. Another claim was that no longer texts in other writing media like palm leaves have been found at Indus sites. We know from Greek sources that cotton cloth was used as writing material in 325 BC in the Indus Valley. But preserved Indian texts written on cotton cloth date from more than a thousand years later. We know for certain that the Indus people had cotton, but only microscopically small remains of cotton have been preserved in association with metal objects. Farmer and his colleagues do not discuss the evidence supplied by the Indus sign sequences, which make it virtually certain that the Indus script is writing. How else can we explain that in hundreds of sequences, the signs are always written in the same definite order? If they were just non-linguistic symbols, why did they follow such rules, and did the Indus people keep long registers of sign orders in all the many dozens of sites? How did you reach the conclusion that the Indus script is Dravidian? We started with the premise that from the point of view of linguistic history, Dravidian is the most probable alternative. There are several language families in South Asia, the biggest being Indo-European and Dravidian. About a hundred years ago, some 25 per cent of people in South Asia spoke a Dravidian language. Numerically Dravidian is the most important among the non-Indo-European languages of the subcontinent. Brahui, a North Dravidian language, is still spoken in the Indus region. The Munda languages are mainly spoken in eastern India by rather few people and their linguistic relatives are in South-East Asia. The only non-Indo-European language family of South Asia from which there are widely accepted loan words in the Rig Veda is Dravidian. And when applied to the Indus script, Dravidian puns make sense. Is there scope for further collaboration between Indian and western scholars in studying the Indus script? I have discussed the possibilities of collaboration. Personally I would be very happy with such a development. Iravatham Mahadevan has been preparing the ground for further Indian research work in this field. India is one of the leading countries in information technology. You have a wealth of young IT experts, and some of them are eager to work on the Indus script. I cannot do this work myself, and would have to hire experts to update our concordances. But no formal decision of collaboration has yet been made. (The Indus Research Centre at Roja Muthiah Research Library Chennai has an ongoing collaborative project with the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai and the Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai. A team of experts had a discussion with Dr. Parpola on this subject – Theodore Baskaran.) You are a Sanskritist by training. What attracted you to study the Indus Civilisation? I went to the university to study the classical languages of Europe, Latin and Greek. In those days we had to choose three subjects and Sanskrit sounded an interesting choice. It became my main field. The Indus Script attracted me when a friend offered to help with computers in any problem relating to my field. At that time, in the early 1960s, the Greek ‘Linear B’ script had recently been deciphered. It was a great sensation in those days. [Linear B is a script used for writing Mycenaen, an early form of Greek.] And India had its Indus script to be studied. Do the archaeological data help in understanding the seals? Definitely. Information like where and with what other material a particular seal was discovered can provide us some leads. Let’s say a seal comes from a room where other artifacts point to the practice of a particular craft, for instance bead-making. Then “bead-maker†| |
| Author: | satyarthi [ 04 Mar 2008 03:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
It is good to see that Parpola and Witzel are sparring. But nothing to get too lovey dovey about Parpola. He has studied Indus valley and written books on Jaiminiya Samaveda, but is primarily a euro-centrist. His interest in India is primarily due to the Indo-European angle, with primary emphasis on the european half. One can almost with certainly classify a western indologist as a person who is laboring to invent his own culture's ancient roots at the cost of India's. | |
| Author: | ramana [ 04 Mar 2008 04:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tilak wrote: ramana wrote: Re the post on Saha Soneri Panne Ananth wrote: Chapter I of Saha Soneri Panne: rar format PDF is here: http://files.filefront.com/6+Glororious ... einfo.html Does anybody have links to the full book ? Please put your zip code into this link and it will tell nearest location of the book. there are copies in all the famous libraries. For example at U Penn etc. http://worldcat.org/wcpa/top3mset/849473 | |
| Author: | SwamyG [ 04 Mar 2008 11:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Guru log, we were directed to this thread from Nukkad. This is what had happened so far: SwamyG wrote: KarthikSan wrote: Shashi Tharoor on Stephen Colbert's "Colbert Report" on Comedy Central http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=156264 Yeah I watched him last night. Some of his answers were ok, but silly goose seems to have drunk the kool aid of India not attacking any other country in the last 5000 years. Come on, he forgot the Cholas. The Cholas (and others) repeatedly attacked Srilanka, and Cholas went as far as the present day South East Asia. Stan_Savljevic wrote: You seem delusional about India attacking everyone. This is definitely not the first time you are bringing this stuff up. At that point in time, South-east Asia as it is geographically known today was not totally isolated from India proper. Nor were they separate countries. Heck, the concept of a nation state itself (as it is known today) is unknown in history till Simon Bolivar, Giuseppe Garibaldi et al came to the forefront. Maybe you can cite Magna Carta and the Viking warlords for nation states. But that will be like citing Ozzieland for fairness. The "nation" that encompassed Indic civilization had an infinitely larger footprint in the 15th century and before than it is today. We have lost our "land", so to speak. These attacks you claim were all within the civilizational and cultural spread of Indic and in no small measure, Hindu footprints. Where do you think the name Indonesia came from? While picking a flower, a bird dropped it eh?! How about names like Sri Lanka, Kambuja (Cambodia), Yogyakarta, Java, Sumatra, Bali, Burma etc came from? Please look at Wiki for similar Sanskrit, Prakrit and Tamil words. Your selective reading of history will result in a 1000 own-goals. SwamyG wrote: Delusional? LOL. You do the selective reading, and accuse me of doing. Well if you want to cling to the modern nation theory, then Shashi Tharoor should not be talking about 5000 years, he should have commented about Indian not attacking any other country since 1947. While I agree we lost some parts of the land, but one can not just conclude that our kings from the subcontinent never went after the other lands. The land of Sapta Sindhus is traditionally the land of the subcontinent - from the Indus to the oceans in the south. The lands that are the present Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia were not. Maybe one can consider Srilanka's land as part of the subcontinent, but not others. Yes we had kingdoms out there in the S.E.Asia that have Indic influences. But it is "influences" because of Trade, trade, trade and then War. I wish you would do follow some of your own suggestions - i.e. reading. Saik wrote: uh ho!.. I know where this would lead to.. N-S dialog. N was attacked, but S attacked others. May be, N was a wall for the S to escape bigger attacks. M-vasion, was a large black mark on the history and so is the E-vasion., both of these have even plundered down S, but not as much as N. Somehow, S has chola to boost to having done something N didn't do., or did with Vajpayeeic way [don't cross the then LoC]. KarthikSan wrote: I think he is right in saying that India did not attack anybody in the last 5000 years. What you are saying about the Cholas or any of the other empires boils down to periodic tussles between neighbors. I have a page from wikipedia which shows all the different empires http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India At no point in time did any of the kings venture out of the Indian subcontinent or contiguous lands. We did not have global ambitions like the Greeks, Romans, Mongols or modern day European nations. Saik wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_Chola Interesting he had sanskrit inscriptions on his coins!?!? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... a_coin.png I see the attack on overseas countries are purely based on business sense. Don't pay/barter for my goods and services, I shall conquer you. Another Interesting titbit:- The commercial intercourse between Cholas and the Chinese were continuous and extensive. SwamyG wrote: What??? For the love of God, that does not talk much about Cholas (at least to the extent I would like) Here is little better wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chola_Dynasty Cholas' area of influence at its heights of power:  Extent of Chola Empire under Sundara Chola  Extent of Chola Empire under Rajaraja Chola I  Extent of Chola Empire under Rajendira Chola I  Cholas definitely had global/imperial ambitions and they went as far as they could before the dynasty began to fade away. SaiK: Even the attacks from East India Company started purely from a business sense, we know where it lead the Company and their country eventually. Trade, trade and trade are big factors back then and now for lots of trouble. SwamyG wrote: Srilanka is not contiguous but Siberia would be contiguous land. The point is the Indic culture rose in certain parts of subcontinent and spread its influence . The Vedas were not written in the Srivijaya Empire lands, was it? And neither did the bird drop our influence into those lands, did it? KarthikSan wrote: Srilanka can be considered contiguous whereas Siberia may not due to the actual distance. con·tig·u·ous /kənˈtɪgyuəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-tig-yoo-uhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. touching; in contact. 2. in close proximity without actually touching; near. 3. adjacent in time: contiguous events. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contiguous Your argument is that Indic culture influenced other nations. That can happen in several peaceful ways and not necessarily through invasion and conquest. Spread of religion and culture is quite different from military conquest is what I'm getting at. Just because Chinese take-outs are the norm in America does not mean that China attacked and conquered the US! ramana wrote: SwamyG and others please take this to the distortion of History thread. And let nukkad be nukkad. Thanks, ramana | |
| Author: | Airavat [ 05 Mar 2008 03:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
KarthikSan wrote: I think he is right in saying that India did not attack anybody in the last 5000 years. What you are saying about the Cholas or any of the other empires boils down to periodic tussles between neighbors. con·tig·u·ous 1. touching; in contact. 2. in close proximity without actually touching; near. 3. adjacent in time: contiguous events. Well on these strict grounds, the greater part of European history is full of neighborly tussles. Hitler's attacks on Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, France, etc were just neighborly tussles. Stan_Savljevic wrote: Heck, the concept of a nation state itself (as it is known today) is unknown in history till Simon Bolivar, Giuseppe Garibaldi et al came to the forefront. These attacks you claim were all within the civilizational and cultural spread of Indic and in no small measure, Hindu footprints. It's quite exaggerated to claim these lands as part of our civilization, and a little irritating to their present inhabitants. Yes Indian civilization did spread to these regions, and also to Central Asia, China, etc., but that was at a certain time in history. These regions did have their own indigenous culture. We can't define our history by someone else's "concept of nation-state".....all wars, whether inside a "civilizational area" or outside it (Kushans, Cholas, Mughals, Dogras), must be regarded as wars of expansion. And today the concept of nation-state (one people, one language, one faith) is in the dustbin of history....the future belongs to diverse but united civilizations like India, China, US, etc. | |
| Author: | ramana [ 05 Mar 2008 08:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I was recently reading my ccopy of "Vijayanagar" By Vasundhara Filolzat that B Karnad sent me. This book is a recent update (circa 1996 of the travellers accounts and books like Robert Sewell's Forgotten Empire. The author credits her Phd Guide, Dr G.S. Dikshit for reviewing and proof reading the book. Among the things I found lacking were the theme of continuity and change that links the Vijayanagar dynasties to the earlier South Indian dynasties.its covered cursorily - that Harihara Raya did not declare kingship till the Hoyasala queen was no more. This shows her lack of understanding of the duties of a king under the ancient Hindu customs. And the author is not familiar with the work of Dr. Suryanarain Row's 'Never to be forgotten Empire' even though her guide should aleast be familiar with it. Kaushal can you contact her now that you are a published author? | |
| Author: | Abhijeet [ 05 Mar 2008 09:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The claim that India never attacked another country seems to be a badge of honour for some people. Is that true, and if so, why is it? To me, this claim seems the sign of a culture that was either so weak that it lacked the capability to colonize far-off lands, or too inward looking for its own good. Which is more likely: 1. All the inhabitants of India, through its long history, were such exalted people that there is not a single instance of them using force on another people even if they had the capability to do so. 2. Indians did not have the capability or drive to extend their empire to foreign lands. To me, the latter sounds far more plausible since it does not require ancient Indians to have been some super-evolved species superior to everyone else on the planet. Surely we all would have preferred that Indian explorers colonize Europe than the other way around. Why the pride in not having done something that's part of human nature? This honestly puzzles me. | |
| Author: | shyam [ 05 Mar 2008 10:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
A highly probable explanation why India did not attack others is, it did have a reason to. It had fertile land, wealth, knowledge and people. What would it gain by attacking others in deserts? Cost of taking war to far off teritory was more than the gains one Indian king would make out of it. One theory, I heard, on why Cholas attacked far east was due to a dispute related to China trade with local kings. Strategic mistake Indian rulers did was to not understand the significance of taking war to enemy territory. | |
| Author: | Stan_Savljevic [ 05 Mar 2008 10:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Abhijeet wrote: The claim that India never attacked another country seems to be a badge of honour for some people. Is that true, and if so, why is it? Surely we all would have preferred that Indian explorers colonize Europe than the other way around. Why the pride in not having done something that's part of human nature? This honestly puzzles me. The problem is not in the question, but in the consequences thereof. Let us say that it is true that "India" attacked some "other country" in the past. And let us say that you accept it ditto. Now an intellectual exchange ends there. However, the way these things are shaped currently, especially in western-sponsored circles, they find that as a justification for "Indian excesses" and how India deserves its wretched colonial past with a "what goes around comes around" yada yada. Not to mention the fact that oriental societies like China/Japan where the concepts of shame and indictment are far-more sophisticated and nuanced, and are often used as the lowest common denominator in any barter system (like the Japs were forced to pay through their nose for Manchuria 1937), it will definitely be used in any India-China dialogue and used as prima facie evidence that India attacked "other countries". And why Arunachal Pr is a "different country" still under the colonial occupation etc etc. Drivel of the highest order, but a necessary consequence and the direction towards which this intellectual exchange had been driven to with hidden motives from the start, albeit without you aware of it. Now this is why I am tending to distrust any western thinktank level exchange. Their hands are deep in the mud in reshaping maps. And any pawn thats usable in this barter will be used. They would like to reshape the map between India and China by a give and take with we losing and China gaining that and China losing some territory which will be gained by western thinktanks in the form of a domino. Strategic posturing. They want to create evidence on the floor where "Indian intellectuals" have already accepted the truth in meaningless chitchats before. SwamyG, now you will understand why my despair at your "Silly me" comment on ShashiT's interview. It is not silly me, it is the games that thinktanks play that are hard to understand for the "dharmic mind." We do not expect people to screw us over, cos we are intellectually metamorphosed into the dharma of life et al and he will suffer if he cheats me complex. While there may be some truth to it in the long run, these exchanges can cause grandiose trouble for our future generations in the shortrun. Please pay attention as to why this question even came in the first place and who is asking the question next time. We dont have to tell everyone the truth if it can and will be used against us, the adharma of things notwithstanding. | |
| Author: | Abhijeet [ 05 Mar 2008 11:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Stan_Savljevic, if I understand then: we should claim that India never attacked any other country, irrespective of the truth or untruth of that statement, because the opposite claim might be used against us by western "thinktanks". Is this an accurate summary? If that's the case, no argument from me and I won't post on this again - although IMO it would be more believable, and as relevant to reparations or map redrawing, to claim that India never attacked another country within the last 500 years, or some other small number, rather than at any time during its 5000 year (or longer) history, which strains credibility. Shyam, saying that India did not attack another country because it did not need to is an example of the inward-looking attitude I mentioned before. China, Rome, Greece etc at various times were clearly peers of Indian civilization - it was not that India was so far ahead at all times in the past that it never needed to take anything from others. Choosing to believe otherwise is not supported by facts. That attitude may be why it wasn't Indian explorers who discovered their own "New World". | |
| Author: | Stan_Savljevic [ 06 Mar 2008 12:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Abhijeet wrote: Stan_Savljevic, if I understand then: we should claim that India never attacked any other country, irrespective of the truth or untruth of that statement, because the opposite claim might be used against us by western "thinktanks". Is this an accurate summary? Two questions here. One, how do you define "attack." If contemporary history (the last 300 years) is any cue, an attack could be meant to be political and economic pillage which furthers the division in the social aspects of day-to-day-life. Now, are the ancient Tamil kingdoms or whatever you have in mind to be held accused of societal divisions + political + economic pillage? I have NOT seen evidence to the loot and plunder akin to the Islamic hordes (Ghauri + Ghazni + Tamarlane + Abdali types) have done to India. We exported dharma, but that seems to have little correlation to wars/conquests. My reading has been that when the Chola kingdom went on an expedition across the eastern side, there was already a Hindu kingdom in place, renditions of Ramayana and Mahabharata were common place, and if not Hindu, then Buddhist thought was rife in decision-making and polity. In this context, an "attack" is probably much less easily digestible than the word "internal dissension" cos then these parts were under the same value system. I see this as a standard process of rise and fall of empires with a common strain in terms of religio-political-philosophical belief systems. My initial point was that you cant classify current day Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia et al as separate nations in the 1500s given that 1) the concept of nation-states did not exist then, and 2) the commonality of history and shared cultural milieu till the mid-1500s which is probably a much better indicator of nationhood as described today. Now someone raised the question: those guys feel bad that they have an Indic past. So who cares, it is the truth, no?! It is for them to accept and move on. If not, certainly we should not be feeling guilty cos their takleef prevents them from keeping them happy. My point is that you cant call the Chola expeditions an attack in the same breath as the East India Company or the Islamist hordes. Our attacks, if any, have been more on the philosophical side. The soft underbelly of life. Accusing us of attacks and placing us on the same pedestal with the Han tribes, the Arabic nomads, the European conquistadors, the cultured elite in the Caucasian world etc is the worst self-goal in expressing our civilizational viewpoint. Two, and most importantly, comes the question of who is asking this question. You can explain things as above and not call it an attack, but if the questioner is hellbent on accusing you and steering the conversation towards reparations for actions from the prehistoric past, then denial is the best option. I am all for the truth but only with those who want to learn, not with those who have a hidden agenda. | |
| Author: | SriKumar [ 06 Mar 2008 02:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Stan_Savljevic wrote: Two, and most importantly, comes the question of who is asking this question. You can explain things as above and not call it an attack, but if the questioner is hellbent on accusing you and steering the conversation towards reparations for actions from the prehistoric past, then denial is the best option. I am all for the truth but only with those who want to learn, not with those who have a hidden agenda. Point taken that the sincerity of the questioner/debater matters. Keeping that in mind, I'd say, your overall position would be more applicable to a situation that involves a personal discussion/debate. When it comes to the larger, public sphere, one can expect spin/psy-ops, including a major distortion of India's history. I don't think one can keep history secret. The better way would be to understand exactly what happened (did the Cholas set off on their expeditions with a shipload of soldiers, philosophers or traders? I think it was the former) and work with that. If the Chola expedition resulted in exactly one killing in Sri Vijaya 1000 years ago, one can expect it to be spun as a massive attack, and not be hailed as a peaceful conquest. One must prepare for that kind of psy-ops. | |
| Author: | Abhijeet [ 06 Mar 2008 03:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think the word "attack" is pretty well-defined. There are certainly scales of violence, and no one is suggesting that Indian aggression outside India is equal-equal to that propagated by invaders (Islamic/European) within India. Nevertheless, claiming that India never attacked any other country, ever, in its long history, strikes me as something that is so against fundamental human nature as to be incredible. Similarly, redrawing the borders of India so that all conflict is defined to have happened "internally" seems to me to be just shifting the goalposts. The reason for my original post was the (IMO misplaced) pride that some people have in this pacifist claim. A history of never having flexed muscle outside of territorial bounds simply does not seem something to take any particular pride in. Again, as I mentioned before, if the reason for making the claim is to deny others any leverage in map-redrawing, righting of historical wrongs etc, I have no issue with that (although I would still suggest that the claim be toned down from the unbelievable to the merely surprising). | |
| Author: | SwamyG [ 06 Mar 2008 03:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: I am all for the truth but only with those who want to learn, not with those who have a hidden agenda. So what hidden agenda do I have? | |
| Author: | SwamyG [ 06 Mar 2008 03:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Now, are the ancient Tamil kingdoms or whatever you have in mind to be held accused of societal divisions + political + economic pillage? I have NOT seen evidence to the loot and plunder akin to the Islamic hordes (Ghauri + Ghazni + Tamarlane + Abdali types) have done to India. Chola soldiers have been accused of looting & raping women in some of its territories captured in its northern borders. I do not know how much of it is true, and certainly don't think it is of the same magnitude as that of the Islamic hordes. | |
| Author: | Stan_Savljevic [ 06 Mar 2008 03:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
SwamyG wrote: Quote: I am all for the truth but only with those who want to learn, not with those who have a hidden agenda. So what hidden agenda do I have? I meant the western thinktanks that "place" ideas in the heads of interviewers to confront visitors with such questions, not you. | |
| Author: | Sridhar K [ 06 Mar 2008 03:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
From my recollection (very long ago in the 80s) of an article in a Tamil magazine by a famous Tamil scholor/researcher about his experience in Thailand and on how Tamilians were viewed in early Thailand based on his interactions with Thai historians. According to them, the interactions between Tamils and Thais in those days of the Cholas were very minimal and whatever little opinion they had of the Tamils was not good because they were very much influenced by accounts of Sinhala Buddhist refugees's. They had heard from them about the atrocities on Sinhalese Buddhist by the Tamil rulers from the Indian mainland like the Cholas and as such 'Tamin' in Thai, which is close to 'Tamil' means Theif or wicked people I don't remember the name of the book nor of the researcher nor the authenticity of his works. So, take it for whatever it is worth. | |
| Author: | SwamyG [ 06 Mar 2008 04:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Some references from "A History of South India" - From Prehistoric Times to the Fall of Vijayanagar by K.A.Nilakanta Sastri. Page 2-3 {Survey of the Sources} Quote: The rise of HIndu kingdoms in the eastern lands across the Bay of Bengal is but an expansion and continuation of the process by which South India and Ceylon were colonized and aryanized; and beyond doubt the Deccan and the far South formed the advanced bases from which this transmarine movement started in the early centuries before and after the Christian era; in Indonesia and Indo-China emigrants from India met the same problems as in India south of the Vindhyas and solved them in more or less the same manner. A detailed study of the many interesting analogies between the results of these early culture-contacts in these different lands has not yet been attempted and lies beyond the scope of this book; but we should do well to remember that the history of India has been too long studied more or less exclusively in isolatoin and from the continental point of view, little regard being paid to the maritime side of the story. The Satavahanas were described as 'lords of the three oceans' and promoted overseas colonization and trade. Page 13 {Survey of Sources} Quote: The early Pallava-Grantha script in the stage when it is yet littled differentiated from the ancestor of Telugu-Kannada was carried by Hindu colonists across the seas to west Java, Borneo and Indo-China, the earliest stone inscriptions in this script from these places dating from about A.D.300. The language of these early colonial inscrptions is Sanskrit. Page 72 {Dawn of History} Quote: As finds of similar glass beads and bangles have recently been made in the Malay Peninusla, in dolmen tombs in Java, and in North Borneo, the inference is inescapable that we have clear evidence of a trade contact between northern Philippines and Southern India running well back into first millennium B.C. The extensive trade and colonization and later conquests of the South Indian kingdoms, in Sumatra and Java as well as in Indi-China in the early centuries of Christian era, are of course well known. Page 94 {The Satavahanas and Their Successors} Quote: The Salankayana administrative system had much in common with that of the contemporary Pallavas. The village headman was called mutuda, or alderman, a title that does not occur elsewhere. The tutelary diety of the dynasty was the sun-god and they worshipped Siva or Vishnu in addition. Their charters bear a close resemblance in their script to the earliest inscriptions of the Hindu colonies of Indo-China and Malaysia, and there is good reason to hold that the Telugu country took a prominent part in the move of colonization abroad. | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 07 Mar 2008 03:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Vijayanagar |
Regarding Dr. Vasundhara Filliozat, Suguna and I had the good fortune to stay at the apartment of Pierre and Vasundhara ji's apartment in Paris and I had the opportunity to glance thru their superb library of Books on the Indic civilization including the book on Vijayanagar. Her expertise is primarily in epigraphy. I am hampered by the fact that i have not met either of them personally, since they were in India during that period and i was able to stay at their apartment because of their absence. If i get an opportunity to discuss these issues with her i will certainly do so ... I am planning to invite them both to the Delhi Seminar. | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 07 Mar 2008 03:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
quote I think the word "attack" is pretty well-defined. There are certainly scales of violence, and no one is suggesting that Indian aggression outside India is equal-equal to that propagated by invaders (Islamic/European) within India. Nevertheless, claiming that India never attacked any other country, ever, in its long history, strikes me as something that is so against fundamental human nature as to be incredible." This is an extremely tightly (and rightly) worded post and entirely apropos. The sway of Indic 'Chakravartis extended far into central asia and western asia at various points in time. The Indic system of governance was always that of a loose confederation under the suzerainty of the chakravarti whose duty it was to maintain the Dharmic way of life in all the lands. That such a control could have happened without some form of military means is not impossible but unlikely. Finally, I agree that taking pride in not having attacked anyone, is something that can easily be misinterpreted,even if it were true and i would certainly not highlight it as the defining characteristic of the indic civilization. If anything , I would regard india as the originator of the current view that remains entrenched in Washington and western capitals , namely the realist imperative (john Meerscheimer, Hans Morgenthau). It is clear from reading the BG that sri Krishna , practiced an early version of geopolitics very similar to realism | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 07 Mar 2008 04:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
quote One can almost with certainly classify a western indologist as a person who is laboring to invent his own culture's ancient roots at the cost of India's." This is a very perceptive remarkl. The whole field of indology came about to give the europeans an antiquity for their civilization that they had otherwise no hope of acquiring. So they latched on to Sanskrit and gave themselves the same antiquity as that of sanskrit. so far so good, But where they overstepped and started speculating on the existence of a PIE (Proto Indo european language), the only caveat being that it did not originate in the subcontinent of India , they clearly gave the game away, which was to insist that the indic civilization was an ofshoot of the europeans. they clearly were not thrilled with the idea that the ancient Vedics seeded the Greek civilization , see for instance the ebook by Pokock, which can be accessed at my site , | |
| Author: | ramana [ 07 Mar 2008 05:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yes her book has a lot of epigraphic evidence and citations. Thats why I started reading D. Sircar's book on Indian Epigraphy which I linked in the E-Books thread. We need to get Shiv to post those three pages (pdfs) on Hoyasalas that he once psoted on BR in that thread. | |
| Author: | Keshav [ 07 Mar 2008 05:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kaushal wrote: Finally, I agree that taking pride in not having attacked anyone, is something that can easily be misinterpreted,even if it were true and i would certainly not highlight it as the defining characteristic of the indic civilization. Even if we limit it to 500 years didn't Zorawar Singh connect Ladakh and Sikkim to India? We also have Hari Singh Nalwa who attacked Afghanistan, so its a moot point that I think Indians should refrain from using. Quote: If anything , I would regard india as the originator of the current view that remains entrenched in Washington and western capitals , namely the realist imperative (john Meerscheimer, Hans Morgenthau). It is clear from reading the BG that sri Krishna , practiced an early version of geopolitics very similar to realism Could you explain what the "realist imperative" is, how it has changed from India to Washington, and how Lord Krishna comes into the picture? | |
| Author: | G Subramaniam [ 07 Mar 2008 05:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Regarding Jadunath Sarkar's books |
His books are all out of print and his estate faces pressure from the seculars not to reprint his books I found this out, when about 7 years ago, we were trying to put his books online at bharatvani.org | |
| Author: | ramana [ 07 Mar 2008 05:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
GS as there are many multiple conversations going on it helps if you give context when posting. Who is his books? Btw WOW! I didnt know you were part of the Bharatvani folks. | |
| Author: | G Subramaniam [ 08 Mar 2008 03:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
ramana wrote: GS as there are many multiple conversations going on it helps if you give context when posting. Who is his books? Btw WOW! I didnt know you were part of the Bharatvani folks. The secularist cabal can use the hindutva tag against KS.Lal etc but they cant dismiss RC.Majumdar and Jadunath Sarkar You can buy RC.Majumdars books But the seculars have suppressed the reprint of many of Jadunath Sarkars books because his books are even more anti-islam than RCMajumdar I am retired from bharatvani some years ago | |
| Author: | SSridhar [ 08 Mar 2008 04:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
SwamyG wrote: Chola soldiers have been accused of looting & raping women in some of its territories captured in its northern borders. I do not know how much of it is true, and certainly don't think it is of the same magnitude as that of the Islamic hordes. It could very well be true as these were routine in wars of those periods. The difference between Islamic hordes and the likes of Cholas would be while the former went on campaigns with a religious zealotry with pre-ordained religious permissions for such actions which indeed made them savage, the latter went more with an expansionist mind, either out of valour or lebensraum or revenge. | |
| Author: | shyam [ 08 Mar 2008 05:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
SSridhar wrote: SwamyG wrote: Chola soldiers have been accused of looting & raping women in some of its territories captured in its northern borders. I do not know how much of it is true, and certainly don't think it is of the same magnitude as that of the Islamic hordes. It could very well be true as these were routine in wars of those periods. The difference between Islamic hordes and the likes of Cholas would be while the former went on campaigns with a religious zealotry with pre-ordained religious permissions for such actions which indeed made them savage, the latter went more with an expansionist mind, either out of valour or lebensraum or revenge. It is not be proper to say that it was routine in those days. Somewhere I read it was not proper for the Hindu kings to attack women. One example I can quote is from action of Travancore King Marthandavarma in, as late as, 1730AD. Few landlords (ettuveettil pillamar) of Travancore attempted a coup to prevent Marthandavarma from becoming king. After he defeated those landlords, he executed them and to decimate their families he gave their women folk to fishermen. Imagine what he would have done if he were a muslim? Brutal destruction, rape, taking beautiful womenfolk to harem, slavery and more. To suggest that rape was a norm among hindu kings without evidence, people are underestimating the moral values of the Hindu society in old time. | |
| Author: | SSridhar [ 08 Mar 2008 05:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Shyam, rape as a weapon of war has long since been happening. I would be surprised if the soldiers of various Indian kingdoms didn't indulge in that, even if not on a wide scale. There are reasons why such things happen, even if not propelled by zealotry. If a certain Kerala king's army didn't do that, good. If a certain Chola king's army didn't do that, good also. I am talking in general terms and without any particular reference to anybody. This is like the discussion that India never attacked anyone in the neighbourhood in the last 5000 years. | |
| Author: | csharma [ 08 Mar 2008 06:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quoting from A L Basham's book 'The wonder that was India". In all her history of warfare Hindu India has few tales to tell of cities put to the sword or of massacres of non combatants. The ghastly sadism of Kings of Assyria, who flayed their captives alive is without parallel in ancient India. There was sporadic cruelty and oppression no doubt, but in comparison with the conditions in other early cultures, it was mild. To us the most striking feature of ancient Indian civilization is its humanity. | |
| Author: | shyam [ 08 Mar 2008 06:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
SSridhar wrote: I would be surprised if the soldiers of various Indian kingdoms didn't indulge in that, even if not on a wide scale. This statement doesn't prove that it was happening. I can understand that it is natural for frustrated menfolk in the army to do such things and it happened in various parts of the world. But there were certain codes of conduct for wars in India. For example, not to attack peasants, to let go a a king who has surrendered etc. If we look at clauses in Geneva convention, many well known ones were practiced in pre-islamic India. Please provide evidences to prove that rape etc were a norm in pre-islamic India too. An instance like, when a kingdom was defeated the women folk in that palace committed suicide to avoid rape, will prove that it was norm. But I am not aware of any such incident. | |
| Author: | SSridhar [ 08 Mar 2008 06:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have no proof for or against rape. I am also not interested in proving or disproving. Absence of proof is not an indication it did not happen. Codes of conduct have been generally breached, including Geneva Convention. | |
| Author: | sanjaychoudhry [ 08 Mar 2008 06:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The wars in ancient India were fought between kings strticly for the right to collect land revenue from an area. Only Kshatriyas took part in the battle. Non-combatants and non-Kshatriya varnas were not touched. Megasthenese says that it was common to see a full-fledged war going on in a battle field while peasants calmly tilling thier fields next to it unconcerned. Another greek writer Arrian says that Indians never attacked any place outside the borders of India because of their strong sense of justice. Quote: From the time of Dionysus to Sandracottus the Indians counted 153 Kings and a period of 6042 years, but among these a republic was thrice established * * * * and another 300 years, and another 120 years. The Indians also tell us that Dionysus was earlier than Heracles by fifteen generations, and that except him no one made a hostile invasion of India – not even Cyrus the son of Cambyses, although he undertook an expedition against the Scythians, and otherwise showed himself the most enterprising monarch in all Asia; but that Alexander indeed came and overthrew in war all whom he attacked, and would even have conquered the whole world had his army been willing to follow him. On the other hand, a sense of justice, they say, prevented any Indian king from attempting conquest beyond the limits of India. All this has been possible because of the strong sense of Dharma prevailing in India. Link | |
| Author: | SSridhar [ 08 Mar 2008 07:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Lalit Kala Akademi in Chennai had organized an art exhibition on Aurangzeb by Francois Gautier for a week. Local Muslim organizations cried foul and the TN police expectedly advised the organizer to close it down immediately. The Nawab of Arcot said[quote]it “seemed obvious that the effect of such an exhibition would be to promote enmity between various groups, thereby vitiating the peaceful atmosphere of coexistence of different religions in the city and the State of Tamil Nadu.†| |
| Author: | alokgupt [ 08 Mar 2008 11:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
csharma wrote: Quoting from A L Basham's book 'The wonder that was India". In all her history of warfare Hindu India has few tales to tell of cities put to the sword or of massacres of non combatants. The ghastly sadism of Kings of Assyria, who flayed their captives alive is without parallel in ancient India. There was sporadic cruelty and oppression no doubt, but in comparison with the conditions in other early cultures, it was mild. To us the most striking feature of ancient Indian civilization is its humanity. The only instances of which I know of in the Indian history is during invasion of Mohammed Gauri, Gazni, and Timur. Indian history books are myteriously silent on this. | |
| Author: | Gus [ 08 Mar 2008 04:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Not all wars were fought 'dharmic'. The Chalukyas were nasty to the Pallava outlying settlements when they retreated from their unsuccessful campaign on Pallavas. Mahendra Pallava's son Narasimha later took a huge army to Chalukya kingdom and razed the entire huge city of Vatapi to the ground. | |
| Author: | pandyan [ 09 Mar 2008 07:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Few months back, I visited Petrified National Park and Wupatki National monument. Just walking through the park takes you back in time and provides a fresh perspective on the power of nature, harsh realities of people who lived there.... However, I learned something new this time around....National Park Service was setup to protect/preserve the nature/ruins for the future generations, but they played an important role in displacing the native people. The very own land where they grazed the cattle, had their homes, did their farming was converted to national parks...and this severely restricted their movements. Eventually, natives were kicked out/displaced from their own land by national park service because NPS wanted to preserve the land and culture of the people who were kicked out!!!. Forest rangers were playing good cop/bad cop with one set mingling extremely well with the natives and another set punishing them for violating park rules....talk about the confusion. | |
| Author: | sanjaychoudhry [ 09 Mar 2008 08:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Gus wrote: Not all wars were fought 'dharmic'. The Chalukyas were nasty to the Pallava outlying settlements when they retreated from their unsuccessful campaign on Pallavas. Mahendra Pallava's son Narasimha later took a huge army to Chalukya kingdom and razed the entire huge city of Vatapi to the ground. These were rare exceptions in a history spanning 3000 years. Even in these exceptions, is there any record of the victorious army dishonouring women, killing children and enslaving the non-combatants? If not, even these were Dharmic enough by world standards. | |
| Author: | ramana [ 11 Mar 2008 04:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Frontline has a couple of articles on need to reform Hindu calenders. Kaushal please review and comment. Medieval Mistake Long article with pics. Reform panel recommendations [quote]Reform panel recommendations THE HINDU PHOTO LIBRARY Meghnad Saha, who headed the Calendar Reform Committee. A 1934 picture. IN the preface to the Report of the Calendar Reform Committee (published in 1955), the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru wrote: “I am told that we have at present thirty different calendars, differing from each other in various ways, including the methods of time reckoning. These calendars are the natural result of our past political and cultural history and partly represent past political divisions in the country. Now that we have attained independence, it is obviously desirable that there should be a certain uniformity in the calendar for our civic, social and other purposes and that this should be based on a scientific approach to this problem.†| |
| Author: | Gus [ 11 Mar 2008 05:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ramana wrote: Gus thanks for the examples but do you agree they were the exceptions than the rule? Of course. That's why I said "Not all wars were fought dharmically"...implying that only a few weren't. If there had been more 'total wars' (populations Vs populations, razing of vanquished cities, erasing cultural artifacts, humiliation and subjugation etc), we would probably be carrying the memes of the hatred that we would not be getting along well now. The Pallava - Chalukya feud is well covered in the novel "Sivakamiyin Sabatham" (the vow of Sivakami) by your favorite writer Kalki | |
| Author: | Anujan [ 12 Mar 2008 06:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
India's Survivors of Partition Begin to Break Long Silence Washingtonpost wrote: Projects Document Anguish of 1947 Split Every year in March, Bir Bahadur Singh goes to the local Sikh shrine and narrates the grim events of the long night six decades ago when 26 women in his family offered their necks to the sword for the sake of honor. At the time, sectarian riots were raging over the partition of the subcontinent into India and Pakistan, and the men of Singh's family decided it was better to kill the women than have them fall into the hands of Muslim mobs. "None of the women protested, nobody wept," Singh, 78, recalled as he stroked his long, flowing white beard, his voice slipping into a whisper. "All I could hear was the sound of prayer and the swing of the sword going down on their necks. My story can fill a book." Quote: Now, however, the aging survivors of partition are beginning to talk, and historians and psychologists are increasingly acknowledging the need to study the human dimensions of one of the most cataclysmic events of the 20th century. About 1,300 survivors of partition, including Singh, have been interviewed as part of an ambitious, 10-year research project that examines the experiences of people across India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. And since late last year, a number of new books, research papers and cultural events have attempted to lift the shroud of silence surrounding partition. | |
| Author: | SwamyG [ 12 Mar 2008 09:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
SSridhar wrote: It could very well be true as these were routine in wars of those periods. The difference between Islamic hordes and the likes of Cholas would be while the former went on campaigns with a religious zealotry with pre-ordained religious permissions for such actions which indeed made them savage, the latter went more with an expansionist mind, either out of valour or lebensraum or revenge. Routine? Well it might be routine. But the actions seem to be the same only the motivation and zeal seems to be different. | |
| Author: | SwamyG [ 12 Mar 2008 09:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ramana: In the yahoo groups - HinduCivilization there are few individuals who constantly write about Hindu Calendar reforms. IIRC, there is another group that focuses on highlighting the issues. | |
| Author: | shiv [ 13 Mar 2008 01:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
SwamyG wrote: SSridhar wrote: It could very well be true as these were routine in wars of those periods. The difference between Islamic hordes and the likes of Cholas would be while the former went on campaigns with a religious zealotry with pre-ordained religious permissions for such actions which indeed made them savage, the latter went more with an expansionist mind, either out of valour or lebensraum or revenge. Routine? Well it might be routine. But the actions seem to be the same only the motivation and zeal seems to be different. If you look at isolated events the actions are the same. But the words "motivation and zeal" are important. Both Christianity and Islam have been on a continuous expansion path since their establishment. Cholas etc are one-hit wonders with 15 minutes of fame. All pre-Christian religions in Europe and south America have been eliminated. All pre-islamic religions in North Africa and the Middle east have been eliminated. The elimination of non Islamic faiths from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh is a continuation of history that has occurred in the last 60 years. The spread of both religions was mostly by physical elimination and coercive conversion. This is recorded history. Buddhism has been eliminated from many of the lands that it occupied. Afghanistan is only one such example. Korea is a new example. Even today the replacement of Buddhists by Christians is not spoken of in any harsh or derogatory terms, but the replacement of Christians by Buddhists is called "persecution". The same rhetoric of paranoia is used by Islam. As long as the flow of society is towards the spread of Christianity or Islam, nothing harsh can be said. If the tide stops, or is reversed, it becomes persecution. And anyone who speaks up against the spread or seeks to support anything outside of these two faiths is a fundamentalist. An opponent of modernity. After a particular culture or faith is replaced by Islam or Christianity, it is forgotten and it is fair game to say how it was faulty and how it was replaced by a superior belief system. The world survives on double standards such as this, and we, who have been born after a long period of skewed and violent history accept what we are taught without seeing the inherent contradictions. For example the terms "barbarian" and "vandal" are both perjorative expressions. The RSS consists of "vandals". But if you go back to pre-Christian European history, you find that "barbarians" and "vandals" were groups of people with languages, cultures and religions that opposed Rome and the Christianity that Rome spread into Europe. Those cultures are gone. And they were "bad". Zoroastrianism is dead and even today Jews are openly opposed - especially by Islam, but not without fundamentalist support from predominantly Christian societies in Europe. Equal-equalitis between Chola expansionism and Islamic expansionism is fine and dandy as long as you pick up isolated events in history and ignore the fact that history is a long running story and must not be viewed in a berry-picking "compare a window here with a window there" style. History has not ended. Processes that may have started centuries ago are continuing. As humans we need to stop for a minute to comprehend what is past and we therefore stop to learn what has happened in the past and tend to imagine that it is "past" and not continuing. This is totally wrong. | |
| Author: | G Subramaniam [ 13 Mar 2008 03:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | The suppressed pre-partition history of the Meos |
The meo muslims are the center of the taglibi movement and have a base in Haryana In the 1947 riots they thought that all of punjab will go to pakistan and did a lot of riots and finally got ethnic cleansed to pakistan Gandhi allowed lakhs of them to return and their pre-partition history has been suppressed These days the secular press is full of stories of how the meos are persecuted by the RSS The following is a book by a secular, but it still has useful snippets The further shores of Partition: ethnic cleansing in Rajasthan 1947 Past & Present, August, 1998 by Ian Copland .. For one thing, BJP rule at state level has not always led to an upsurge of rioting. During the twenty months of V. P. Singh's Congress government in Uttar Pradesh, from 1980 to 1982, there were ten riots; during the fourteen-month tenure of the Kalyan Singh's BJP ministry, just one.(10) Conversely, communal riots do not necessarily translate into BJP seats ... as for Rajasthan, apart from the flare-up in 1989, the state since 1950 has been comparatively riot-free (Table 5).(15) On the face of it, the `fundamentalist' BJS/BJP would seem to have prospered in a region with little history of communal conflict. Either the communalism theory is flawed, or we are missing an important piece of the puzzle. This article plumps for the latter explanation. It argues that, at least in the case of Rajasthan, the Home Ministry's figures obscure a significant historical legacy dating from the colonial era, when Rajasthan was a cluster of dynastic monarchies -- `princely states', in the parlance of the period. ---- Accurate data about communal riots in the princely states is extremely hard to get, with crucial Indian Ministry of States files on the subject still closed to researchers. However, I have managed to piece together enough information from the Indian Statutory (Simon) Commission report, the press and other sources to draw a broad statistical picture for the period 1920-40 (summarized in Table 6). It is, of course, incomplete. Many small affrays simply did not get reported; people injured in riots were sometimes not hospitalized and therefore not counted; the police had a vested interest in minimizing casualty figures.(27) Conversely, the figures given here have been inflated by the inclusion of rioters shot by police -- an accounting practice I would defend, but which others may think unwarranted. Yet, even allowing a wide margin for error, the evidence seems open to only one interpretation. According to the 1941 census, the population of the princely states was 93.2m., that of the provinces 258.8m. On that basis, one would expect the provinces to have suffered about two-and-three-quarter times more carnage as a result of communal conflict than the states. In fact, depending upon whether deaths or injuries are counted, they suffered between fifteen and eighteen times more. While the states were certainly not, as their rulers frequently boasted, `free' from communalism,(28) they do seem to have experienced, overall, much less of its violent manifestations than `British' India. Secondly, after about 1929 the gap between incidents of communal violence in the provinces and the states, while still large, begins to narrow, to the point that around 1933 something like parity is achieved for the first time --- But in 1947, on the eve of the transfer of power, two neighbouring states on the eastern marches of the agency -- Alwar and Bharatpur -- broke with tradition. Incensed by reports of communal killings in the Punjab and alarmed by rumours of pro-Pakistan activities closer to home, Hindus in Alwar and Bharatpur unleashed a pogrom against their Muslim neighbours in June 1947. Whole villages were razed; scores of mosques desecrated; thousands killed or forced on pain of death to convert to Hinduism; and many more thousands were forced to flee for their lives. Naturally, we cannot be precise (conditions at the time did not permit accurate reporting), but there are indications that during the first seven or eight months of 1947 as many as 30,000 Muslims in Alwar and Bharatpur may have been killed, and up to 20,000 forcibly converted.(31) More certain are the figures for refugees. By August 1947, about 100,000 had fled Alwar and Bharatpur for the relative safety of the neighbouring Punjab district of Gurgaon.(32) Most never returned, preferring to take their chances in Pakistan. Under agreements negotiated in 1948 with the government of India, their lands were assigned to about 60,000 Hindu and Sikh refugees from West Punjab. As a result, the demographic character of the two states was irrevocably altered. Alwar's prime minister, N. B. Khare, exaggerated when he claimed later that the state during 1947-8 `became non Muslim',(33) but not much. In 1941, Muslims made up 27 per cent of Alwar's population and 19 per cent of Bharatpur's; ten years later, they comprised in the order of 6 per cent. This represented a net loss of 115,000 Muslims --- A second factor was demography. As noted above, Alwar and Bharatpur were atypical of Rajputana, and indeed of princely India at large, in being home to a sizeable population of Muslims (over a quarter of a million in 1931). This translated into a Muslim minority in these two states of something like a quarter, well in excess of the 15 per cent that Gopal Krishna deems the threshold proportion for open communal conflict.(40) --- Again, while the religious life of the Meos was far from orthodox and still bore conspicuous traces of the community's idolatrous Hindu past,(42) during the 1920s their identity as Muslims was reinforced through the influence of the tabligh (education) campaign of the itinerant missionary, Maulana Ilyas (1886-1944), who encouraged the Meos to give up their syncretic practices, recite the profession of faith in proper form, say their prayers regularly and spread the message of the Prophet.(43) Here was a Muslim population with a martial tradition, a developed sense of community and a growing sentimental attachment to Islamic values: in short, a Muslim population ripe for political mobilization. | |
| Author: | Santosh [ 13 Mar 2008 03:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: "None of the women protested, nobody wept," Singh, 78, recalled as he stroked his long, flowing white beard, his voice slipping into a whisper. "All I could hear was the sound of prayer and the swing of the sword going down on their necks. My story can fill a book." I never understand the wisdom of such decisions. Would it not be better to just live to fight another day. Both overtly and covertly. Killing your own people is a self goal. | |
| Author: | G Subramaniam [ 13 Mar 2008 03:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Meo history part 2 |
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2279/is_n160/ai_21224125/pg_1 For another, while neither ruler seems to have been personally bigoted towards Muslims,(46) their administrations discriminated against them in various ways. In Bharatpur, regulations against the opening of `unauthorized' schools and the collection of subscriptions were used to restrict Islamic education and Muslim missionaries suffered police harassment.(47) In Alwar, the situation was worse. The darbar persistently refused to allow new mosques to be built and on several occasions fined congregations who attempted to refurbish existing ones without permission. By the early 1930s, at least four Muslim religious buildings, including the important Shahi Jama Masjid in Alwar City, had been converted to other uses by the government. Although the literate Muslims in the towns wrote in Urdu, the sole medium of instruction in state schools was Hindi; Urdu was merely an optional subject. Yet the opening of private Urdu schools was discouraged. In the public service, too, use of Hindi was mandatory. And in the police and military departments the wearing of beards (more commonplace among Muslims) was forbidden. -- A fourth factor in the denouement of 1947 in Alwar and Bharatpur was the Meo revolt of 1932. As remarked above, the princely states in the early twentieth century exhibited few overt signs of Hindu-Muslim antagonism. Alwar and Bharatpur were no exception. Prior to the 1930s the two states experienced no communal riots. Indeed, anecdotal evidence suggests that at the village level Muslims in Alwar and Bharatpur had `always lived amicably with Hindus'.(49) But this peaceful co-existence (if that is what it was) came to an abrupt end during the Mohurrum celebrations in Alwar City in May 1932, when a Muslim procession led by the Anjuman-i-Khadim-ul-Islam collided with a crowd of Saivite Hindu Chamars inaugurating a new caste-temple. At least three persons were killed and over forty injured (most of them Muslims) in the ensuing riot. This, in turn, precipitated a mass exodus of Muslims from the capital and other places in Alwar to British India, and a visible stirring among the Meos, who, though not directly involved in the foregoing events, apparently saw in them a sign that darbari authority was weakening.(50) When, on 14 November, a party of revenue officers entered Dharmkar village in Tijara district to collect the half-yearly tax payment due on the rabi crop, they were attacked and beaten. In retaliation, Alwar officials burned the village. For the longsuffering Meos it was one atrocity too many. They refused to pay any more tax until there was a proper inquiry. Meanwhile, expecting the worst, they dug fortifications, cut down trees to impede the passage of the darbar's forces, sent their women and children across the border into Gurgaon District and levied subscriptions for a war fund. By December 1932, some seventy villages populated by about 80,000 Meos were in open rebellion.(51) -- However, the ostentatious aloofness of Hindu peasant castes such as the Ahirs and the Gujars, the aggressively pro-darbari posture of most of the local Hindu merchants,(52) the growing support given to the Meo cause by representative Muslim organizations in British India and the propagandist activities of Alwar officials gradually lent it a communal edge. Relations between the communities soured. Meos boycotted Hindu moneylenders; Hindu shopkeepers refused to supply Muslim customers; several Hindu temples were desecrated. In May, there was a major riot at Tijara.(53) But for British military intervention at the maharaja's request, early in 1933, the situation might well have degenerated into outright civil war. -- Yet British intervention did not really settle the communal problem in Alwar; on the contrary, it compounded it. Before agreeing to come to Jey Singh's aid, the government of India imposed strenuous conditions: total control in the disaffected areas; the appointment of an Indian Civil Service officer as prime minister; the right to make such administrative changes as seemed necessary to alleviate the causes of the Meo insurgency. -- the land-revenue demand was reduced by a quarter; and some eighty new schools were opened in the Meo districts. In May 1933, the maharaja himself was forced to step down and go into indefinite exile. Many Alwar Hindus, particularly those close to the darbar, were personally disadvantaged by these changes; many others felt humiliated by what they saw as an imperial witch-hunt against `their' ruler. -- At this stage the Hindus were still clearly focusing their ire on the meddling British, but as the dust settled more and more came to the conclusion that the blame for their problems really lay with the refractory Meos. -- For the Meos, however, the events of 1932-3 represented a triumph of daring. Albeit with a little British assistance, they had taken on the Alwar darbar and humbled it. In the process, they had ridded themselves of a clutch of hated officials, obtained firm title to their lands and guarantees of greater access to education, and secured a significant tax break (the economic benefits of which were further enhanced after 1932 by a succession of good agricultural seasons).(55) Not surprisingly, the Meos emerged from this experience prouder and more confident in themselves as a community. In 1935, they gave notice of this by coming together to establish an Alwar branch of the All-India Meo Panchayat (Council). Fatefully, though, the enhanced self-assurance of the Mewati Muslims in the aftermath of the 1932 rebellion was not tempered by restraint or discretion. Both in Alwar and Bharatpur they became more demanding of the government, complaining of the impact that the newly introduced civil procedure code had on them, of the slow progress of Muslim recruitment into the public service, of the continuing links of senior officials in the two darbars with Hindu organizations like the Arya Samaj and of the persistence of bureaucratic restraints on Muslim education.(56) Similarly, they also began to adopt a more aggressive stance in respect of religious processions and contested religious sites. During Mohurrum 1937, Muslims in several towns refused to accept police and Hindu assurances over the passage of tazias, while in Behror the Muslims insisted on routing their procession past a long-disused mosque which had recently been converted, with the permission of the authorities, into a Hindu temple dedicated to the god Bhaironji. The stand-off in Alwar City resulted in the tazias not being interred, as required by ritual, for several tense days; in Behror, it resulted in a full-blooded riot, in the course of which fifteen people were shot dead by the police.(57) `The Muhammadans', opined a worried British resident, `are in a decidedly restless condition'.(58) For instance, persistent communalism in the Meo tracts of Alwar where the British had vigorously pursued a `policy of replacing Hindu officials with Muslims'(60) was attributed by Francis Wylie, an acute observer, to the loaned officers inculcating `a contumacious attitude amongst His Highness's Muslim subjects'.(61) nundated by telegrams from frightened Hindus and by clandestine appeals for assistance from Jey Singh, the Mahasabha saw the Alwar crisis as a golden opportunity to expand its influence in an arena where neither the Congress nor the Muslim League yet had a significant stake; accordingly, the party sent its secretary, Ganpat Rai, to investigate. It held an Alwar Day and hosted a conference at Rewari to focus attention on Meo `atrocities' -- This growth was capped in April 1947 by the appointment of N. B. Khare, a former premier of the Central Provinces who had moved into the orbit of the Mahasabha after a confrontation with the Congress high command in 1939, as prime minister of Alwar.(72) Within weeks of his arrival, Khare had talked the erratice Tej Singhji out of a bizarre plan to ally Alwar with Pakistan and arranged for the maharaja to underwrite a Mahasabha conference of Hindu `Princes and People' at Delhi in July 1947 to `consider the future' of India after the transfer of power.(73) | |
| Author: | G Subramaniam [ 13 Mar 2008 03:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Santosh wrote: Quote: "None of the women protested, nobody wept," Singh, 78, recalled as he stroked his long, flowing white beard, his voice slipping into a whisper. "All I could hear was the sound of prayer and the swing of the sword going down on their necks. My story can fill a book." I never understand the wisdom of such decisions. Would it not be better to just live to fight another day. Both overtly and covertly. Killing your own people is a self goal. You do not understand the situation the women were trapped deep inside pakistan They had the choice of death with honor or entering an islamic harem and producing 10 jihadis They chose death | |
| Author: | Keshav [ 13 Mar 2008 03:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
G Subramaniam wrote: Santosh wrote: Quote: "None of the women protested, nobody wept," Singh, 78, recalled as he stroked his long, flowing white beard, his voice slipping into a whisper. "All I could hear was the sound of prayer and the swing of the sword going down on their necks. My story can fill a book." I never understand the wisdom of such decisions. Would it not be better to just live to fight another day. Both overtly and covertly. Killing your own people is a self goal. You do not understand the situation the women were trapped deep inside pakistan They had the choice of death with honor or entering an islamic harem and producing 10 jihadis They chose death Not just them. The Rajputs had several such "jauhars" when they felt they were outnumbered and defeated. I can't imagine the strength and resolve of these people, our ancestors, and what they went through in their fight against Islamic imperialism. | |
| Author: | G Subramaniam [ 13 Mar 2008 03:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Meo history part 3 |
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2279/is_n160/ai_21224125/pg_15 the Meos proved irritatingly resistant -- many, it seems, found the notion of `joining Pakistan' incomprehensible(79) -- the League's millenarian message made them restless and sharpened their sense of shared political identity. Significantly, the later years of the war witnessed a renewed upsurge of Meo militancy, symbolized by a short-lived tax revolt in Kishengarh district in March 1946 and an unprovoked assault in September on a party of pilgrims visiting a Hindu shrine at Dholibub.(80) By the 1940s Alwar and Bharatpur were simmering cauldrons of communal rivalry and popular discontent, of inchoate millenariai hopes and thwarted political ambitions. Early in 1947 this volatile mix exploded. But who or what lit the fuse? Whipped up by their leaders, Jats and Ahirs began attacking Meo villages in Gurgaon district. By the end of the month the violence had spilled over the border into Alwar.(82) Meanwhile, at a succession of caste councils over the winter of 1945-6, speakers such as the socialist historian Mohammad Ashraf (once, ironically, a prot6g6 of Maharaja Jey Singh), Punjab MLA Choudhuri Mehtab Khan and barrister Mohammad Yunus Khan called for the formation of a new Mewati province comprising the Meo areas of the United Provinces, Punjab, Alwar and Bharatpur. The implication was that they planned to carve out their independent state by force, under cover of the turmoil that was expected to descend on north India in the aftermath of the British withdrawal. This was tantamount to a unilateral declaration of secession. Moreover, in early 1947, the conventional wisdom was that the whole of the Punjab would go to Pakistan. If this expectation held, there would be nothing, in theory, to stop Meostan from joining Pakistan. On both counts, the Alwar and Bharatpur darbars were determined to nip the scheme in the bud.(83) Separating `aggressors' from `victims' in this context is difficult, perhaps even pointless. Both sides were culpable. Nevertheless, if there was a starting point, it was probably the Jat/Ahir attack of March 1947. This, catching the Muslims off guard, caused them to accelerate their plans for a separate Meostan. What happened next can be interpreted either as a popular backlash by the Alwar and Bharatpur Hindus, who `forgot their differences and united to meet the attacks on the Meo Musssalmans',(84) or as a premeditated act of communal vengeance by a majority against a vulnerable minority We were with the RSS. It had been decided to clear the state of Muslims. The orders came from [the Congress Home Minister] Sardar [Vallabhbhai] Patel. He spoke to HH on the hot line. The killings of Hindus at Noakhali [in Bengal] and Punjab had to be avenged. We called it the `Clearing Up campaign'(safaya) All the Meos from Firozepur Jhirka down were to be cleared and sent to Pakistan [and] their lands taken over ....(85) To be sure, the darbars and their Hindu `defenders' were not the only perpetrators of atrocities. Once the Meo revolt got going it was prosecuted with fanaticism and ferocity. For a short time, it even looked as if it might prevail. Zindoli village in Mundawar district, Mubarakpur village in Ramgad district, Ismailpur village in Kishengarh district and Bahadarpur village in Alwar district were looted and burned; the town of Tijara was sacked and many of its Hindu citizens slaughtered; a Jain temple was looted; and the main Hindu temple at Prithvipura was defiled by the killing of a cow and the sprinkling of its blood over the image of the deity.(87) But these crimes, though serious enough, were vastly overshadowed by what the governmental forces and their civilian allies accomplished by way of revenge once they had recaptured the military advantage.(88) As noted earlier, perhaps 30,000 Muslims perished in this orchestrated bloodletting What needs to be stressed again is the way that this licensed campaign of mayhem transformed the face of Alwar and Bharatpur society. By the end of 1947 only a handful of Muslims remained in Mewat, mostly in the larger towns. As the Judicial Minister of Alwar noted smugly at the end of 1947: `the Meo problem... has been solved'.(89) The darbari position, as put to the government of India's inquiry, was that there was no motive, that the wholesale extermination, reconversion and expulsion of Muslims from Alwar and Bharatpur that took place in 1947 was merely a manifestation of spontaneous popular outrage, a spilling over of emotions in the heat of the moment. Let us now return to the problem identified at the beginning of this article: the problem of reconciling Rajasthan's history of voting for the Hindu Right with its history, since 1950, of relative communal peace. The argument advanced above makes three points. The first is that, while Rajasthan has indeed remained largely riot-free during the post-colonial period, the region does have a considerable pre-history of communal violence going back at least to the early twentieth century. Significantly, though, Rightist parties have fared poorly in the two states right down to the 1990s, when the Bharatpur family finally confronted its past and declared for the BJP.(96) An additional explanation can be sought in the other rupture of Partition. Everywhere in India, the 1950s saw a marked drop in the incidence and ferocity of communal violence between Hindus and Muslims.(97) If we accept Gopal Krishna's paradigm of a demographic threshold to violence, this can be understood simply as a consequence of the fact that after 1947 there were many millions fewer Muslims in north India to pose a `threat' to the security of the majority community. Alwar's and Bharatpur's share of this exodus m around 100,000 -- was not large compared with that of East Punjab, but it was enough to make a difference locally. Where once the Mewati Muslims had been a substantial minority, they are now a small one. Moreover, there has been a palpable change in the community's demeanour. While the Meos remain tightly knit and unwavering in their Islamic piety,(98) they have obviously learned from their terrible experience in 1947. The rallying cry of `Meostan' is no longer heard; now their demands are mainly for a better deal in respect to government services, and they make these through the ballot box. 7) Jogendra Yadav, 'Political Change in North India: Interpreting Assembly Election Results', Econ. and Polit. Weekly, 18 Dec. 1993. Yadav cites an exit poll taken after the 1993 Rajasthan Vindhan Sabha elections which suggested that the BJP picked up over 70 per cent of the Hindu vote in constituencies with a Muslim population of 20 per cent or more. | |
| Author: | shiv [ 13 Mar 2008 03:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Santosh wrote: Quote: "None of the women protested, nobody wept," Singh, 78, recalled as he stroked his long, flowing white beard, his voice slipping into a whisper. "All I could hear was the sound of prayer and the swing of the sword going down on their necks. My story can fill a book." I never understand the wisdom of such decisions. Would it not be better to just live to fight another day. Both overtly and covertly. Killing your own people is a self goal. You may not have understood the magic of Islamic fundamentalism. It gets easier to understand if you put yourself in a situation where you are going to be attacked by a crowd of Islamic zealots. If you know you cannot fight them, the choice you are advocating is "live to fight another day". What would have happened to the Sikhs in this case was what Islam learned 1300 years before you were born Kill the men. Take the women and have babies from them. The next generation will all be born Islamic and everything will be forgotten. If you are a man and you choose to "live" then you die anyway and your wife/sister get taken. Some people would consider it a better choice to chop their heads off and die fighting. | |
| Author: | G Subramaniam [ 13 Mar 2008 04:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Meo History part 4 |
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2279/is_n160/ai_21224125/pg_23 According to the Prime Minister of Alwar, N. B. Khare, 15,000 Muslims were killed and 50,000 converted: see N. B. Khare, My Political Memoirs: or Autobiography (Nagpur, 1959), 331; Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi (hereafter NMML), oral hist. transcript 230, interview between Khare and H. D. Sharma, New Delhi, 16 July 1967. On the other hand, the Chief Commissioner, Ajmer, claimed that `30,000 were killed' in Bharatpur alone -- Census of India, 1941, xxiv, 2, 156-7, 164; Census of India, 1951, x, I-B, 285. By 1951, Alwar and Bharatpur were part of the new Rajasthan state, but they retained virtually the same boundaries. One of the interesting things revealed in the census figures is a rapid rise in the Sikh population of the two states/districts. -- (40) The exact figures were 26.2 per cent for Alwar and 19.2 per cent for Bharatpur; only Jaisalmer with 29 per cent had a higher proportion of Muslims: Census of India, 1931, -- The extent of discrimination should not, however, be exaggerated. With the exception of processions in Bharatpur City, there was freedom of worship: Friday was observed as a public holiday; Muslims in the state forces were compelled to `attend to their prayers'; and stone was provided from state-owned quarries free of charge for the construction of mosque -- The no-tax campaign soon spread across the border into Bharatpur, where agrarian conditions were similar. In January 1933, Meos in Papra village refused to permit the rabi inspection to be carried out. Other villages followed suit. The campaign was crushed in June with British military aid, - The Hindu merchants resented the Meos' standover tactics in the matter of `subscriptions'; they were also fearful for their safety. During January, hundreds fled Tijara and other Meo centres for the security of Alwar City. Hindu support for the darbar was made all the more galling to the Meos by the severity of the government's reprisals, culminating in a fierce encounter at Govindgarh on 7-8 January, in which upwards of thirty Muslims were killed by fire from Lewis guns. See Maharaja Jey Singh to Sir Charles Watson, Political Secretary, Govt of India, Alwar, 26 Dec. 1932: -- 59) One of the main purposes of the fair was to raise money for the new Bhaironji Temple, which was nearing completion on the site of the former mosque. The latter, the so-called Akbari Masjid, had been unceremoniously demolished, apparently with the approval of the district authorities, in 1936 -- Mayaram emphasizes the Left-Congressite links of many of the senior Meo leaders, such as Kunwar Mohammad Ashraf, but one suspects that most Meos were no more anxious to be part of a Congress Raj than they were to join Pakistan: Mayaram, `Speech, Silence and the Making of Partition Violence', 131-2. -- 83) Memoir by Judicial Minister, Alwar, [19477], quoted in Khare, My Political Memoirs, 328-9; ibid., 300; N. B. Khare to Manilal Doshi, 13 Aug. 1947: NMML, Khare Papers, file 165. This interpretation was later upheld by investigations by Sardar Patel's States Ministry and the CID. The second Meo revolt, Patel concluded, was `inspired by League leaders who had done extensive propaganda for it and had (cont. on p. 233) arranged for the supply of arms, ammunition etc.'. See `Sardar Patel to Rajendra Prasad, 24 June 1948' -- Memoir by Judicial Minister, Alwar, [19477]; quoted in Khare, My Political Memoirs, 331. This was also the Mahasabha line. In the absence of protection from the government of India, Hindus and Sikhs had `retaliated' in `self-preservation'. See speech by V. D. Sarvakar, quoted in the Hindustan Times, 8 Oct. 1947 -- Memoir by Judicial Minister, Alwar [19477], quoted in Khare, My Political Memoirs, 330-3; ibid., 302. The rebel forces were significantly strengthened from May onwards by the desertion of large numbers of darbari soldiers and officials. The Meos became more desperate after 5 August when Alwar signed an instrument of accession, signalling its intention to join the Indian Union. -- 88) The turning-point came on 12 August ( 1947 ) when a strike force of 10,000 Meos from Alwar, Bharatpur and Gurgaon was routed by the Alwar army. Thereafter the Meos were pushed back into the hills where they were systematically hunted down. By the end of August most of them had fled across the border into Gurgaon. Eventually, the majority found their way to one of the Punjab holding camps for Muslim refugees. | |
| Author: | Santosh [ 13 Mar 2008 05:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Shiv, GS correct. I understand that the men will die fighting or be beheaded and the women/children will be taken to raise the next generation of army of Islam. My point about the women was to survive by conversion or whatever it takes but later wait for an opportune moment to poison/kill/stab the fundoo. There will be plenty in a life time. Maybe I am oversimplifying or underestimating the magic of islam. Sorry for being OT. GS, good articles. | |
| Author: | Kalantak [ 13 Mar 2008 05:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Santosh wrote: Shiv, GS correct. I understand that the men will die fighting or be beheaded and the women/children will be taken to raise the next generation of army of Islam. My point about the women was to survive by conversion or whatever it takes but later wait for an opportune moment to poison/kill/stab the fundoo. There will be plenty in a life time. Maybe I am oversimplifying or underestimating the magic of islam. Sorry for being OT. GS, good articles. After losing her family and her self-respect what will she achieve by killing just one fundoo? And would the muslims leave her alone. No, rather she would he mass raped and killed. Would it not be better that she kills herself with her self-respect intact rather than get raped by muslims and die latter at their hands. | |
| Author: | csharma [ 13 Mar 2008 06:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
There is also the possibility of being sold to a brothel after being dishonoured. | |
| Author: | AjayKK [ 13 Mar 2008 12:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
" What happened to the women during the riots before and after Partition " From here Quote: This is my personal experience, during partition. It was 1947, my husband was working as chief accountant in United commercial Bank in a town called Amritsar in Punjab. Lahore was an hour by train from Amritsar. We were staying in the city very near to the bank. The Golden Temple of Amritsar was 10 minutes walking distance. We had colonies of Hindus and Muslims all living closely. All of sudden in the end of May riots broke out in the whole of Punjab. Our men every night used to watch that door by rotation so that no one could enter and burn our houses. The curfew was ordered at night they could lift curfew for few hours we could buy only lentils, rice, oil, potatoes and onions. We could not get any fresh fruits or fresh vegetables as the vendors also were afraid of their safety. For milk we would send someone to bring it for us. Nothing was easy. When it got worse, they enforced martial Law, it was to shoot at sight order for the police. The Muslims took so many Hindus young girls and raped them, made them parade on the road naked with only a green flag on their body. The green flag was Muslims sign at that time. After partition there, police found so many Hindu girls and rescued them and brought them back to their parents. It was a shame that their parents would not accept them. Thus became such a mess to keep these girls in the refugee camps for how long? There was chaos in the whole of Punjab. Since I had two little girls and I could not get even milk everyday for them, we decided that I could go to Karachi, where there was no trouble. My parents were in Hyderabad Sind and my in-laws were in Karachi. I took a train to Karachi. In the train, I heard that in the train before ours, the Muslims had pulled out all Hindu men, women and children and killed them on the platform at Multan. Multan as a border town of Punjab and Sind. You can imagine what must be my condition. In the whole journey, I did not speak to anyone or aid anything as to who was I. I was holding my both girls tight, praying to God and by Grace of God , I reached Karachi. I was in Karachi or a month when on 14th August it was decided that India was divided in the Pakistan and India. They gave half Punjab, whole Sind to Pakistan and thus 15th August, India became an independent country. Amritsar in India and Lahore in Pakistan became a border on one side. Now Muslims from Hindu side of Punjab started coming to Sind with the stories how Sikh and Punjabi Hindus had killed Muslims. They did not mention what they did to Hindus and Sikhs. We left Karachi by ship to Bombay. There were only a few cabins and hundreds of people wanted to go. We all had to come as deck passengers. Pakistan police and customs did not let us take with us anything except clothes. We managed to bring our jewellery and cash on our waist and I brought four young girls with me as my mother was scared that Muslims refugees might repeat abducting girls like Punjab. It was August monsoon season.The sea was rough and so many people were sea sick. It was a terrible journey to Bombay. On 8th of January 1948, Muslims refugees (Mohargees) started to loot and killed some people in their own houses in Sind. They wanted Sindhi Hindus to go away from Sindh. It frightened so many Hindus. They left their furnished houses and other things behind. They tried to sell the houses but no body wanted to buy. Muslims immigrants knew that they will get everything for free. Not so long ago, there was a picture of a few women being paraded in Pakistan during Partition with only a piece of cloth on their bodies. Now, it is not to be easily found. | |
| Author: | satyarthi [ 13 Mar 2008 02:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ramana wrote: Frontline has a couple of articles on need to reform Hindu calenders. Kaushal please review and comment. Medieval Mistake Reform panel recommendations [quote]On the issue of beginning the year with Chaitra and not Vaishakha, the report explains that: “The dates of festivals have already shifted by 23 days from the seasons in which they were observed about 1,400 years ago as a result of our almanac-makers having ignored the precession of equinoxes. Although it may seem desirable that the entire amount of shifting should be wiped out at a time, we consider it expedient to maintain this as a constant difference and stop its further increase. As a result, there would at present be no deviation from the prevailing custom in the observance of the religious festivals.†| |
| Author: | satyarthi [ 13 Mar 2008 02:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
To make it clear: Indian astronomers know that Sun starts moving northwards around Dec 22. But Makar sankranti is not a festival to celebrate exactly that day. It is a festival celebrating transition of Sun into the constellation of Makara (capricorn), the real one, not the arbitrary and shifting one as defined in "tropical" astronomy. There was a time in the past when Makara-sankranti and sun turning northwards Uttarayana coincided. But that was true only at a certain age. It wasn't true before that age and is not true now. And this fact is known to Indian astronomers. If they had meant Makara sankranti as Utrrayana day (winter solstice), they could have actually named it that way. There does seem to be widespread confusion that Makara-sankranti means winter-solstice. Please, pay attention to the precise meaning of Makara-sankranti, and also the sidereal nature of Indian astronomy. It is signfying a sidereal recurring event, viz Sun's position in the background of stars. It is not celebrating a "tropical" event like solstice. Makara sankranti signifies the "punyakala" of Uttrayana, i.e. the auspicious time AFTER sun turns north. | |
| Author: | satyarthi [ 13 Mar 2008 03:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Western festivals are all solar and with precessional correction tropical also. That is festivals recur at same time of the year relative to equinoxes and solstices. Hindus had other ideas about what it means to be "recurrent". Has a date really recurred, when sun appears to be at same position from a solstice, or is it when the sun (or other grahas) appears to be in the same background of stars, or is it when moon also has a certain phase? Hindu festivals are decided on a mix of all these periodicities to decide on what we mean by a "recurrent event", which is what a festival is. Remember that on a planet in a galaxy far far away, the idea of what "recurrent" means will be quite different too, and will be decided by selecting some locally relevant periodicities. Of course, agriculture etc depend upon the seasons, and seasons depend upon the tropical year, i.e. distance from a solstice or equinox. Some festivals that are specifically tied up with seasons, could be adjusted to make them tropical. But most other festivals, say Rama-navami (birthday of Rama) etc don't depend upon a season. They are about deciding what is the best way to come up with a day which approximates the conditions of Rama's birthday. In such festivals, Indian method of taking sidereal positions as well as lunar phases is far better in approximating a truer recurrence than tying them down to tropical recurrence only on account of ease. | |
| Author: | sanjaychoudhry [ 13 Mar 2008 03:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Not so long ago, there was a picture of a few women being paraded in Pakistan during Partition with only a piece of cloth on their bodies. Now, it is not to be easily found. In any confrontation, women are the main target of Muslims. Their rape and abduction is the main aim. As some British colonialist once said: "Money is the weakness of Hindus, Women are the weakness of Muslims and liquor is the weakness of Sikhs." During the Naokhali massacre, a Hindu teenage girl was taken to the main crossing of the town by Muslims and made to stand there all afternoon rank naked to humiliate the Hindus. Why the Muslim tribals couldn't capture Srinagar during 1948 was that they abducted Hindu women and turned every house and mosque into a brothel. They forgot all about advancing. Within days, the Indian army had air dropped over Srinagar and secured the town. Jinnah was furious when he heard why Srinagar couldn't be taken by the Muslims. The women were first taken to an army camp and then sold in kothas of lahore and karachi. These must be the ones who were being paraded semi-naked on the streets with the average Abdul on the road whistling and lusting after them. No race inflicts so much brutality on women as Muslims. They do not spare their own women through the Shariah. Women are considerd war booty in the fine tradition of their deranged, lusting prophet. This is the only religion which has elaborate harems with thousands of women for each noble. It is sickening how Islam brings out the animal in man. To Gandhi's eternal shame, he did not utter a single word of condemnation of Muslims's treatement of HIndu women, but he was busy fasting and cursing the hapless Hindus for their treatment of Muslims. Sometimes I think a man so far gone in his delusions that he cannot hear the screams of his own people but all the time curses them for resisting the invaders, is as deranged and off-balance as the Prophet of Islam. | |
| Author: | SwamyG [ 13 Mar 2008 03:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Shiv: So you want to argue that Christians and Muslims were very very efficient at what they did, and were extremely better than some of the Indian dynasties. So be it. But that does not mean the Indian Kings did not look at expansion and that their rule was without brutalities. By sheer quality and quantity the Islamic hordes have wrecked greater damage, but that does not mean every time one talks about a local dynasty or ruler doing routine war related atrocities that we have to jump and say "But the Christians and Muslims did these far frequently and in greater numbers." | |
| Author: | sanjaychoudhry [ 13 Mar 2008 03:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
SwamyG wrote: Shiv: So you want to argue that Christians and Muslims were very very efficient at what they did, and were extremely better than some of the Indian dynasties. So be it. But that does not mean the Indian Kings did not look at expansion and that their rule was without brutalities. By sheer quality and quantity the Islamic hordes have wrecked greater damage, but that does not mean every time one talks about a local dynasty or ruler doing routine war related atrocities that we have to jump and say "But the Christians and Muslims did these far frequently and in greater numbers." What are you trying to prove by this equal equal business? Is it that there is no difference between Hindu kings and Muslim hordes and both were equally expansionist and brutal? That flies in the face of history of our civlisation. If Hndus were expansionist, they would have been fighting the civlisational war in Arabia, not in their own homeland. And what brutality do you have in mind? Can you give me some examples? Combatants inflicting brutality on combatants do not count. I am intersted in knowing history of brutality of Hindu kings over non-combatants, especially women and children and peasantry. How many were abducted and taken to Hindu harems or sold into slavery in flesh markets of Sri Lanka and Malaysia? How many cities were put to sword by Hindu kings in a general slaughter of civilians? Which towns were razed to the ground and a tower of skulls made? Where did the rivers of blood flow? | |
| Author: | John Snow [ 13 Mar 2008 05:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
question to satyarthi garu> Then what is the difference between Chandra mana samvatsre (lunar) to soura mana samvatsre. Maharashtrians, Telugus, Kannadigas follow chandramana, where as tamil people follow sourmana (solar based) Usually the computed difference comes out to be roughly 14 days ( the difference also in telugu new year and tamil new year). Is adhika masam only related to chaandramana calendar? | |
| Author: | RaviBg [ 13 Mar 2008 05:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
In Indian chandramana calendar too, festivals are recurrant. For e.g., vinayaka chaturthi occurs on 4th day of shukla paksha in bhadrapada maasa every year. Going by our lunar calendar, it happens on same day every year. However, since we use solar calendar for our daily activities, it appears to be on different days each year. | |
| Author: | SwamyG [ 13 Mar 2008 06:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The equal-equal is the most over used expression at BRF. You walk two steps away from the conformed views somebody will throw it at you. Did I say that there was no difference? Based on some of the arguments here, it looks like it is some of you folks who are trying to make it equal-equal not me. What am I trying to prove? Well Rajahs were Rajahs, Kingdoms were Kingdoms and war was an affairs of the state that routinely happened. And that Rajahs looked to expand just like any other King. Success of such endeavors is a different matter though. | |
| Author: | Keshav [ 13 Mar 2008 11:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
SwamyG wrote: By sheer quality and quantity the Islamic hordes have wrecked greater damage, but that does not mean every time one talks about a local dynasty or ruler doing routine war related atrocities that we have to jump and say "But the Christians and Muslims did these far frequently and in greater numbers." I think we should take a double standard on this. I normally judge Hindu kings by current international standards of justice, primarily because Hindu rulers were, for the most part, pinnacles of this idea. Christians and Muslims look at the past as just that - the past AKA things have changed, we aren't responsible. Done. Perhaps we should simply forget about the times we screwed up (if any of those are actually recorded) and just "put our best face forward" as we Americans say. | |
| Author: | AjayKK [ 14 Mar 2008 07:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
sanjaychoudhry wrote: No race inflicts so much brutality on women as Muslims. To Gandhi's eternal shame, he did not utter a single word of condemnation of Muslims's treatement of HIndu women, but he was busy fasting and cursing the hapless Hindus for their treatment of Muslims. Sometimes I think a man so far gone in his delusions that he cannot hear the screams of his own people but all the time curses them for resisting the invaders, is as deranged and off-balance as the Prophet of Islam. When Suhrawardy called gandhi poor names, gandhi himself said : "Suhrawardy is a trusted friend of mine" [quote]Towards the end of the prayer time, some of the young Hindu men realised that Suhrawardy was not present, and assumed, rightly, that he was in the house. So they came shouting for his blood. The prayers ended, and Gandhi went to the windows, threw open the shutters and began talking in a low voice to the young men outside. He upbraided them for showing hostility to Suhrawardy. Whatever they thought of his past, he had now agreed to join the effort to bring peace. Then he brought Suhrawardy forward, and stood with one hand over his shoulder. [b] The critical moment came when a young man shouted at Suhrawardy: “Do you accept the blame for the great Calcutta killing of last year?†| |
| Author: | shiv [ 14 Mar 2008 09:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
SwamyG wrote: Shiv: So you want to argue that Christians and Muslims were very very efficient at what they did, and were extremely better than some of the Indian dynasties. So be it. But that does not mean the Indian Kings did not look at expansion and that their rule was without brutalities. By sheer quality and quantity the Islamic hordes have wrecked greater damage, but that does not mean every time one talks about a local dynasty or ruler doing routine war related atrocities that we have to jump and say "But the Christians and Muslims did these far frequently and in greater numbers." No You have missed the picture again. Not efficiency, but endurance. The Indian kings came and went. But Islam and Christianity have never stopped expanding. The difference is not in the number of deaths or brutality - but the sheer number of centuries the business has continued. One can only be 100% brutal. if you kill all your enemies you are 100% brutal. If you can be brutal (to whatever percentage) for 100 years you are bad. But if you can keep up killing pressure on enemies for 1000 years you are something else altogether. Check how Indian kings weigh up on timescale and long lasting effect. A potential mass murderer who is convicted and jailed after 2 murders may be bad. But if he stays loose until and after he has killed 50 people he belongs to a different club. Islam is still eliminating people 1400 years later. | |
| Author: | Murugan [ 14 Mar 2008 09:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Indian kings/rulers would have lasted for long, endured and penetrated far away on all the sides of the border: had: killing without reasons not considered adharmic 1) offering vedic/hindu/religious prayers five times a day would wash off their sins instantaneously 2) looting and pillaging, cheating, raping by kings, his soldiers and ministers accepted by the people and priests/gurus 3) had these relgious people like padres and mullash turned blind eye to their "so called" misdeeds and encouraged all such activities to meet political ends 4) or having prophet icon/relgion who/which will allow/practice rubbing penis between the thighs of 9 year old pre-teen girls and/or/moreover destroying others' places of worship been act of chivalry and courage 5) HAD, kings/rulers were not restricted by dharma declaring pillaging and looting adharmik. 6) HAD, forgiving enemies not a highest act of dharma all of the above and other (mal) practices allowed by so called dharma wd have made our race dreaded all over the world and perhaps we would have ruled seven seas ruling till date. It is ultimately the hindu relgion's values and ethos that could not put us at par with christian and muslim marauders. btw, the indian (Chakravarti) kings' expansions were mostly done: first threatening the weak/unwanted king and then having matrimonial alliance, even with malechhas etc. thus spilling/spoling less and less blood. (as in case of chandragupta's marriage with that defeated seleukus nicator's daughter or Samudraguptas ashwamedh yagya, and many other examples of imperialist hindu kings etc) | |
| Author: | SwamyG [ 14 Mar 2008 07:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
shiv wrote: No You have missed the picture again. Not efficiency, but endurance. The Indian kings came and went. But Islam and Christianity have never stopped expanding. The difference is not in the number of deaths or brutality - but the sheer number of centuries the business has continued. One can only be 100% brutal. if you kill all your enemies you are 100% brutal. If you can be brutal (to whatever percentage) for 100 years you are bad. But if you can keep up killing pressure on enemies for 1000 years you are something else altogether. Check how Indian kings weigh up on timescale and long lasting effect. A potential mass murderer who is convicted and jailed after 2 murders may be bad. But if he stays loose until and after he has killed 50 people he belongs to a different club. Islam is still eliminating people 1400 years later. Is it a historical distortion or not to say Indian Kings never looked towards expansion and the Kingdoms/armies never committed atrocities? I am not debating Islam's efficiency or endurance. You continue to talk about Islam and compare it with Hindu kings, whereas I am not. | |
| Author: | satyarthi [ 15 Mar 2008 06:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
John Snow wrote: question to satyarthi garu> Then what is the difference between Chandra mana samvatsre (lunar) to soura mana samvatsre. Maharashtrians, Telugus, Kannadigas follow chandramana, where as tamil people follow sourmana (solar based) Usually the computed difference comes out to be roughly 14 days ( the difference also in telugu new year and tamil new year). Is adhika masam only related to chaandramana calendar? A purely solar year, like the Tamil new year, starts exactly when sun transits into Mesha (Mesha sankranti). But the Indian luni-solar years either start at the new moon in the same solar month (amanta system), or on the previous full moon (purnimanta system). This means there will be difference between start of a solar year and a lunar year. Also start of amanta and purnimanta years are off by a fortnight. Adhika masa is associated with luni-solar calendar, i.e. it arises due to a need to maintain the lunar year in tandem with the solar year. In a purely solar calendar, there is no need for adhika masa. More explanations below. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Sidereal or nirayana year : Measures year by the time taken by sun to reappear in the same background of stars. In Indian system initial point is taken as Mesha (or Aries) rashi. Sidereal year is 365.256363 days. So nirayana (sidereal) year is longer than the sayana (tropical) year by 0.014173 days. 2. Tropical year or sayana year : Measures year by the time from vernal equinox to vernal equinox = 365.24219 days. This is called sayana year in Indian system, or tropical year in western system. The term "tropical" just means when you count time from equinoxes or solstices. The difference between a tropical year and sidereal year is due to precession of earth's axis. This slow precession causes, the equinoxes and solstices to shift back slightly every year. Since a tropical year effectively subtracts out the precessional difference and is tied to the equinoxes and solstices, this effect of precession is not noticed, and the equinoxes and solstices occur around the same date every year. In a sidereal year this effect due to precession is noticeable over time. If sun used to cross into Makara at winter solstice in 285 AD, now it is ahead by about 24 days. So according to solar sidereal calendar, the solstice has shifted into the previous month by 24 days than that at 285 AD. 3. Gregorian calendar: (i) Is a solar calendar, that uses the tropical year, but the length of the year is given in an integral number of days, usually 365, but can be 366 in leap years. (ii) To account for 0.24219 days deficit in a standard year of 365 days, every 4 years an extra day is added. (iii) But since 0.24219 is not exactly 0.25, other corrections are introduced. A century year is not allowed to be a leap year unless divisible by 400. This means that in a period of 400 years there are 97 leap years. Which gives mean gregorian year as 365.2425 days, which is slightly longer than the tropical year. So even the Gregorian calendar would need some tuning after some time. (iii) Months have 31, 30, 28 (or 29) days so that the sum works out to 365 (or 366) days. 4. Indian solar (sauramAna) calendar: (i) is a solar calendar that uses the nirayana (sidereal) year of 365.256363 days. Surya Sidhhanta gave sidereal year as 365.258756 days which is slightly longer than the current estimates. Year's beginning is typically when Sun transits into Mesha (Aries) rAshi. (ii)Due to the fractional part of 0.256363 days (about 6 hours 9 minutes 10 seconds), Sun enters the Mesha rashi every year later in the day by about 6 hours. Depending upon how the beginning of the day is determined, there can be a difference of a day in deciding when the year has started. Since the beginning days of the months are similarly decided (when the sun enters a rashi corresponding to that month), beginning days of months can also have similar variation. (iii) Entering of a rashi by the Sun is called sankranti. That is why the comment about Makara-sankranti in the Frontline article was stupid. Because on Makara sankranti day, sun actually crosses into Makara (or capricorn). (iv) Due to the precession of earth's axis at a slow rate, of 50.3 arcseconds per year, the tropical year is shorter than the sidereal year. This also means that the start of the year in a sidereal system, as identified by sun moving into Mesha (Aries) rashi, moves with respect to the equinoxes (or solstices) by this much amount. Therefore over time, the start of the year appears in a different season. Since the seasons are dependent upon time interval from equinoxes and solstices. (v) Tropical system arbitrarily redifines "Aries" to start from the vernal equinox. But due to the precession, vernal equinox is no more in Aries but is off by 24 days and closer to Pisces. This fact must be kept in mind. In Indian system Mesha is the actual, fixed constellation spanning 30 degrees in the background of stars. In Western tropical astronomy, so called "Aries" is a patch of sky 30 degrees wide, which moves around. (vi) Note that vernal equinox point coincided with true Aries (Mesha sankranti) in year 285 AD. Since then it has moved by about 24.4 ( (2008-285)*0.014173) days. 4. National calendar of 1957: It is a solar tropical calendar. It was an attempt to make Indian calendar tropical instead of sidereal. The year starts on vernal equinox day and has months of 30 or 31 day lengths, with a leap year convention piggy backing on Gregorian calendar, It was an attempt to introduce Gregorian calendar with Indian sounding terminology, and hasn't found any real uses. 5. Lunar or chandramAna calendar: (i) It is not a true lunar calendar, but a luni-solar calendar. Where the year is still decided by the sun, but the months (mAsa) and dates (tithi) are decided by moon. (ii) A lunar calendar's basic unit is a lunar month =(new moon to new moon). In some calendars full moon to full moon = 29.5306 days. (iii) A sidereal solar month is transit of the sun from one rashi to next rashi and is = 365.256363/12 = 30.43803 days. (iv) Solar months are named after the nakshatra visible opposite to the sun, so chaitra month is associated with sighting chitrA nakshatra opposite the sun, i.e. is the nakshatra rising when the sun is setting. (v) A lunar month is named after the solar month in which the new moon falls. (vi) Since the lunar month is smaller than the solar month more than one new moon can fall within the same solar month. (vii) Tithi: There are 30 thithis in a lunar month. 15 in the shukla paksha and 15 in the krishna paksha. Since a lunar month has 29.5306 solar days, a tithi works out to be slightly smaller than a solar day , i.e 1 mean Tithi = 29.5306/30 = 0.98435 solar days = 23.6244 hours. The significance of a tithi is that it marks a fixed amount of advancement in lunar phase. since lunar month is new moon to new moon, one tithi works out to = 360/30 = 12 degrees change in lunar phase. (viii) Since a tithi is smaller than a solar day, even if a tithi's beginning matched with sunrise at a certain date, it will drift and in general a tithi can start at any time of a solar day.The days of a month are numbered according to the tithi during sunrise. The naming convention "chaitra shukla panchami" means in the lunar month of chaitra, in the bright half of the moon, the 5th tithi was going on at sunrise. 6. Adhika or Mala months in luni-solar calendar: (i) A lunar year of 12 lunar months is 29.5306 * 12 = 354.3672 days. While a nirayana (sidereal) solar year is 365.256363 days. Therefore a lunar year is shorter than a solar sidereal year by 10.89 days. (ii) To keep the lunar year in tune with solar year, an extra lunar month needs to be added to a lunar year at certain intervals. Usually every 19 years 7 lunar months are added. With this correction 19 lunar years = (19*12+7)*29.5306 = 6939.69 days, which is pretty close to 19 sidereal years = 19 * 365.256363 = 6939.87 days. So to maintain a lunar year in tune with a solar year, 7 extra lunar months need to be added during a period of 19 years or on average one lunar month per 2.7 years. (iii) Indian astronomers don't add these extra months at arbitrary intervals (such as Gregorian calendar does with leap years), but have an ingenious method. Since lunar month is smaller than a solar month, two new moons can occur within the same solar month. Then since by convention a lunar month is named by the prevailing solar month, you get two lunar months getting the name of the same solar month. This way an extra lunar month gets added with the same name as the previous one. The first month with the same name is called "adhika" or "mala". It turns out that this way of adding extra lunar months works out to have one lunar month added per 2.7 years. (iv) This idea of "mala" masa and the so called "blue moon" have something in common. 7. amanta and purnimanta luni-solar calendars: (i) In Amanta system Month is from new moon to next new moon. The lunar year also starts at the new moon. The month is named by the solar month in which the new moon falls. The first lunar month of the year is chaitra. (ii) Purnimanta system, month is from full moon to full moon, and starts one fortnight before the amanta month. But the year starts on a new moon!! This is the reason of the 14 day fortnight difference. So in a purnimanta calendar, the year starts in the middle of the lunar chaitra month. So, one half of chaitra gets counted in one year and other in the next! (iii) Purnimanta is common in North India. ------------------------------------------------------------------ | |
| Author: | satyarthi [ 15 Mar 2008 07:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
RaviBg wrote: In Indian chandramana calendar too, festivals are recurrant. For e.g., vinayaka chaturthi occurs on 4th day of shukla paksha in bhadrapada maasa every year. Going by our lunar calendar, it happens on same day every year. However, since we use solar calendar for our daily activities, it appears to be on different days each year. Exactly. If people recall that Buddha was born on a full moon night, then wouldn't it make much more sense, and give a stronger sense of recurrence of original conditions, to celebrate his birthday on a full moon? That is what Indian festivals do. They take lunar phases also into account while deciding "recurrence". | |
| Author: | shiv [ 15 Mar 2008 12:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
satyarthi wrote: RaviBg wrote: In Indian chandramana calendar too, festivals are recurrant. For e.g., vinayaka chaturthi occurs on 4th day of shukla paksha in bhadrapada maasa every year. Going by our lunar calendar, it happens on same day every year. However, since we use solar calendar for our daily activities, it appears to be on different days each year. Exactly. If people recall that Buddha was born on a full moon night, then wouldn't it make much more sense, and give a stronger sense of recurrence of original conditions, to celebrate his birthday on a full moon? That is what Indian festivals do. They take lunar phases also into account while deciding "recurrence". Actually most of us are DIE when it comes to the Indian calendar and none more so that me. India lives by the Indian calendar. The seasons are extremely accurately predicted by the calendar, and festivals and life are dictated by that calendar. | |
| Author: | satyarthi [ 15 Mar 2008 01:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Shiv, Thats true. If you look at Gregorian tropical calendar, it is extremely simple. Indian calendars appear complicated, not because they can't be as simple as Gregorian, but rather being as simple as Gregorian is considered "simplistic". The reason behind a tropical solar calendar like Gregorian is "only' to match dates with seasons. Indian Astronomers, could do all that. They knew about precession (ayana-chalana) and knew where the beginnings of the ayana (uttrayana or dakshinayana) lie. But Indian astronomy was much more interested in the idea of defing a "recurring event" by taking a mix of periodicities into account There are several periodicities: (i) periodicity of equinoxes and solstices (or seasons), this is what defines the tropical year. (ii) periodicity of sun appearing in a certain background of stars ( 12 rashis). This defines the sidereal year (iii) periodicity of moon appearing in the background of stars (27 nakshatras) (iv) periodicity of lunar phases (30 thithis) Gregorian calendar takes first periodicity and lets others slide. Indian luni-solar calendar gives a lot of importane to 2nd, 3rd and 4th periodicities, and lets the 1st one slide. But the first one is the slowest one, since equinoxes precess at a very slow rate This makes Indian calendars more complicated. One can tell the prevailing tithi (or the lunar phase), or near which nakshatra moon will be sighted, or opposite which star Sun is observed, for any date by looking at the panchanga. You also know how the Rahu-ketu (or Lunar-orbital-nodes, the two end points of the line where plane of the lunar orbit crosses the plane of earth's orbit), are moving, so that you can see when eclipses will occur. But by looking at the Gregorian calendar you get no such idea. In fact to provide the info that Indian panchang provides, Gregorian calendar will have to become much more complicated too. In fact an Indian calendar or Panchang is more like an astronomical almanac or ephemeris than a simple calendar. Besides providing a better approximation to true recurrence, there was another factor driving Indian calendars to complexity. This was related to Astrology (phalita jyotisha). In Astrology, you need to introduce motion of 5 other planets as well as Lunar nodes (Rahu-Ketu). Moon was considered very important for astrological purposes, and its motion (tithis) and motion of its orbital nodes (Rahu Ketu) were very minutely studied. I think, a thorough study of Indian astronomy manuscripts, thousands of which remain untranslated, will prove that the art of calendar making in India was complex but sophisticated, as long as its purposes are kept in mind. | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 15 Mar 2008 03:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have a tutorial in appendix G of the book "Astronomical dating of events ... " on Indic cosmology, Indic calendars and Archaeo Astronomy which is a good introduction to thhe subject in my web site . http://indicethos.org/History/HEC2007.htm | |
| Author: | Tilak [ 15 Mar 2008 04:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kaushal wrote: I have a tutorial in appendix G of the book "Astronomical dating of events ... " on Indic cosmology, Indic calendars and Archaeo Astronomy which is a good introduction to thhe subject in my web site . http://indicethos.org/History/HEC2007.htm Kaushal ji, Great site with lots of information. Thanks. ---- Some might consider a nitpick. But since I work in the IT field and couldn't resist giving you feedback strictly from web-users/visitors perspective. A recent study conducted by Akamai Tech states that user's online attention span is ~5 seconds and is getting even shorter, if the first impression is not made within the above 75% would never return. So I thought I could share with you some info from "my" ~experience. Scientific Web Design: 23 Actionable Lessons from Eye-Tracking Studies :Apologies OT: | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 15 Mar 2008 08:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You are right it is time to streamline the site and mae it more more 'catchy', I dotn hav the time to do it , I am looking for a website designer to do it for me. | |
| Author: | ramana [ 16 Mar 2008 01:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Folks let Keshav be. He is still new and comes out abrasive. But his heart is OK. And keshav try not to be abrasive and see what shiv is saying. | |
| Author: | shiv [ 16 Mar 2008 01:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Keshav wrote: How can I prove to you that I'm not a troll with an agenda or some ex-troll come back? Just agreeing with what you say doesn't really prove anything either. Keshav - you are obviously not new to the internet and forums. If you choose to argue with everyone you are a troll even if you are correct. People often mistake the views of a newcomer. The old codgers views are well known. There are ways of dealing with that. Fighting with everyone is not one of them. Lurk for a bit and see how you can get your views across in a manner that does not rub people up the wrong way is my suggestion to all newcomers in any forum. The choice is yours. | |
| Author: | Keshav [ 16 Mar 2008 02:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
ramana wrote: Folks let Keshav be. He is still new and comes out abrasive. But his heart is OK. And keshav try not to be abrasive and see what shiv is saying. Thank you for this. Quote: The choice is yours. While I understand what you're saying, you did not confirm or deny the uncivility of the excerpts I gave in my last post. I will assume I've done nothing wrong and continue. | |
| Author: | shiv [ 16 Mar 2008 02:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kalantak please check the admin warning thread http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 110#468110 | |
| Author: | ramana [ 19 Mar 2008 05:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
By e-mail.... Quote: The Humanities and Social Sciences Department of the IIT-Madras invites you to a lecture on MULTIVERSITY by Claude Alphonso Alvares Venue: HSB 333 Date: March 18, Tuesday Time: 3.30 p.m. About Multiversity A brave initiative to rid the continents of Eurocentric biases in university studies. The dependence on Western academia ensures intellectual slavery that is unending and unnatural. Multiversity challenges scholars, teachers and students to bring colour back into academic studies, design their own curricula, write and read their own texts and invent their own methodologies. A challenging task, but neither unrealistic nor impossible. About Claude Alvares Claude Alvares is a truly multifaceted personality, whose passion is to address the problems created by modernity, or the modern mind. His PhD thesis challenged the popular notion that modern Western technology and culture are more advanced than their Eastern counterparts, and was later published as a book called 'Decolonising History'. Claude was one of the earliest Indians to expose the politics and technological emptiness of the Green Revolution package in India, and of the Narmada Dam. During this time, Claude set up the Other India Press, the first-of-its-kind alternative publishing house in India, which has published numerous books, both critiquing the modern development paradigm as well as providing alternatives. Over the last 20 years, Claude's primary work has been to decolonise various aspects of the society (education, health care, economy, agriculture, etc.) by exposing the fallacies of modernity's promises to the humankind, and creating spaces for regenerating indigenous ways of learning and living. He is currently the Member of the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee on Hazardous Wastes; The Director of The Goa Foundation; Member of the High Court Committee on Noise Pollution; Working Director of the Green Goa Works; Director of Organic Farming Association of; Coordinator of Multiversity; Governing Trustee of the Other India Bookstore; Editor of the Other India Press, Goa, India. | |
| Author: | shyamd [ 19 Mar 2008 06:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sorry, didn't know where to post. Why Hindus failed to resist the invaders? [quote]By M.S.N. Menon Why did India fail to produce another man of the calibre of Kautilya, whereas China produced a number of philosophers of militarism. Because of the caste system? Because Islam was superior to Hinduism? Because of our belief in non-violence? Because of our disunity? Or was it because the rulers who failed us? All these and many more could have caused our defeat and subjection to the Muslim invaders. But how is it that there is no authentic work on this subject? Because we did not want to give offence to the Muslims by exposing their past to the detailed scrutiny of our people. Tagore says: We have drawn a tight veil over their past. But it is time we lifted this veil. Why? Because we Hindus must know our own past—more so our failures. We have to go to the root of our own history—to the very infancy of our people—to understand where we made the first false step. And the first mistake we made was in not trying to know, even vaguely, why we are here on this earth. Surely, it was not to liberate ourselves from the cycle of birth and death! It was not as if we were here only to catch the next train! As if the earth was railway station! It is true, we will never know why we are here. But we can arrive at an intelligent answer: that our job, now that we are here, is to assist nature to unfold the purpose of creation. Johannes Voigt, the philosopher and historian, says that “history offers no second instance of a country where the inward life of the soul has completely absorbed all the practical concerns of a nation†| |
| Author: | ramana [ 24 Mar 2008 03:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
X-posted from Nukkad-40 [quote="SaiK"]http://flonnet.com/stories/20080328250610000.htm Medieval mistake The usual explanation given for the decline in Indian medieval science – that the rise of Brahminism after Sankaracharya led to a split of hand and brain and started a paradigm shift away from active experimentation – is probably irrelevant here; it was still the heyday of Nalanda and other Buddhist monasteries when the debate was going on, during Brahmagupta’s time, for example. (The school of thought in vogue in Nalanda at that time was the Yogachara philosophy, a kind of Kantian idealism, of negating reality; the famous Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang, or Hieun Tsang, came to study it in Nalanda in the early 7th century C.E.) .......... he Government of India set up a committee to reform our calendars in 1955 with the renowned physicist Meghnad Saha as its chairman. It surveyed the existing calendars and the methods of corrections adopted in each, and concluded that “the Hindu calendar... is a most bewildering production of the human mind and incorporates all the superstitions and half-truths of medieval times.... In spite of these errors, very few have the courage to talk of reform... the beginning of the year is now wrong by nearly twenty-three days, the result of accumulated error of nearly 1,400 years.†| |
| Author: | ramana [ 24 Mar 2008 03:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
X-posted. Even though the book is about art and art criticsim, it has a very good understanding of the cause for distoritionof Indian history. The Marxist school is partly to blame for trying to fit the European class struggle mold onto Indian society. Especially read pages 240 onwards. I was up late last night reading it on line! ramana wrote: Folks I found this awesome book! Google Books Art of Transitional India Its by good intro by Vinayak Purohit from Popular Prakashan 1988. Long (1368 pages!) but very interesting. Read Chapter 3 & 4. Vsunder, CDs will be mailed next week. | |
| Author: | Kalantak [ 24 Mar 2008 04:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Webpage not archived. Quote: Rewriting history essential to make facts more authentic: Scholars Mar 24, 2008 Pioneer News Service | Jajpur Rewriting historical events is essential for giving the present society the right message. Things have undergone great change and a review is required to make it more research based and authentic, debated scholars. Scholars from universities and colleges gathered on March 16 and 17 for a deliberation on a national-level UGC sponsored seminar at Brahmani College, Dandisahi in the district of Kendrapara and discussed on issues like 'Rewriting history: The need of the hour.' Speaking on the occasion, Head of the Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Utkal University, Professor Ashok Nath Parida, who was the chief guest on the occasion, said, "History must be revised. Researchers should focus on scientific methodology of studies of history." He said revision need not be in the traditional form rather history should be corroborated with modernity with new discoveries and findings. Head of History Department, Utkal University Professor Dr Ashok Kumar Patnaik, who was the guest of honour on the occasion, also stressed on revision of History in the present context. "It is a debatable topic and should be discussed at the national-level," said Patnaik. While criticising the stand of many forums that opposed new ideas and revelation of facts in the modern Indian history, he said, "Rewriting will enrich studies and it would explore ideas from various sides in the modern age." "In the beginning, while history was being written, many facts were neglected in the nationalist perspective. Those who fought for freedom were called terrorists at a time. They took up arms to combat colonial forces. If they were called as militant extremists, what is wrong," he asked. Prof Pattnaik also spoke on how history writing was being influenced by regional and communal bias. "Tolerance is required for bringing out history to light. Hence, we should remain prepared to face the challenge while rewriting history," said Pattnaik. Dr Kharavela Mohanty, who was the chief speaker, emphasised on the study of history. He called upon scholars to come forward with their impulse of curiosity to learn history. While rewriting history cautious steps must be taken, so that no community is hurt by the new versions. Principal of Brahmani College Dr Manidra Kumar Samal presided over the meeting and Dr Amiya Kumar Mohanty spoke as the guest of honour. Among others Head of the Department, History, KC Baral, lecturer PK Mallick, TK Pati, all the history students and staff of the college were present on the occasion, besides the students and faculty members from other colleges. | |
| Author: | shiv [ 29 Mar 2008 04:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/isl ... ance.shtml Ibn Warraq Quote: So far we have been concentrating on the fate of the People of the Book, that is to say, on the Jews and Christians. In their encounter with "heathens and idolators," the Muslims were merciless, with their implacable moral certainty, arrogance, encouraged by the ferocious words of God Himself, as given in the Koran, to kill unbelievers. In the ninth century, the persecutions of the Zoroastrians of Persia pushed them to migrate to the more tolerant lands of Hindu India, where to this day they form a respected minority known as Parsis. We shall now turn to the spread of Islam beyond Persia, and its arrival in the land of "idolators," India. The Muslim conquest of Sind was masterminded by Hajjaj, the governor of Iraq, and effected by his commander Muhammad Bin Qasim in 712 C.E. After the capture of the port of Debal, the Muslim army took three days to slaughter the inhabitants. When Hajjaj received Bin Qasim's report of his victory, he wrote: "My dear cousin, I have received your life-augmenting letter. On its receipt my gladness and joy knew no bounds.... But the way of granting prescribed by the law is different from the one adopted by you.... The Great God says in the Koran: 'O true believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads.' The above command of the Great God is a great command that must be respected and followed...." Later, he wrote: "My distinct orders are that all those who are fighting men should be assassinated, and their sons and daughters imprisoned and retained as hostages."(12) Obedient to a fault, Bin Qasim, on his arrival at the town of Brahminabad, "ordered all the men belonging to the military classes to be beheaded with swords. It is said that about 6,000 fighting men were massacred on this occasion; some say 16,000." The real conquest of India by the Muslims dates from the beginning of the eleventh century. In 1000 C.E. the head of a Turco-Afghan dynastic, Mahmud of Ghazmi, first passed through India like a whirlwind, destroying, pillaging, and massacring. He was, as one historian put it, a "zealous Muslim of the ferocious type ... who felt it to be a duty as well as a pleasure to slay idolators."(13) Mahmud was also after booty, and he certainly derived a handsome profit from his holy wars. In the course of seventeen invasions, Mahmud, in the words of the great Arab scholar Alberuni, who had been brought to India by Mahmud, "utterly ruined the prosperity of the country." He destroyed Hindu temples in his lust for gold. In the holy Hindu city of Mathura, he gave orders that all the temples be burned to the ground. In his iconoclastic fury, Mahmud destroyed irreplaceable works of ancient Hindu art, and at the same time sowed the sees of hatred of all things Muslim in the minds of Hindus. And yet, Muslim historians see him as one of the glories of Islam. He was an avaricious bandit little deserving of admiration. In 1351, Firuz Shah ascended the throne and became ruler of the north of India. Though in many ways an enlightened man, when it came to religion he was a bigot of the first order. Once he went in person to a village where a Hindu fair was being held. He himself wrote: I ordered that the leaders of these people and the promoters of this abomination should be put to death. I forbade the infliction of any severe punishment on the Hindus in general, but I destroyed their idol temples and instead thereof raised mosques. Later a brahman was burnt alive for practicing his rites in public. Firuz Sha was simply carrying on the tradition of the early Muslim leaders, and, to quote Vincent Smith,(14) "believed that he served God by treating as a crime the public practice of their religion by the vast majority of his subjects |i.e. Hindus~." Buddhists fared no better than the Hindus. Indeed most historians attribute the disappearance of Buddhism from India, in part at least, to the intolerance of the Muslim invaders of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. For example, in the sack of Bihar by Muhammad Khilji, in 1193, thousands of Buddhist monks were put to the sword, a great library destroyed, and many ancient monuments irretrievably wrecked. These Muslim invasions were fatal to the existence of Buddhism in northern India. The monks who escaped massacre fled to Nepal, Tibet, and the south. Intolerance in Islam extends even to other Muslims. Right from the beginning of Islam, there were rivalries, often bloody, between sects, groups, and factions, with each group convinced of its own, exclusive "truth." For instance, a subsect of the Kharijites, known as the Azraqites, developed a puritanical theology that became a justification for terrorism and numerous massacres. They themselves were exterminated at the end of the seventh century by Umayyad armies. At the beginning of the ninth century, Islam had its own Inquisition, mihna. In 827 C.E., the Abbasid caliph, al-Manum, gave his allegiance to a doctrine about the origin of the Koran. Henceforth, officials throughout the empire were obliged to publicly confess their agreement. This policy was violently pursued under al Mamun's successor, al Mutasim. Any challenge was brutally suppressed. In modern times, Pakistan's treatment of its Ahmadi sect is a disgrace. The Ahmadi sect was founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (born 1835) in 1889. He came to believe that he was the Mahdi or the Promised Messiah, an idea that is deeply abhorrent to most Muslims, who believe that Muhammad was the final Prophet. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, then prime minister, to win over the Mullahs, the Muslim clergy, and because of pressure from Arab leaders declared all Ahmadis non-Muslims in 1974. Then in 1984, the military dictator, Zia ul Haq, began the systematic persecution of Ahmadis who were denied their civil rights--they were denied the freedom of religion; they were continuously harassed and arrested; their mosques were demolished. Zia himself vowed to exterminate the "cancer" of Ahmadism. "The teachings of Ahmadiyat were misrepresented so as to create hatred among the members of the community. The mullahs were let loose by the government and they roamed about in cities and villages, using the pulpits of mosques to incite the people to kill the Ahmadis and burn their property. This situation continues to this day. The Bahais in Iran have suffered similarly. As the story of Islamic intolerance moves to modern times, it is increasingly a story of massacres, fanaticism, hostility, and intolerance. Even Islam's staunchest supporters will testify to the uneasy and precarious position of non-Muslims in the Muslim states of today--the Copts of Egypt, the Jews in Syria, the Christians, and Hindus in Pakistan | |
| Author: | mayurav [ 29 Mar 2008 06:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
shyamd wrote: Sorry, didn't know where to post. Why Hindus failed to resist the invaders? Quote: By M.S.N. Menon Why did India fail to produce another man of the calibre of Kautilya, whereas China produced a number of philosophers of militarism. Complete involvement of the individual in the inward life of his soul led to another mistake: to the growth of individualism and the neglect of the community, of the collective, of society. More so, of the state, which dealt with the material life of men. Indian philosophy was hardly interested in society. Only Manu, the law-giver was. Neglect of society and state led to the neglect of human welfare and the security of people—indeed to the general neglect of governance. I think it is because of Buddhism which stunned the nation with its ahimsa and priority of renunciation and Moksha over everything else. | |
| Author: | Keshav [ 29 Mar 2008 07:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
mayurav wrote: I think it is because of Buddhism which stunned the nation with its ahimsa and priority of renunciation and Moksha over everything else. In another thread, someone mentioned the genocide perpetrated by Buddhists. Why is this lethargy (ahimsa and renunciation over everything) the case only in India and not in other countries? It worked with Tibet, but not other Southeast Asian countries. Mind you, wasn't it the Puranic Hindus who said that one should starve oneself to gain moksha. This doesn't jive with BG but Buddha was the one to break away from it. Personally, I feel to a large degree, that culture generally trumps religion unless religion is the basis for the civilization or a creation of that civilization as is the case with Sanatana Dharma. | |
| Author: | shiv [ 30 Mar 2008 01:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have come to believe that santana dharma should be called a "dharma" and not a religion - because it is primarily a dharma. Religions mean that god gets involved. God, as defined in Christianity or Islam is unnecessary for sanatana dharma, and the dharmic concept of "god" is nothing like those of the former religions. Note that only sanatana dharmis insist on saying "all gods are one". That is not accepted by either Islam or Christianity which insist that one god means a particular god as defined in in their belief system and not "all gods are one" Why then should sanatana dharma force itself to join this exclusive and intolerant thought process and join the religion club. If dharma is a code of conduct, the dharma comes first and gods are secondary. This is the direct opposite of Islam and Christianity in which the god is first and the code of conduct secondary to that god. | |
| Author: | Acharya [ 30 Mar 2008 01:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
shiv wrote: Note that only sanatana dharmis insist on saying "all gods are one". That is not accepted by either Islam or Christianity which insist that one god means a particular god as defined in in their belief system and not "all gods are one" Why then should sanatana dharma force itself to join this exclusive and intolerant thought process and join the religion club. This is only recent saying. It is not a historical saying | |
| Author: | shiv [ 30 Mar 2008 01:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Acharya wrote: shiv wrote: Note that only sanatana dharmis insist on saying "all gods are one". That is not accepted by either Islam or Christianity which insist that one god means a particular god as defined in in their belief system and not "all gods are one" Why then should sanatana dharma force itself to join this exclusive and intolerant thought process and join the religion club. This is only recent saying. It is not a historical saying Didn't Vivekananda say pretty much the same thing? | |
| Author: | mayurav [ 30 Mar 2008 04:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Keshav wrote: mayurav wrote: I think it is because of Buddhism which stunned the nation with its ahimsa and priority of renunciation and Moksha over everything else. In another thread, someone mentioned the genocide perpetrated by Buddhists. Why is this lethargy (ahimsa and renunciation over everything) the case only in India and not in other countries? It worked with Tibet, but not other Southeast Asian countries. Mind you, wasn't it the Puranic Hindus who said that one should starve oneself to gain moksha. This doesn't jive with BG but Buddha was the one to break away from it. Personally, I feel to a large degree, that culture generally trumps religion unless religion is the basis for the civilization or a creation of that civilization as is the case with Sanatana Dharma. I think you answered the question in the last part of your post. Religion is the basis of our civilization. More generally it could be that the same forcing function can have different effects based on the natural frequency of the substratum. Moksha is very desirable to the Hindus and therefore Buddhism resonated very well, but if everybody decides to pursue it disregarding and neglecting their abilities and duties at their station in life (svadharma) then society will be ruined. Maybe the Mongols and SE Asians did not greatly desire Moksha and Buddhism affected only a small portion of them. Maybe they were too focussed on Artha and Kama and Buddhism's focus on Moksha balanced their societies. Whereas a Hindu society which more or less balanced Kama, Artha, Dharma and Moksha was pushed more towards Moksha by Buddhism and was destabilized. | |
| Author: | satyarthi [ 30 Mar 2008 12:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
mayurav wrote: I think it is because of Buddhism which stunned the nation with its ahimsa and priority of renunciation and Moksha over everything else. Budhism didn't come to India from outside! It arose in India and swept through India without any aid of physical force. Therefore it is futile to someow disown Buddhism. India wasn't just ready for Budhism, but going by many such isms including the other great tradition Jainism, was a fertile ground for it. Going even further back in past, archaeological remains suggest even the Indus Valley civilization, which spanned a much vaster area than Egypt and Mesopotamia combined, was relatively very little militarised. Check the following book by Jane McIntosh. "A peaceful realm" Quote: Author Jane McIntosh meets this challenge by combining the best of current scholarship with her own wide-ranging and thoughtful analysis, to produce an appropriately tentative, yet consistent and plausible, view of the Indus civilization. In the author's own words, "it was an exceptionally well integrated state, in harmony with its environment, where warfare was absent and everyone led a comfortable existence under the benevolent leadership of a dedicated priesthood." The same genes show up in 20th century in Gandhi and Indian people falling head over heels for him. We can't disown this national trait by simply cursing Buddhism. Indian nation and dharma's character have a strong liberal, pacifist core. A dharma-yuddha is a war where the combatants put constraints on themselves in a moral conduct of war. Compare that to Islamic Jihad's conduct of a religious-war. India is different. Budhhism is a product of that character and can't be disowned when convenient. | |
| Author: | ShauryaT [ 30 Mar 2008 02:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
shiv wrote: I have come to believe that santana dharma should be called a "dharma" and not a religion - . OK, I was not insane after all | |
| Author: | shiv [ 30 Mar 2008 03:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ShauryaT wrote: shiv wrote: I have come to believe that santana dharma should be called a "dharma" and not a religion - . OK, I was not insane after all Not at all. You were dead right, | |
| Author: | Keshav [ 30 Mar 2008 04:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
shiv wrote: Didn't Vivekananda say pretty much the same thing? Vivekananda is new in the larger scheme of things. Historically speaking, I think we were much more arrogant about ourselves. Thats why "Aryavrath" is not defined by race, but by religion, and all those outside of India (i.e. not dharmic) are mleccha. Lots of Huns, Scythians, and what not were probably converted and given caste to work for the kings. Instead of slavery, this was our requirement for failure in battle. Quote: Why then should sanatana dharma force itself to join this exclusive and intolerant thought process and join the religion club? Sanatana Dharma cannot join this club simply because no interpretation of our theology can bring out the dangerous, exclusivist ideas, of Abrahamic religions. Its possible for particular sects (i.e. Vaishnavism, Shaivism, etc.) but the religion as a whole, but this won't happen simply because the idea of dharma has usually transcended these sects. Hindus have never fought each on religious grounds. It is, however, logically fallacious to say that "All Gods are One". It simply isn't true. If I say that "All Gods are One" and even one person disagrees with me, the whole theory is bunk. Every tom, dick, and harry has his own idea about the nature of God and in our society we have to be respectful to all the ideas. Thus, you have to agree to disagree. Either way, you believe you're right and he's wrong. Thats the model of interaction between Abrahamic and Dharmic in our world today. Ultimately, we believe Self-Realization is moksha. Others believe single-pointed devotion to their God is moksha. There is a difference. All Gods are not One. That Rig Vedic phrase, I think, has been taken out of context far too many times. All Vedic Gods are One. Indra and Kama might be a little wily some times, but nothing they have ever done goes as far as the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic God. Nothing. I somewhat disagree with the idea that Hinduism is not a religion in the Western sense. Historically speaking, I feel that was indeed a disconnect between traditions. That is, there were different religions based on devotion to a particular deity - Vishnu and Shiva in particular. The difference between Abrahamic division and division in Hinduism was that dharmic basis was placed on the Vedas which was concrete and the Abrahamic on Abraham who probably didn't exist. Thus, I can make up anything and say Abraham said it. You, however, could not enter a debate in India without knowledge of the Vedas and you could not justify your sect without proper understanding of it. Vaishnavism and Shaivism are thus closer to each other than Christianity and Islam, but if you think about, there are pretty much the same except for devotion to a particular deity. If Vishnu and Shiva combined (i.e. Harihara), there wouldn't be any division, would there? Hindus are far too "liberal and pacifist" at the core. A little arrogance will not make us bigots. Quote: We can't disown this national trait by simply cursing Buddhism. Indian nation and dharma's character have a strong liberal, pacifist core. A dharma-yuddha is a war where the combatants put constraints on themselves in a moral conduct of war. Compare that to Islamic Jihad's conduct of a religious-war. India is different. Budhhism is a product of that character and can't be disowned when convenient. Am I not Hindu if I completely bemoan this aspect of my culture? Thanks for the history though, I didn't realize it was this deep rooted. I suppose Voltaire was justified in saying "a peaceful and innocent people, equally incapable of hurting others or of defending themselves." | |
| Author: | vaman [ 30 Mar 2008 04:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Every lal, bal, and pal has his own idea  Keshav Saar I dont know if the above is common usage where you come from, Lal, Bal and Pal hold special significance in the Indian Freedom Struggle | |
| Author: | sanjaychoudhry [ 30 Mar 2008 04:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
To elaborate: Quote: Lal Bal Pal (Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Bipin Chandra Pal) were the Swadeshi triumvirate who advocated the Swadeshi movement involving the boycott of all imported items and the use of Indian-made goods in 1907. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lal_Bal_Pal | |
| Author: | Prem [ 30 Mar 2008 06:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Truth remains Truth Even Spoken by Islamist BC |
shiv wrote: ShauryaT wrote: shiv wrote: I have come to believe that santana dharma should be called a "dharma" and not a religion - . OK, I was not insane after all Not at all. You were dead right, From the beginning of time there have been onlee One Dharma and One Divine though the expression and manifestation may vary. There is no necessity to define this undefinable phenomenon but to recognize it in various forms and strenghten it. | |
| Author: | satyarthi [ 30 Mar 2008 07:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
shiv wrote: Acharya wrote: shiv wrote: Note that only sanatana dharmis insist on saying "all gods are one". That is not accepted by either Islam or Christianity which insist that one god means a particular god as defined in in their belief system and not "all gods are one" Why then should sanatana dharma force itself to join this exclusive and intolerant thought process and join the religion club. This is only recent saying. It is not a historical saying Didn't Vivekananda say pretty much the same thing? All these arise from few stanzas in the 7th chapter of the Gita, some excerpts from th Rgveda (akam sad vipra bahudhA vadanti), and some quotes from later texts, where essential identity of all Gods is proposed. Krishna says in Gita, that whichever Devata a person worship, Krishna enforces that person's devotion for that Devata, and in whichever form that Devata is approched, Krishna approaches the devotee in the same form, and whatever fruits a devotee desires from the Devata, it is Krishna that carries it to him. One must note that the usage of "I" by Krishna is synonymous with the Vedantic "I" or the all pervading self present in all. Rgvedic "ekam sadvipra..." similarly mentions that the essence of all ythe Devas is same. Sw. Vivekananda also quoted a shaiva text "shiva-mahimna-stotra" where it is mentioned that just as various rivers approach the same ocean, similarly through many straight or twisted paths, people approach the same God Shiva. So, this idea is not new. What was new as proposed by Sri Ramakrishna was that all "religions", including the modern ones like, Islam and Christianity were valid paths to the divine. This has created a problem for Hindus when they find that muslims and Christians don't particularly appreciate this. God is extremely clearly and exclusively defined in Islam and christianity, and this mixup with Indian Devas, isn't acceptable to them. Islam and Christianity have many aspects which are anti-Dharma. So a question arises whether Islamic and Christian Gods are to be included in the Dharma. IMHO, as long as Islam and Christianity maintain their exclusive doctrine, Dharma doesn't have to bother with them. There are already enough Devas and Asuras in Hinduism, no particular need to add a few more. And if anything in them is anti Dharma, then that can as well be called of "Asuric" origin rather than "Daivic". | |
| Author: | satyarthi [ 30 Mar 2008 07:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Keshav wrote: It is, however, logically fallacious to say that "All Gods are One". It simply isn't true. Qualify this with saying that all "real Gods" share an identity as aspects of the same supreme Godhead. But there are many people who call some entities "Gods" who qualify in their attributes to be called "Asuras". Those so called Gods can't be equated with the real Gods. Sri Aurobindo mentioned that the divine-personalities DO EXIST, and that there are Gods on all planes of existence and consciousness. The great Gods of Hnduism belong to a so called "Overmind" plane of consciousness, where they appear as separate personalities, but appear as aspects of one Godhead in the Supermind plane. Asuras and undivine personalities have no facility in higher planes of consciousness such as the "Overmind" or the "Supermind". They are confined to lower planes primarily mental-vital. He also mentioned that even though Gods appear as different personalities in "Overmind" with independent action, there is not likely to be any strife amongst them, since they are stationed in truth and are essentially aspects of a single divine. This is the key to understand Hindu idea of how disparate Gods can be "one". Quote: All Gods are not One. That Rig Vedic phrase, I think, has been taken out of context far too many times. All Vedic Gods are One. Indra and Kama might be a little wily some times, but nothing they have ever done goes as far as the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic God. Nothing. Yes. One has to clarify that a God is not some arbitrary idea. But has to qualify the test of true divinity. Allah in his brutality, exclusivity, and in being violently opposed to Dharma is more an Asura than a Deva from a Hindu viewpoint. Quote: Am I not Hindu if I completely bemoan this aspect of my culture? Of course you can bemoan Budhism. That wasn't the point of contention. The point was whether Budhism stunned India for the irst time or whether India is thus "stunned" from the very beginning.Quote: I suppose Voltaire was justified in saying "a peaceful and innocent people, equally incapable of hurting others or of defending themselves." I wouldn't jump to conclusions. What defended hinduism through the ages against all sorts of assaults? May be the Gods. Or may be this sense of "truth" in divinity kept hindus from yielding even while bending. Peace comes when internal discords are resolved. Indians were peaceful perhaps because they had resolved those spiritual/existential conflicts to a large degree. And any invading religion couldn't convince them otherwise, since it wasn't sword but an inner conviction reached from continued spiritual practices that had caused the conviction. And mere sword wouldn't convince the hindus otherwise. | |
| Author: | mayurav [ 31 Mar 2008 03:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
satyarthi wrote: mayurav wrote: I think it is because of Buddhism which stunned the nation with its ahimsa and priority of renunciation and Moksha over everything else. Budhism didn't come to India from outside! It arose in India and swept through India without any aid of physical force. Therefore it is futile to someow disown Buddhism. India wasn't just ready for Budhism, but going by many such isms including the other great tradition Jainism, was a fertile ground for it. ... We can't disown this national trait by simply cursing Buddhism. Indian nation and dharma's character have a strong liberal, pacifist core. A dharma-yuddha is a war where the combatants put constraints on themselves in a moral conduct of war. Compare that to Islamic Jihad's conduct of a religious-war. India is different. Budhhism is a product of that character and can't be disowned when convenient. You misread my posts disfavoring Buddhism. I have NOT disowned it. Pointing out the faults of a phenomenon does not say anything about ownership and causes of that phenomenon. The vedic religion emphasized Moksha, but made sure that society did not collapse due to everybody simultaneously rushing for Moksha at once abandoning their svadharma. From East and the West by Swami Vivekananda LINK Quote: What does Buddha or Christ prescribe for the man who neither wants Moksha nor is fit to receive it? — Nothing! Either you must have Moksha or you are doomed to destruction — these are the only two ways held forth by them, and there is no middle course. You are tied hand and foot in the matter of trying for anything other than Moksha. There is no way shown how you may enjoy the world a little for a time; not only all openings to that are hermetically sealed to you, but, in addition, there are obstructions put at every step. It is only the Vedic religion which considers ways and means and lays down rules for the fourfold attainment of man, comprising Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha. Buddha ruined us, and so did Christ ruin Greece and Rome! Then, in due course of time, fortunately, the Europeans became Protestants, shook off the teachings of Christ as represented by Papal authority, and heaved a sigh of relief. In India, Kumârila again brought into currency the Karma-Mârga, the way of Karma only, and Shankara and Râmânuja firmly re-established the Eternal Vedic religion, harmonising and balancing in due proportions Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha. Thus the nation was brought to the way of regaining its lost life; but India has three hundred million souls to wake, and hence the delay. To revive three hundred millions — can it be done in a day? The aims of the Buddhistic and the Vedic religions are the same, but the means adopted by the Buddhistic are not right. If the Buddhistic means were correct, then why have we been thus hopelessly lost and ruined? It will not do to say that the efflux of time has naturally wrought this. Can time work, transgressing the laws of cause and effect? Therefore, though the aims are the same, the Bauddhas for want of right means have degraded India. Perhaps my Bauddha brothers will be offended at this remark, and fret and fume; but there's no help for it; the truth ought to be told, and I do not care for the result. The right and correct means is that of the Vedas — the Jâti Dharma, that is, the Dharma enjoined according to the different castes — the Svadharma, that is, one's own Dharma, or set of duties prescribed for man according to his capacity and position — which is the very basis of Vedic religion and Vedic society. | |
| Author: | ramana [ 31 Mar 2008 04:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Whoa! How did history turn to religion? Guys please don't hijack threads like this. Its with great difficulty we are able to discuss history in BR. I will be nice this time but any one posting after this will get banned. | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 01 Apr 2008 06:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
shiv, can you pl. get back to me re.ICIH2009, the geopolitical session | |
| Author: | VRaghav [ 01 Apr 2008 07:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
'Mind over matter' has been the hallmark of Indic tradition and forms the bedrock of all history, cosmology, evolutionary theories, philosophy and literature of India. This immaterial, invisible yet palpably undeniable mind has been analyzed to death, literally, by the Masters of India. If one has to appreciate the Indic histories, then one has to immerse oneself into the psyche of the 'mind over matter' thinking. Arcane questions of utility, 'belief' etc. should be thrown away and a fresh approach should be adopted. Nibbling away and writing a book overnight does not make one expert on India. [i]“The only way that I will ever be great to myself, is not by what I do to my body, but what I do to my mind.†| |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 01 Apr 2008 08:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Vraghav, are you the same person who translated passages of the Rg and its references to the Saraswati in a thread on AIT (many moons ago) | |
| Author: | VRaghav [ 01 Apr 2008 08:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yes. I am the same person. | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 01 Apr 2008 08:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Wow, the constancy of mind over matter. if you still have an interest in such matters, ,you might consider attending ICIH2009, January 9-11, 2009, right after pravasi divas at the India international centre. wehave edtablished a prima facie case that the current narrative of the history is seriously distorted. This conference isteh first of a seris to establish th methdology and approach for a more accurate history. | |
| Author: | ramana [ 01 Apr 2008 09:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kaushal< I am tryinhg to get a print copy of this book. x-posted from E-books thread... ramana wrote: Folks I found this awesome book! Google Books Art of Transitional India Its by good intro by Vinayak Purohit from Popular Prakashan 1988. Long (1368 pages!) but very interesting. Read Chapter 3 & 4. Vsunder, CDs will be mailed next week. Try to read Chapter 3 & 4 please. | |
| Author: | ramana [ 01 Apr 2008 11:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dont know about this book  Many Heads, Arms and Eyes: Origin, Meaning and forms of Mulitplicity Doris Srinivasan | |
| Author: | ramana [ 03 Apr 2008 08:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Googel books Dardistan- G. Leitner Very interesting. | |
| Author: | Keshav [ 09 Apr 2008 03:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Not sure if we went over this but... To what extent was the Maratha expansion a religious awakening? I've heard reports of their excesses in Rajputana and Bengal, for example (although Shivaji was originally allied with Jaswant Singh, curiously). Was it simply a Maratha empire? Shivaji made it clear with "Hindavi Swarajya" but to what extent did his descendants carry out that vision? | |
| Author: | ramana [ 11 Apr 2008 08:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It was both. BTW I found a book on internet by Benoy Kumar Sarkar written in 1916 published from Shangai China "Hindu Culture as World Power". Very illuminating. He traces the Chinese and Japanese culture to the India of the Gupta age. | |
| Author: | Keshav [ 11 Apr 2008 08:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ramana didn't exactly answer the question properly, so I'll leave that one out there. Another question: How pervasive was Buddhism before Ashoka began his missionary expansion across India? Was it his mistake that he propagated Buddhism rather than strengthening the Hinduism that had already existed? Did he really believe in Buddha or was it an imperial move, like Constantine (no comparison between Christianity and Buddhism, though, or between Ashoka and Constantine) to unify the empire? If he attempted to unifyw with it, its possible that Buddhism had already begun to spread or he simply pushed for it. | |
| Author: | Acharya [ 11 Apr 2008 08:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Keshav wrote: Another question: How pervasive was Buddhism before Ashoka began his missionary expansion across India? Was it his mistake that he propagated Buddhism rather than strengthening the Hinduism that had already existed? Did he really believe in Buddha or was it an imperial move, like Constantine (no comparison between Christianity and Buddhism, though, or between Ashoka and Constantine) to unify the empire? If he attempted to unifyw with it, its possible that Buddhism had already begun to spread or he simply pushed for it. The Hinduism what we see today was different in that era. Vedic Dharma and Buddism combined together to form the Hinduism what we know today. So the question of strengthening Hinduism did not arise. Dharma prevailed everywhere and Buddhism replaced the Vedic Dharma through ought the land. | |
| Author: | ramana [ 11 Apr 2008 10:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have been reading a lot of Indian history books written in the Indian freedom struggle days from 1880s in Google, Internet archives, Digital Libraray etc. What strikes me is the early writers were quite clued in to disproving the AIT and all its versions. There was a regional grouping of Bengali and Tamil writers. After their exuent from history writing, somehow Indian history studies got hijacked and we see D.D.Kosambi and his minions distorting Indian history so badly that it is unrecognizable. I think the Indian scholars were able to handle the British Macaulay/Maxmueller strikes but succumbed to the American writers and their deep pockets. Its from D.D. Kosambi who was trained in US that the perversion starts and even now Romila Thapar is esconsed in Smithsonian! So the group to counter in not the Brits who did seed the early efforts but were successfully combatted, but the American writers. We need to understand why the Americans are inntent on this onslaught on Indian history. | |
| Author: | Rudradev [ 12 Apr 2008 12:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Keshav wrote: Not sure if we went over this but... To what extent was the Maratha expansion a religious awakening? I've heard reports of their excesses in Rajputana and Bengal, for example (although Shivaji was originally allied with Jaswant Singh, curiously). Was it simply a Maratha empire? Shivaji made it clear with "Hindavi Swarajya" but to what extent did his descendants carry out that vision? 1) What is this question supposed to mean? To what "extent" can one "carry out" a vision of Hindavi Swarajya? The "Hindu-ness" of a Hindu empire can hardly be gauged in simplistic, quantitative terms. One cannot apply the same model as one might with Muslim states, where such benchmarks as the prevailing degree of Sharia implementation could indicate how Islamic a regime was. Islamic religious texts explicitly articulate tenets of governance, statecraft and justice that are quite inseparable from any other aspect of Mohammedan doctrine, and no less the unquestionable word of Allah. There are no parallels to this in Hinduism. The Manusmriti and Arthashastra do not claim any sanction of religious authority, and it is not considered any "more" or "less" Hindu of a state to follow or reject their prescriptions. If there is any quantifiable extent to which a subcontinental empire of the Maratha era could be thought of as "more" or "less" Hindu, it is only in terms of the freedom and security enjoyed by its subjects to practice the religion of their ancestors, unmolested and with dignity. The "Hinduness" only becomes visible at all in comparison with Muslim states where the people of our land were deprived of that freedom and security. It is only measurable in terms of the degree of permanence and stability with which that freedom and security were reinstated, guaranteed and enforced. Shivaji grew up in a situation where his father, Shahji, was a Hindu feudatory of the Sultan of Bijapur. In times of peace, Shahji's subjects probably had more freedom to practice Hinduism than those of Bijapur's Muslim vassals. Yet, if the Sultan of Bijapur wanted to levy Jazia on Shahji's Hindu subjects, or destroy a temple on his land, there wasn't much Shahji could have done about it. The extreme fragility of those religious freedoms, was revealed when war broke out between the Mughals and Bijapur during Shivaji's early childhood. Being a frontier territory, Shahji's lands were overrun several times by armies on both sides. His people had to contend with rapine, enslavement, slaughter, temple desecration and pillage at the hands of Muslim armies, and had no one to turn to for justice. Shivaji grew up with the reality that without a Hindu authority having real power to provide protection and recourse, the lives, dignity and property of his father's Hindu subjects were worth nothing. That impression was further deepened by Shivaji's youthful experiences in the city of Bijapur, where he accompanied his father to court after the war. Shivaji tried to organize the Hindus of the city against the entrenched religious persecution they faced, demonstrating against cow-slaughter and so on, but received only condemnation from his father, a groveling Uncle Tom terrified of upsetting his Muslim liege. To the extent that Shivaji's empire, and that of his descendants, was a state where Hindus could live as Hindus without fear of religious persecution, it was an achievement of "Hindavi Swaraj" to the maximum degree possible, and remained so until its demise. The only other yardstick by which one could measure the Maratha Empire's "Hinduness" is by the extent to which its rulers practiced Hinduism in their own lives. There is plenty of evidence on record to support the assertion that many Maratha rulers were devout Hindus. When most Maharashtrians greet each other with the word "Ram", they are referring not to Ram of Ayodhya but the Marathi poet-philosopher Sant Ramdas. It was Shivaji who made this greeting customary, a practice that persists to this day. Shivaji was an ardent devotee of Ramdas, and spoke often of his own spiritual yearning to abdicate the throne and take up sanyas. He very often donned the garb of a sanyasi to travel incognito among his people, or reconnoitre enemy territory. This identification with ochre-garbed asceticism was so deeply embedded in the popular perception of Shivaji that it became a common theme in Marathi folklore. One tale tells of how a divine figure in sanyasi's robes helped divert a squad of Shaista Khan's soldiers, who had trapped Shivaji at a temple in Pune where he was attending a bhajan recital. Even at the twilight of Maratha power, Sadashivrao Bhau and his generals upheld Hindu martial tradition to the bitter end on the eve of Panipat, ritually breaking their fast on the last grain of rice in their besieged camp, before riding out with turmeric-smeared faces to fight Abdali's hordes. 2) The question "was it simply a Maratha empire?" suggests a contradiction between the Hindu nature of the Maratha kingdom and its identification with a particular ethnic, cultural, linguistic and geographical nationalism. Absent ill-advised attempts to superimpose modern viewpoints of "Indian nationhood vs. fissiparous regionalism" on the subject... there isn't any contradiction. Again, unlike the followers of Islam, no Hindu need ever choose between his family, his land, his people, his nation, and his religion. 3) I'm not sure what you're referring to as Maratha "excesses" in Rajputana and Bengal. "Excesses" relative to whom, by what yardstick, as seen against the context of what norms? Shivaji was never allied with Jaswant Singh in particular. Aurangzeb suspected that the two of them had an "understanding", but he suspected every single one of his Deccan generals of some sort of skullduggery when they failed abjectly against Shivaji (rather like the Paki obsession with H&D... if the Hindoos win, there must be treachery involved!) Aurangzeb even blamed Jai Singh of Amber, a commander of the Mughal Deccan army who had actually defeated Shivaji and forced him to sign the treaty of Purandhar, of later being complicit in Shivaji's escape from house arrest in Agra. So distrustful was Aurangzeb that he placed a triumvirate in charge of his Deccan army in the early 1670s, in the hope that the three generals (Jaswant Singh of Marwar, Dilir Khan of Afghanistan and the crown prince Muazzam) would keep tabs on each other. In fact, they intrigued against each other as well as the crown, and Shivaji took advantage of the situation by conniving with each of them. | |
| Author: | Rahul M [ 12 Apr 2008 01:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
maratha excess in bengal. http://mr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bargi the impact of bhaskar pandit on the psyche is shown by the fact that this lullaby is still widespread and in use. (I too listened to it in my childhood). | |
| Author: | Keshav [ 12 Apr 2008 01:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rudradev- Thanks a lot for your long response! Rudradev wrote: 3) I'm not sure what you're referring to as Maratha "excesses" in Rajputana and Bengal. "Excesses" relative to whom, by what yardstick, as seen against the context of what norms? This was what I was referring to when I talked about it being a Hindu empire. How did Marathas treat non-Maratha Hindus? Did they attempt to reconcile with them on religious grounds meaning "We are equal equal because we are Hindu brothers" or did the Maratha empire rob, steal, place higher taxes on other conquered Hindus than themselves. Rahul M- The article seems to have been written by a certain Mohammed Shah and has no absolutely no references. I don't doubt that the song is some proof for Maratha raiders, but I would prefer referenced sources. | |
| Author: | Rahul M [ 12 Apr 2008 02:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
keshav, the author may be suspect but I can assure you the article is more or less authentic. Bhaskar Pandit and his excesses are well documented. I can't throw you the sources offhand (almost all are in bengali anyway) but that article does match what I have in memory. My own take of the matter: the bargi excesses was not state policy of the Marathas but one of conquest against the muslim nawabs of bengal viz. they did conquer orrissa. Most of the urban places mentioned were dominated by the elite muslim class and hindu elites who were cooperating with the nawabs anyway like the Jagat Seths. the marathas of course saw no harm in looting them. the excesses in the rural areas were carried out by lowest rung soldiers w/o direct orders to that end by the generals. It is very unlikely that the generals would have any interest in looting or ravaging the countryside. this probably was an issue of indiscipline among the soldiers that the generals didn't know/didn't care. | |
| Author: | Rahul M [ 12 Apr 2008 02:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
FWIW, http://bardhaman.gov.in/histandback.html Quote: Marathas' Attack Maratha army from Nagpur under Bhaskar Pandit had entered into Bengal in 1740. At that time, Alivardi Khan was the Nawab(Governor) of Bengal-Bihar-Orissa. He set out for Orrissa to subdue Shuja-ud-din, deputy governor of Orrissa and on his return journey from Cuttack, he retreated to Barddhaman in April 1742 where the Marathas surrounded him. They cut off his supplies and driven by hunger, he had to attempt a retreat to Murshidabad via Katwa. At Nigum Sarai, fourteen miles from Katwa, a desperate rear-guard action was fought and he managed to reach Katwa. From June 1742 Katwa become the head quarter of the Maratha Army. The west of the Bhagirathi under this district thus temporarily passed into the hands of the Marathas. The Marathas committed unspeakable atrocities on the helpless population of this district. An eye-witness, Vaneshwar Vidhyalankar, the court pandit of the Maharaja of Barddhaman wrote - ' Shahu Rajah's troops are niggard of pity, slayers of pregnant women and infants, of Brahmins and the poor, fierce in spirit, expert in robbing the property of every one and committing every kind of sinful act. ...'. In 1742, while Bhaskar Pandit was celebrating Durga Puja at Katwa, Nawab Alibardi Khan fell upon him suddenly, after crossing theGanga at Uddharanpur, a mile north of Katwa and drove him out of Bengal. On march 1743, Raghuji Bhonsle, the Raja of Nagpur accompaind by Bhaskar Pandit, arrived at Katwa to realize the chouth or 1/4th of revenue which had been promised by the Mughal Emperor and in the presence of Peswa Balaji Rao Alivardi promised to pay the chauth of Bengal. But in the next year, in order to get rid of Marathas, Alivardi invited Bhaskar Pandit and his officers and got them assassinated. In December 1745, a battle was fought between Alivardi and Raghuji Bhonsle at Katwa and Raghuji was defeated and returned to Nagpur. In November 1746, Alivardi came down to Barddhaman and in a severely contested battle, defeated Janoji Bhonsle, the son of Raghuji. An end to the Maratha troubles could not be effected before 1751, in which year a treaty of peace was signed between Raghuji and Alivardi. Alivardi agreed to pay 12 lakhs of rupees annualy to Raghuji as the chauth of Bengal. | |
| Author: | csharma [ 12 Apr 2008 02:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ramana, extremely valid points. I think apart from American influence, people like Kosambi etc are also marxist in their outlook. It seems to me that America is probably concerned about Hindu nationalism. Given the history of Hindu suffering, they probably think a resurgent India nursing a sense of injustice could become an aggressive nation. They feel more comfortable with the westernized Indian elite which feels less connected to its past. When nationalism is devalued, states become more easier to manage, I suppose. It is the same as the US wanting to do business with Shah of Iran. America's desire to create a wetsernized state in Iraq should be seen in the same light. It is better for them when states dilute their nationalism. It can be done when the ruling elite is comfortable with western point of view. That is a little hypocritical when they themselves seek their roots and opride in the Roman and Greek civilizations. | |
| Author: | sanjaychoudhry [ 12 Apr 2008 08:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
csharma wrote: Ramana, extremely valid points. I think apart from American influence, people like Kosambi etc are also marxist in their outlook. It seems to me that America is probably concerned about Hindu nationalism. Given the history of Hindu suffering, they probably think a resurgent India nursing a sense of injustice could become an aggressive nation. They feel more comfortable with the westernized Indian elite which feels less connected to its past. When nationalism is devalued, states become more easier to manage, I suppose. It is the same as the US wanting to do business with Shah of Iran. America's desire to create a wetsernized state in Iraq should be seen in the same light. It is better for them when states dilute their nationalism. It can be done when the ruling elite is comfortable with western point of view. That is a little hypocritical when they themselves seek their roots and opride in the Roman and Greek civilizations. Basically, America's policy is to oppose native nationalism everywhere except in its own country. It knows that nationalists anchored to the traditions of the land pose the biggest danger to its worldwide interestes because they are assertive and sincerely try to make the country rich and powerful. In history, evey country has risen to greatness due to its nationalists, never due to communists, leftists or internationalists. America is deathly scared of Hindu nationalism and prevents everything it can to counter it. On one hand it rebuffs Hindu nationalists (denial of visa to Modi), on the other, it promotes the counter-force of leftists by showering them with awards to raise their profile (Guha, Pankaj Mishra, A. Roy, Romila Thapar, Praful Bidwai, Shekhar Gupta, etc.). In fact, name an Indian leftist and I can show you the Western award he got. Quote: That is a little hypocritical when they themselves seek their roots and opride in the Roman and Greek civilizations. This is the biggest hoax in history. Anglo Saxons have nothing to do with Rome or Greece. They know they do not have a history to write home about. Till 700 AD, the Anglo Saxons in the whole of Britian were living in huts. They did not even have cities, but small villages all over the land. So they try to hitch their bandwagon to another country's history and claim they are also a part of thier story. It is fraud they are committing. Romans were brutal invaders of Britain who extinguished the indigenous Celtic civlisation (faced with the Roman invasion, all Celts retreated to Wales, where Celtism is still found in patches). Since when have Britain and America become a part of the Roman or Greece civilisation? The Anglo Americans should stop brianwashing their youth with doctored history and teach their history as it was in reality. Claiming the invader's history as your own is laughable. | |
| Author: | csaurabh [ 12 Apr 2008 10:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
sanjaychoudhry wrote: Quote: That is a little hypocritical when they themselves seek their roots and opride in the Roman and Greek civilizations. This is the biggest hoax in history. Anglo Saxons have nothing to do with Rome or Greece. They know they do not have a history to write home about. Till 700 AD, the Anglo Saxons in the whole of Britian were living in huts. They did not even have cities, but small villages all over the land. So they try to hitch their bandwagon to another country's history and claim they are also a part of thier story. It is fraud they are committing. Romans were brutal invaders of Britain who extinguished the indigenous Celtic civlisation (faced with the Roman invasion, all Celts retreated to Wales, where Celtism is still found in patches). Since when have Britain and America become a part of the Roman or Greece civilisation? The Anglo Americans should stop brianwashing their youth with doctored history and teach their history as it was in reality. Claiming the invader's history as your own is laughable. Sorry for going off topic, but that is not very true. Britons and Germans don't really accept that they were 'barbarians' compared to the civilized Roman empire. There was a (vastly popular) game called Rome-Total War that depicted everything from a Roman point of view. There was this team which made a huge (free) total conversion mod called Europa Barbarorum which depicted history from the 'barbarians' point of view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_Barbarorum I had a conversation with a guy on another forum and he said that in Britain people feel it is worthwhile buying the game just to play with the Europa Barbarorum mod. I had another conversation with an Estonian nationalist who said that he was an atheist but if he were to believe in god he would believe in Taara, the ancient Estonian god rather than Christianity which was forced on them by a huge German army. | |
| Author: | sanjaychoudhry [ 12 Apr 2008 12:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Sorry for going off topic, but that is not very true. Britons and Germans don't really accept that they were 'barbarians' compared to the civilized Roman empire. Who said they were barbarians? Barbarians has a uncivlised ring to it. They were not barbarians, but primitive compared to Romans. This calling of Celts as uncivlised barbarians was early church propaganda. This is not much different than Muslims calling everything existing before Mohammad as "Jahiliya." The argument by church is that Christianity brought light to uncivlised people much like Islam brought light to India according to Muslims. There is a deliberate propaganda against Celts, such as stories of thier sacrificing virgins in the bogs. Celts of Europe and Britain had their own spiritual traditions and culture with many similarities to Hinduism such as ritual river bathing, sacred groves and sun worship. The society was driven by druids who were the priests and repository of all wisdom. (Druids had exactly the same status as Brahmins had in ancient India. Indeed many consider Druids as Brahmins who migrated from India thousands of years ago and took their traditions with them. Druid is incidentally derived from the word Dravid -- drav means liquid and vid means knowledge, hence one who is immersed in knowledge.) Still, the druidic or Celtic civilisation was primitive and agricultural, built around small villages that dotted riversides or the coast. It was not imperial or city based with a well-organised bureaucracy like Rome or Greece. Worse, it is doubtful if Celts knew how to write, as not a single pre-Roman inscription or manuscript has been found in all of Britain or Europe. That is why it is said that Romans introduced civilisation to Europe and Britian -- they built roads, created cities, introduced bureaucracy and brought written script. When the Roman legions withdrew abruptly from Britain in about 300 AD, there was total chaos as the country was defenseless since the Celtic army had been destroyed and the Romans packed up and left. Benefitting from this, the Anglo Saxons from across the Channel started migrating in large numbers and establishing communities all along the eastern coast of England. There was utter chaos in British society and there is no record of what happened and what wars were fought between Anglo Saxons and native Britions. It was only in 8th or 9th century that first Anglo Saxons kingdoms started appearing. Entire Britain was still pagan. This 500-year period of withdrawl of Roman legions from Britian to the establishment of Anglo Saxon kingdoms is known as the Dark Age. It is against this historical background that Britons now claim Roman civilisaiton as their own and tag along on the Roman and Greek bandwagon. This is because their history before 700 AD is totally dark with no records or monuments. The earliest monuments they have extant are the Roman temples to Mithras and the Hadrian wall built by the Romans. Before that there is absolutely nothing -- no inscriptions, no monuments, no excavated cities. The only thing they have is Stonehenge whose origins are full of mystery. So instead of writing about this history of theirs, the Brits and the Americans try to yoke their civlisational bandwagon to Greek and Roman civilisations, which is stretching things a bit too far. It saves them from looking bad in front of Egypt, India and China and they also get a few boasting rights. That is all. The only Celtic personality who fought tooth and nail against the invading Romans was the Queen Boudica. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica She can be likened to Jhansi ki Rani of India. She was defeated and killed by Romans and is now supposed to be buried by popular imagination under platform 10 of King's Cross station of London. She is all the Brits know of their kings and queens before 700 AD. Incidentally, the myth of King Arthur relates to the Dark Age of Britain when there was total chaos after the Roman legions had left. It is beleived this myth may have been based on a roman soldier who stayed behind in Britian and rallied the local Celts to take on the Anglo Saxons who were arriving in huge numbers from the mainland Europe. | |
| Author: | Rudradev [ 12 Apr 2008 07:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: This was what I was referring to when I talked about it being a Hindu empire. How did Marathas treat non-Maratha Hindus? Did they attempt to reconcile with them on religious grounds meaning "We are equal equal because we are Hindu brothers" or did the Maratha empire rob, steal, place higher taxes on other conquered Hindus than themselves? What was the need for a 17th-century Hindu empire in India to distinguish itself from Muslim empires, by means of "reconciliation" with those it conquered? The Muslim empires had already distinguished themselves by means of imposing Jaziya, destroying temples, and all that other lovely stuff. The distinction that such institutionalized persecution would no longer apply under Maratha suzerainty, certainly wasn't lost on the non-Maratha Hindu rulers who submitted to the Maratha empire. The Marathas may have cited Hindu identity as common ground when attempting to cement alliances with non-Muslim states, but in the context of uniting against a common enemy who happened to be non-Hindu rather than appealing to a "brotherhood among Hindus". This cannot be compared to, say, Shah Waliullah of Delhi and Najib Khan of the Rohillas inviting their foreign Muslim brother Ahmed Shah Abdali to invade the subcontinent in the name of Islamic reconquista. However, what would the Marathas have gained by compromising their authority over vassal states which came under the sway of their empire? I expect that's what you mean by attempting to reconcile with other conquered Hindus as "equal equal Hindu brothers", isn't it? It's not as if appealing to the Hindu identity of the masses ruled by those vassals would have made a difference... this wasn't a situation of parliamentary politics and vote-banking. What mattered was the loyalty of tributary feudal lords, who didn't always make their decisions based on religious identity or even Maratha identity. Muslim vassals of Shivaji's empire, such as the Sultan of Golconda, remained loyal even while Shivaji's own brother Vyankoji rose in rebellion from his fortress at Jinjee. It is all very well for Romila Thapar's ilk of "historians" to talk of how the Marathas' "greedy" imposition of harsh taxes and indemnities on their non-Maratha vassals was singularly responsible for alienating potentially valuable allies. No doubt the Maratha empire levied taxes and tributes on its vassals, Maratha as well as non-Maratha: "Chauth" was a sort of "protection money" tribute collected from subsidiary allies; "Sardeshmukhi" was a land tax. Paying them was probably not fun for the vassals. However, it's worth remembering that this was how empires financed themselves at the time. It is hardly appropriate to place the onus of maintaining "Hindavi Swaraj" entirely on the Marathas, to the extent of expecting them to finance an empire on love and fresh air just so that the Jats, Sikhs, Rajputs and others who came under their sway might be moved to make common cause against Muslim depredations. The Peshwa supplied the Sikhs with munitions and equipment crucial to their recapture of Lahore from Durrani Afghans; he militarily supported the Jats under Suraj Mal against the onslaught of Najib Khan's Rohillas. Yet, when the Marathas refused to let their Sikh, Rajput and Jat allies sack Delhi (a Maratha protectorate and also their only reservoir of supplies in the North) on the eve of the Third Battle of Panipat... what did those "allies" do? They walked out and left the Marathas, besieged by Abdali's forces athwart their supply lines, to fight the Afghans alone or starve. Or, in the case of the Rajput princes of Jodhpur and Amber, actually joined themselves with the Afghan forces. Would such "allies" really have proved more loyal to the idea of "Hindavi Swaraj" if only the Marathas hadn't charged them taxes and tributes (and perhaps allowed them to sack Delhi?) Certainly that is the view of our Marxist JNU historians. Then again, those historians are intent on maintaining the ideological stereotype that Islamic unity was a superior nation-building force compared to Hindu revival, which was doomed to fail because Hindus could not "think big enough" to transcend regional rivalries. Which is the entire relevance of this discussion to the present thread And of course, as with any contemporary armed expedition anywhere in the world at that time, Maratha forces were expected to live off the land in their theatre of operations. Large armies invading faraway provinces certainly placed a burden on the people of those provinces, seizing local harvests and resources to feed themselves. It was also common for such armies to destroy what fields and crops they did not plunder, a tactical denial of supplies and resources to unfriendly forces who might have to traverse that ground later. Which brings us again to Rahul M wrote: maratha excess in bengal. http://mr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bargi the impact of bhaskar pandit on the psyche is shown by the fact that this lullaby is still widespread and in use. (I too listened to it in my childhood). The word "excess" is apparently very easy to trot out, so once again I must ask, "excess" in comparison to what? To the tender mercies of the Khilji-descended Afghans, who ruled Bengal all the way from the demise of the Sena empire to the arrival of the British? Are the inevitable consequences of a large invading army living off Bengali land more "excessive" than the trauma of Bengal famines engineered by the British? Were the Maratha rampages more "excessive" than those of Mughal, Khilji and other armies which came before and after? And what norm, exactly, are any of these being described as "excessive" relative to? | |
| Author: | Keshav [ 12 Apr 2008 10:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rudradev wrote: The Peshwa supplied the Sikhs with munitions and equipment crucial to their recapture of Lahore from Durrani Afghans; he militarily supported the Jats under Suraj Mal against the onslaught of Najib Khan's Rohillas. Yet, when the Marathas refused to let their Sikh, Rajput and Jat allies sack Delhi (a Maratha protectorate and also their only reservoir of supplies in the North) on the eve of the Third Battle of Panipat... what did those "allies" do? They walked out and left the Marathas, besieged by Abdali's forces athwart their supply lines, to fight the Afghans alone or starve. Or, in the case of the Rajput princes of Jodhpur and Amber, actually joined themselves with the Afghan forces. But why though?! This type of discussion really makes my blood boil primarily because I don't understand why no one worked together! What was the point of withdrawing if they knew the Afghanis could successfully invade India and later on provide problems for them? Only Chanakya, Chandragupta and Samudragupta seemed to have had that far flung vision of unity. Were they really that naive about Afghani (or foreign, in general) intentions? Quote: Would such "allies" really have proved more loyal to the idea of "Hindavi Swaraj" if only the Marathas hadn't charged them taxes and tributes (and perhaps allowed them to sack Delhi?) Considering how little I know about details, I can't say either way, but according to how you've painted the picture, it doesn't seem likely that those taxes would've have meant much. I suppose belief among Hindus has always been a private affair (barring holidays) because it always seems like ethnicity and regionalism takes precedence over national security. Of course, I suppose there was no hard and fast concept of nation then, either. We like to say that Maharana Pratap fought for the Hindu cause - the reality is, I don't think he would've accepted the suzerainity of anyone else except himself, regardless of whether or not that person was a Hindu. In the same way, the others did not want to be under anyone else. Quote: Certainly that is the view of our Marxist JNU historians. Then again, those historians are intent on maintaining the ideological stereotype that Islamic unity was a superior nation-building force compared to Hindu revival, which was doomed to fail because Hindus could not "think big enough" to transcend regional rivalries. I'll be honest and say I must be one of those brainwashed people, because thats how I see it to some degree. Islamic unity may not be great, because obviously they fought amongst each other, but it was certainly greater than that of Hindus, for whom religion was not a community construct - ethnicity determined that, not religion. However, we don't know how a Hindu revival would have panned out, if at all it happened, because it was snubbed out by the British. | |
| Author: | ramana [ 12 Apr 2008 11:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
This is a beautiful small book of 50 pages and a must read to get an idea of the early decades thought process of Indian intellectual elite. Hindu art: its humanism and modernism; an introductory essay (1920) By Benoy Kumar Sarkar he had his own group of scholars called Panini Group! Not the sandwich maker! ---------- I have been reading this book Advanced history of India by Srinivasa Iyengar Kaushal he was principal Mrs AVN College! | |
| Author: | Keshav [ 13 Apr 2008 11:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ramana- I am currently reading the Rangarajan version of Chanakyas "Arthashastra", but I remember you talking about a version you enjoyed that was put out by the Indian Army. Was this you and if so, do you know where I might find a copy? One of the differences is of Book 14, which supposedly is a repository of potions and herbal concoctions that produced certain results. Chanakaya didn't really believe in magic or astrology, but apparently he did believe certain herbal mixes could produce what we would consider magical effects. Does the Indian Army version of this contain this chapter? Its missing from Rangarajan's version by Penguin Classics. | |
| Author: | ramana [ 14 Apr 2008 12:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I am sorry I think you are mistaking me for someone else. I too have same version. | |
| Author: | Keshav [ 14 Apr 2008 12:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
ramana wrote: I am sorry I think you are mistaking me for someone else. I too have same version. Do you know if the Indian Army put out another version? | |
| Author: | ramana [ 14 Apr 2008 12:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't think so. IA doesn't put out books. Definitely not ancient books. The seculars will get them before you can say Sachar. Don't know where you got this. | |
| Author: | Keshav [ 14 Apr 2008 01:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
ramana wrote: I don't think so. IA doesn't put out books. Definitely not ancient books. The seculars will get them before you can say Sachar. Don't know where you got this. Must've been dreaming, sorry. | |
| Author: | Sanjay M [ 14 Apr 2008 02:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71O8LzOWaWo | |
| Author: | Keshav [ 14 Apr 2008 04:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sanjay M wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71O8LzOWaWo ... Africa is already almost completely Abrahamic, though, isn't it? I think the only major pre-Abrahamic tradition is Yoruba and even that is fading out quickly. Africa is set to be the most Christian continent anywhere - ... and yet their still dirt poor. I guess Jesus doesn't preach the gospel of wealth. | |
| Author: | Airavat [ 14 Apr 2008 08:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rudradev wrote: Yet, when the Marathas refused to let their Sikh, Rajput and Jat allies sack Delhi (a Maratha protectorate and also their only reservoir of supplies in the North) on the eve of the Third Battle of Panipat... what did those "allies" do? There were no Sikh or Rajput forces with the Marathas at Delhi or at anytime in the Panipat campaign. The Jat ruler Suraj Mal left the Marathas because they opened negotiations with the Shia Nawab of Awadh and offered to make him Wazir of the Mughal Empire. Suraj Mal wanted his proxy, the Sunni Imad-ul-mulk to be made Wazir. Rudradev wrote: They walked out and left the Marathas, besieged by Abdali's forces athwart their supply lines, to fight the Afghans alone or starve. Or, in the case of the Rajput princes of Jodhpur and Amber, actually joined themselves with the Afghan forces. Neither of these rulers were anywhere close to Panipat; so they could not join their forces to the Afghans. After the battle, when Ahmad Shah Abdali found that he had gained nothing by way of finances from his victory, he sent letters to the Hindu rulers of Jaipur, Bharatpur, Jodhpur demanding tribute from them. But since his army was now in no shape to enforce these claims, these rulers ignored his threats. Rudradev wrote: Rahul M wrote: maratha excess in bengal. Were the Maratha rampages more "excessive" than those of Mughal, Khilji and other armies which came before and after? And what norm, exactly, are any of these being described as "excessive" relative to? This is true. Maratha plundering did not involve the taking and sale of slaves or the conversion of prisoners, which were common features of the campaigns by Muslim armies. The leftists make similar equal-equal claims of plundering by Sikh armies. | |
| Author: | SBajwa [ 14 Apr 2008 03:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: There were no Sikh or Rajput forces with the Marathas at Delhi or at anytime in the Panipat campaign. The Jat ruler Suraj Mal left the Marathas because they opened negotiations with the Shia Nawab of Awadh and offered to make him Wazir of the Mughal Empire. Suraj Mal wanted his proxy, the Sunni Imad-ul-mulk to be made Wazir. Exactly!!! Sikhs in 1765 were divided into 13 bands (called misls) which were on overall command of Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia. Jassa Singh Ahluwalia is known as "Baandi Chhor". Eventhough Sikh Misls were not supporting or helping Marathas but they stopped Afghanis to take the looty booty and slaves back to the bazaars of middle east. For this reason alone Durrani (ahmad shah abdali) attacked punjab 9 more times and blow up golden temple with gun powder (more than twice). His attacks didn't crossed punjab while the mughals were ruling at Delhi from Najafgarh to Mehrauli. Why Jassa Singh ahluwalia is known as Baandi Chhor is because in one guerilla raid he rescued over 2200 girls (slaves or Baandi) which were captured for the bazaars of middle east. One of the Sikh bands under the leadership of Baghel Singh Dhaliwal actually captured Delhi but Sikhs could not decide on who to make the emperor (both Jassa singh ahluwalia and jassa singh ramgarhia want to sit on the throne) thus they had to contend with locating and making nine historical gurdwaras in Delhi associated with Sikh history. Gurdwara Sis Ganj at Chandani Chowk where Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur was beheaded on the orders of Aurungzeb. Gurdwara Rakab Ganj at Raisina village (now it is New Delhi) where headless body of Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur was cremated. Gurdwara Bangla Sahib at a palace of Raja Jai Singh of Jaipur where seventh Guru Guru Har kishen ji stayed during his visit to Delhi. Gurdwara Majnu Teela where first guru Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji visited. Gurdwara Nanak Piayo where first guru Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji visited. Gurdwara Bala Sahib Gurdwara Moti Bagh Sahib Gurdwara Damdama Sahib Gurdwara Mata Sundri Ji where widow of Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji lived. Gurdwara Martyrdom place of Baba Banda Singh Bahadur Mehrauli where Banda Bahadur along with 760 Sikhs was beheaded one by one without converting. | |
| Author: | Rudradev [ 14 Apr 2008 04:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Airavat wrote: Rudradev wrote: Yet, when the Marathas refused to let their Sikh, Rajput and Jat allies sack Delhi (a Maratha protectorate and also their only reservoir of supplies in the North) on the eve of the Third Battle of Panipat... what did those "allies" do? There were no Sikh or Rajput forces with the Marathas at Delhi or at anytime in the Panipat campaign. The Jat ruler Suraj Mal left the Marathas because they opened negotiations with the Shia Nawab of Awadh and offered to make him Wazir of the Mughal Empire. Suraj Mal wanted his proxy, the Sunni Imad-ul-mulk to be made Wazir. Airavat-ji, Why did the Sikh or Rajput forces have to be physically near Delhi? It was a Maratha protectorate and the Marathas had declared their unwillingness to allow them to sack it. Besides, it was east of the Sikh/Rajput dominions while the Durranis were approaching from their west. The fact remains, Maratha pronouncements to their allies that Delhi was not to be sacked, was interpreted by those allies as high-handedness, and cited as a reason not to bestir themselves against the Durranis. This, in spite of the fact that Maratha munitions helped the Sikhs to liberate Lahore from the Afghan garrisons of Abdali's viceroy only three years earlier. The only Sikh ruler who kept his commitment to support the Marathas was Ala Singh of Patiala. Sadashivrao Bhau did indeed negotiate with the Nawab of Avadh to support the ascension of Nanasaheb Peshwa's heir Vishwas Rao to the throne in Delhi. This actually suggests that the Marathas *did* have a broader vision than regional imperialism, incorporating the importance of national emblems. Reclaiming Indraprastha, the ancient seat of kings and the capital of Muslim empires since the eleventh century, for Hindavi Swaraj would have had colossal significance throughout the nation. It would also have made a profound psychological impact on the remaining Muslim powers in the subcontinent. It was chiefly the Kafir threat to Delhi in the first place, that so agitated Shah Waliullah. However, as you say, Suraj Mal wanted his own candidate to become Wazir; this was opposed by the Marathas, who after all had fealty from Delhi; and Suraj Mal walked out from the alliance. Airavat wrote: Rudradev wrote: They walked out and left the Marathas, besieged by Abdali's forces athwart their supply lines, to fight the Afghans alone or starve. Or, in the case of the Rajput princes of Jodhpur and Amber, actually joined themselves with the Afghan forces. Neither of these rulers were anywhere close to Panipat; so they could not join their forces to the Afghans. After the battle, when Ahmad Shah Abdali found that he had gained nothing by way of finances from his victory, he sent letters to the Hindu rulers of Jaipur, Bharatpur, Jodhpur demanding tribute from them. But since his army was now in no shape to enforce these claims, these rulers ignored his threats. I was referring to the period before Panipat, not after. From this link: Sadashivrao_Bhau Quote: Durrani attempted to turn the tide against the Marathas by allying with other Rohilla chieftains including the Nawab of Awadh, Prince Vijay Singh of Jodhpur, and Kachawa Prince Madho Singh of Amber. Durrani also recruited Afghans displaced by the war, and by August 1760, Durrani had 120,000 soldiers to block Maratha passage to the south. Durrani isolated the Marathas financially and politically by having his allies convincing other nobles to break their alliances with Bhau and not fund his campaign. At the very least, it appears that Jodhpur and Amber were contributing to the severance of Maratha supply lines, which enabled Durrani to besiege the Marathas and force them to fight at a time and place of his choosing. I may be wrong. After the battle of Panipat, you are right of course. It is important to mention this... Panipat 1761 was a rout for the Marathas, but it was a pyrrhic victory for the Durranis. Ahmed Shah Abdali had come with a huge force, likely intending to re-create an Islamic sultanate in India. The cost of victory was so high (some 40,000 Afghans died) that Abdali gave up on his expansionist ambitions and had to be satisfied with some sacking and brigandage before going home. Everybody talks about Panipat-III as the end of Maratha expansion and the beginning of their decline; it was, but it also put paid to the last grab that Islamic powers were ever able to make for Delhi. After Panipat, Muslim power in the north only persisted in Avadh and Bengal. The staggering costs of Panipat weakened the Afghans and paved the way for the Sikhs to sweep across the erstwhile trans-Indus possessions of the Durrani empire, establishing an empire of their own. It was only in peninsular India that Muslim rulers Haider Ali of Mysore and Asaf Jah of Hyderabad might have received some respite from relative Maratha weakness following Panipat-III... Hyder Ali was able to establish himself in the Malabar in the following decade. Thus the story of Abdali's invasion is far different from the invasion of Ghauri or the Khiljis six centuries earlier. He wasn't able to hold Delhi or re-create a dominant Islamic kingdom in the subcontinent, and to the bitter disappointment of the Shah Waliullah types, he had to limp off home instead. Yes, the non-Muslim forces did not unite to resist him, just as had not united to face earlier Islamic invasions. However, for the first time they were facing something more than a shaky coalition of regional fiefdoms... they were facing a fully established Maratha empire whose writ extended up to Delhi, and an emerging Sikh empire that was poised to assert its writ all the way to the borders of Afghanistan. | |
| Author: | Rudradev [ 14 Apr 2008 06:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
In fact, this is the most interesting thing. When the British EIC began its political expansion in India, the FIRST places they targeted were the relatively weak Muslim states. See this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:India1760_1905.jpg The yellow area is the height of Maratha expansion. This declined after Panipat, but remained strong, though increasingly decentralized with more power devolving from the Peshwa to his vassals (Holkar, Shinde, Gaekwad etc.) The green areas to the Northwest (Punjab, Multan etc.) became part of the Sikh empire shortly after Panipat. Only Avadh, Bengal, the Nizam's dominions and Mysore were Muslim-ruled. They were also the FIRST places that the British targeted... Nizam's Dominions (Carnatic Wars), Bengal (Plassey and Buxar), Avadh (treaty of 1765) and Mysore (Srirangapatnam 1799). Only after massively developing their political and military muscle on the spoils of victory over these Muslim states, did the British feel empowered enough to take on the Sikhs and the Marathas in the following century. Why? Because the Islamic states of India in 1760 were also the weakest states... Panipat or no Panipat. The real powers in the subcontinent, even after Panipat, were the Sikhs and the Marathas. The Kafirs had, for all practical purposes, finished subcontinental Islam as a political force to reckon with. Had the second Anglo-Sikh war coincided with the resistance of the gangetic and deccan rulers in the First War of Independence, we might have been living in a very different India today. | |
| Author: | Airavat [ 15 Apr 2008 02:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rudradev wrote: Why did the Sikh or Rajput forces have to be physically near Delhi? How else were they supposed to sack it? Ironically it were the Marathas who had sacked Delhi and the surrounding villages several times before Panipat. This is why the villagers from Panipat to the borders of Bharatpur gave no refuge or aid to the Marathas escaping from the rout in 1761. Rudradev wrote: Sadashivrao Bhau did indeed negotiate with the Nawab of Avadh to support the ascension of Nanasaheb Peshwa's heir Vishwas Rao to the throne in Delhi.  Rudradev wrote: At the very least, it appears that Jodhpur and Amber were contributing to the severance of Maratha supply lines, which enabled Durrani to besiege the Marathas and force them to fight at a time and place of his choosing. I may be wrong. Maratha supply lines were nowhere close to these kingdoms! The Bhau advanced north from Delhi, in the hope of severing the Abdali's supply lines running through the Punjab. He captured Kunjpura and wiped out the Afghans holding this base.....when his food supply ran out the Bhau moved further north towards Patiala. At this time the Abdali army, from their base in Ruhelkhand across the Yamuna, crossed that river and closed the path between Panipat and Delhi. Rudradev wrote: After Panipat, Muslim power in the north only persisted in Avadh and Bengal..... It was only in peninsular India that Muslim rulers Haider Ali of Mysore and Asaf Jah of Hyderabad might have received some respite from relative Maratha weakness following Panipat-III... Muslim power declined worldwide in the 18th century because of the decline in the effectiveness of traditional cavalry formations. And it survived in Hyderabad and Mysore because European officers transformed the infantry and artillery formations of these Muslim rulers enabling them to take on the British East India Company. The Marathas who had begun as light cavalry also adopted infantry formations (though manned by non-Marathas) under European command. Rudradev wrote: Only after massively developing their political and military muscle on the spoils of victory over these Muslim states, did the British feel empowered enough to take on the Sikhs and the Marathas in the following century. Very exaggerated statement...but not your fault since you were provoked into this by the generalized remarks on "Maratha plundering" by other members. In the Anglo-Maratha war of 1803 the principal fighting on the Maratha side was done by non-Marathas! All of the important "Maratha" garrisons in North India had Purbias and Ruhelas fighting the advancing British under General Lake. At the Battle of Laswari 13 battlaions manned by Purbias and Ruhelas fought the British to the end; their only cavalry were 1200 Marathas under Gulab Rai Kadam who naturally were powerless against the accurate British firing and escaped from the field without making a single charge. In the south Arthur Wellesley, who won the important Battle of Assaye, against the combined armies of Scindia and Bhonsle records, "Their infantry fought well and stood by their guns to the last....their cavalry did us but little mischief." And it were these Purbia and Ruhela infantrymen who led the revolt of 1857. Even in the Maratha kingdoms of Gwalior and Indore, the non-Maratha army (Purbias and Ruehlas) joined the revolt while the Maratha rulers remained loyal to the British. In fact the decline of the Rajput states of Rajasthan in that same period came about because of the same decline in cavalry, which had been their principal formation in the resistance to the Turk invasions. Since the best infantry, Purbias of UP-Bihar and Ruhelas of Western UP, were first hired in the EIC army and then taken up in Maratha armies, very few reached the out-of-way region of Rajasthan. And for the same reason few Europeans came to this area, being absorbed first in the armies of other Indian kingdoms. This is why the Rajput states lost their independence to Mahadji Scindia and later saw their lands being ravaged by the Pindari and Ruhela brigands of Holkar and Scindia. They had no modern infantry to deter these brigands, and this why they sought British protection. | |
| Author: | ravi_ku [ 15 Apr 2008 02:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: This actually suggests that the Marathas *did* have a broader vision than regional imperialism, incorporating the importance of national emblems. Reclaiming Indraprastha, the ancient seat of kings and the capital of Muslim empires since the eleventh century, for Hindavi Swaraj would have had colossal significance throughout the nation. It would also have made a profound psychological impact on the remaining Muslim powers in the subcontinent. It was chiefly the Kafir threat to Delhi in the first place, that so agitated Shah Waliullah. However, as you say, Suraj Mal wanted his own candidate to become Wazir; this was opposed by the Marathas, who after all had fealty from Delhi; and Suraj Mal walked out from the alliance. This is where I think we are still in thinking on the lines of the "historians". Why was delhi more important than say awadh or even gwalior or agra? The "emperor" of delhi was a protectorate of marathas. Let us not make the mistake of reading history with todays lenses. Of course the marathas had a broader vision of putting back the hindus at the top seat rather than regional imperialism, but I think we are making the mistake of seeing all the marathas as the same. What was the interplay between peshwa, gwalior and other maratha sartraps? | |
| Author: | Rahul M [ 15 Apr 2008 07:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
rudradev wrote: Quote: Rahul M wrote: Quote: maratha excess in bengal. http://mr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bargi the impact of bhaskar pandit on the psyche is shown by the fact that this lullaby is still widespread and in use. (I too listened to it in my childhood). The word "excess" is apparently very easy to trot out, so once again I must ask, "excess" in comparison to what? To the tender mercies of the Khilji-descended Afghans, who ruled Bengal all the way from the demise of the Sena empire to the arrival of the British? Are the inevitable consequences of a large invading army living off Bengali land more "excessive" than the trauma of Bengal famines engineered by the British? Were the Maratha rampages more "excessive" than those of Mughal, Khilji and other armies which came before and after? And what norm, exactly, are any of these being described as "excessive" relative to? Dear Rudradev, the word Excess in the english language AFAIK is not nescessarily meant to be used for a comparative purpose . The army(or parts thereof) of Bhaskar Pandit did commit excesses in bengal that have been well documented and widely accepted. How is the fact that foreign invaders whether before or after this particular maratha army were more brutal relevant to the fact that excesses were commited by this army ?? I'm really surprised at this reaction of yours. Certainly, as a nation we don't expect that each and everyone of our rulers were benevolent just based on the fact that they were Indian/Hindu/Maratha/XYZ ?? That, I suppose is called racism and we would do better to leave it to our birathers to the west. And kindly also go through my following posts on page 6. regards. | |
| Author: | Rudradev [ 15 Apr 2008 08:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
deleted | |
| Author: | Keshav [ 15 Apr 2008 08:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rahul M wrote: Certainly, as a nation we don't expect that each and everyone of our rulers were benevolent just based on the fact that they were Indian/Hindu/Maratha/XYZ ?? Do not confuse race with ethnicity and religion. To say that warfare differs from people to people is not racism, but based on the idea that people are different from culture to culture. I would say that some have a vested interest in presenting Hindus as morally superior because they are Hindu. But do not confuse this with racism. Racism is primarily a Western phenomena; India seems to have its own set of problems. | |
| Author: | Rudradev [ 15 Apr 2008 08:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This ex·cess Audio Help (Äk-sÄ›s', Ä›k'sÄ›s') Pronunciation Key n. 1. The state of exceeding what is normal or sufficient: rains that filled the reservoirs to excess. 2. An amount or quantity beyond what is normal or sufficient; a surplus. 3. The amount or degree by which one quantity exceeds another: Profit is the excess of sales over costs. 4. Intemperance; overindulgence: drank to excess. 5. A behavior or an action that exceeds proper or lawful bounds: tried to avoid engaging in emotional excesses such as hysteria and fits of temper. adj. Being more than is usual, required, or permitted: skimming off the excess fat. See Synonyms at superfluous. tr.v. ex·cessed, ex·cess·ing, ex·cess·es To eliminate the job or position of. Apart from the transitive verb ("to excess" meaning "to lay off/fire"), every single definition of the word "excess" is comparative in nature. I'm sure you didn't mean that the Marathas were "laying off" people in Bengal, so the question stands. Invading armies of that era, seized agricultural produce, wealth, provisions etc. from the land in the local theatre to support their operations. They also destroyed what they did not take, in order to deny it to their enemies. This was par for the course, for every army-- whether their eventual intention was to rule with "benevolence" or otherwise. So whom or what is Maratha behavior in Bengal being described as "excess" relative to? Having to defend your argument with cheap shots of "racism" and comparisons to Pakistan doesn't do a whole lot for your credibility. | |
| Author: | bala [ 15 Apr 2008 09:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rediscovery of India [quote]Embarking on an exhilarating journey across the Indian subcontinent to unravel its sights, sounds and achievements is Discovery Channel’s new six-part series beginning this Wednesday. “The Story of India†| |
| Author: | Rahul M [ 15 Apr 2008 09:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
keshav : Quote: Quote: Rahul M wrote: Certainly, as a nation we don't expect that each and everyone of our rulers were benevolent just based on the fact that they were Indian/Hindu/Maratha/XYZ ?? Do not confuse race with ethnicity and religion. To say that warfare differs from people to people is not racism, but based on the idea that people are different from culture to culture. I would say that some have a vested interest in presenting Hindus as morally superior because they are Hindu. But do not confuse this with racism. Racism is primarily a Western phenomena; India seems to have its own set of problems. keshav, I certainly agree that different cultures do view the concept of waging war and acknowledging that difference that fact does not amount to racism. however, nurturing a disbelief that an individual belonging to a better/superior culture (in terms of humanism) can do no wrong or that any of his/her actions is nescessarily less harsher than that of an inferior culture w/o regard for the facts does amount to some form of racism(or give it whatever name you choose). at the very least it shows a very warped sense of logic. plz don't misunderstand me. | |
| Author: | Venkarl [ 15 Apr 2008 09:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote="bala"]Rediscovery of India [quote]Embarking on an exhilarating journey across the Indian subcontinent to unravel its sights, sounds and achievements is Discovery Channel’s new six-part series beginning this Wednesday. “The Story of India†| |
| Author: | ramana [ 15 Apr 2008 09:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
And did you have to quote the entire post for asking that? Please think of those with low bandwidth. | |
| Author: | Keshav [ 15 Apr 2008 09:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Does India have its own "Discovery Channel" with a different set of shows? I browsed the American "Discovery Channel" site and I saw nothing about that. | |
| Author: | Rudradev [ 15 Apr 2008 09:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Airavat wrote: Rudradev wrote: Why did the Sikh or Rajput forces have to be physically near Delhi? How else were they supposed to sack it? Ironically it were the Marathas who had sacked Delhi and the surrounding villages several times before Panipat. This is why the villagers from Panipat to the borders of Bharatpur gave no refuge or aid to the Marathas escaping from the rout in 1761. Maybe I was not clear. I'm not saying the Sikhs or Rajputs sacked Delhi before Panipat... they did not. The Marathas, who claimed Delhi as a protectorate, did not allow it. The Maratha refusal to allow it, was construed by the Sikhs (all of them except Maharaj Ala Singh) as Maratha high-handedness, and cited as a reason not to support the Marathas against Ahmed Shah Abdali. The Bhau's army did in fact seize provisions from Delhi and the surrounding villages to fuel their campaign, considering these territories to be their own fief. You are right in saying that this alienated the locals, who did not shelter the fleeing Maratha soldiers and camp followers after the rout. In fact, the Nawab of Avadh (at the instance of his Hindu courtiers and administration officials) was more welcoming of the fleeing Maratha civilians than the people of Delhi. Quote: Rudradev wrote: Sadashivrao Bhau did indeed negotiate with the Nawab of Avadh to support the ascension of Nanasaheb Peshwa's heir Vishwas Rao to the throne in Delhi. Vishwas Rao was the son of Nanasaheb Peshwa, and the nephew of Sadashivrao Bhau. As I understand it, Sadashivrao Bhau thought to place Vishwas Rao on the throne of Delhi, in effect placing the Maratha heir on the Mughal throne. Bhau negotiated with the Nawab of Avadh (offering him the Wazir-ship) because the Nawab's acquiescence would have helped to legitimize the ascension of Vishwas Rao to the Mughal throne. However, this was at the cost of Suraj Mal's proxy, the Imad-ul-Mulk, and Suraj Mal fell out with Sadashivrao Bhau over the issue. Quote: Rudradev wrote: At the very least, it appears that Jodhpur and Amber were contributing to the severance of Maratha supply lines, which enabled Durrani to besiege the Marathas and force them to fight at a time and place of his choosing. I may be wrong. Maratha supply lines were nowhere close to these kingdoms! The Bhau advanced north from Delhi, in the hope of severing the Abdali's supply lines running through the Punjab. He captured Kunjpura and wiped out the Afghans holding this base.....when his food supply ran out the Bhau moved further north towards Patiala. At this time the Abdali army, from their base in Ruhelkhand across the Yamuna, crossed that river and closed the path between Panipat and Delhi. I will defer to you on the details of what Jodhpur and Amber actually contributed to Abdali's war effort; suffice it to say, that they were allied with Abdali rather than the Marathas. Quote: Rudradev wrote: After Panipat, Muslim power in the north only persisted in Avadh and Bengal..... It was only in peninsular India that Muslim rulers Haider Ali of Mysore and Asaf Jah of Hyderabad might have received some respite from relative Maratha weakness following Panipat-III... Muslim power declined worldwide in the 18th century because of the decline in the effectiveness of traditional cavalry formations. And it survived in Hyderabad and Mysore because European officers transformed the infantry and artillery formations of these Muslim rulers enabling them to take on the British East India Company. The Marathas who had begun as light cavalry also adopted infantry formations (though manned by non-Marathas) under European command. It is certainly true that traditional cavalry formations declined in effectiveness in the 18th century. However, I'm not sure I agree that Muslim decline was entirely related to their reliance on traditional cavalry formations. Abdali at Panipat appears to have surpassed the Marathas in mil-tech innovations; his use of swivel-gun light artillery mounted on camels, and of infantry armed with rifles, is credited with ensuring his victory. As for European artillery officers... these had been operating in the armies of many Indian kingdoms since at least the mid-seventeenth century. Manucci, an Italian artillery officer in the service of Aurangzeb, is a major source of information about Jai Singh's Deccan campaigns against Shivaji. So I do not think Mysore and Hyderabad were unique in regard to having access to European officers. Yes, the French did assist Tipu's mil-tech, and faced off against the British-supported Nasir Jung and Mohammed Ali in the Second Carnatic War. However, Tipu's own artillerymen were not inferior in innovating new military technologies. In fact it was one of their innovations that the British later came to adopt as the "Congreve rocket". Quote: Rudradev wrote: Only after massively developing their political and military muscle on the spoils of victory over these Muslim states, did the British feel empowered enough to take on the Sikhs and the Marathas in the following century. Very exaggerated statement...but not your fault since you were provoked into this by the generalized remarks on "Maratha plundering" by other members. ... This is why the Rajput states lost their independence to Mahadji Scindia and later saw their lands being ravaged by the Pindari and Ruhela brigands of Holkar and Scindia. They had no modern infantry to deter these brigands, and this why they sought British protection. I don't think it's an exaggeration. Consider this. Around 1740 the British EIC were the owners of a few small coastal possessions where they had their factories. Their strength mainly maritime in nature, and they had little hard power to influence political events in the hinterland. In effect they were a power of more or less the same order of magnitude as the French or Portuguese. How did they become such a power in the subcontinent that Rajput states began asking for their protection against the Marathas? There were essentially four stages. First, the Carnatic wars, 1744-63, which formed the prototype for future British techniques of expanding their influence by interfering with Indian kingdoms' succession disputes. The chief losers in the Carnatic wars were the French, but from this time onwards the Nizam of Hyderabad and Nawab of Carnatic (both Muslim rulers) came under the inexorable domination of the British in Madras. Then came Plassey and Buxar which made the British de-facto masters of Bengal, another Muslim province which also happened to be very wealthy. The treaty of 1765 reduced the Nawab of Avadh to a figurehead with a British resident calling the shots in his state. Avadh's coffers financed many of the British EIC's campaigns from then on. Of all the prominent Muslim rulers remaining in India after Panipat, only the Mysoreans under Tipu offered sustained opposition to the British, holding out till the Fourth Mysore War ended with the siege of Srirangapatnam in 1799. Had the British not first dominated these Muslim states, winning great prestige and rich spoils which financed their growth and expansion, it is hard to imagine how they could have amassed enough strength to take on the Sikhs and Marathas. Your information about the Ruhelas and Purbias forming an important part of Maratha and British forces, and the role they played in the 1857 revolt, is interesting. I had not known about this.[/quote] | |
| Author: | Rahul M [ 15 Apr 2008 10:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rudradev : Quote: American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This ex·cess Audio Help (Äk-sÄ›s', Ä›k'sÄ›s') Pronunciation Key n. 1. The state of exceeding what is normal or sufficient: rains that filled the reservoirs to excess. 2. An amount or quantity beyond what is normal or sufficient; a surplus. 3. The amount or degree by which one quantity exceeds another: Profit is the excess of sales over costs. 4. Intemperance; overindulgence: drank to excess. 5. A behavior or an action that exceeds proper or lawful bounds: tried to avoid engaging in emotional excesses such as hysteria and fits of temper. adj. Being more than is usual, required, or permitted: skimming off the excess fat. See Synonyms at superfluous. tr.v. ex·cessed, ex·cess·ing, ex·cess·es To eliminate the job or position of. Apart from the transitive verb ("to excess" meaning "to lay off/fire"), every single definition of the word "excess" is comparative in nature. Rudradev, please do not create strawmen to knock down . That "excess" means "more than nescessary/normal" in some form or the other was never questioned by me. Your comment was : Quote: The word "excess" is apparently very easy to trot out, so once again I must ask, "excess" in comparison to what? which was followed by : Quote: To the tender mercies of the Khilji-descended Afghans, who ruled Bengal all the way from the demise of the Sena empire to the arrival of the British? Are the inevitable consequences of a large invading army living off Bengali land more "excessive" than the trauma of Bengal famines engineered by the British? Were the Maratha rampages more "excessive" than those of Mughal, Khilji and other armies which came before and after? And what norm, exactly, are any of these being described as "excessive" relative to? Therefore you didn't leave any question to what you consider as normal plunders and ravages to be inflicted upon a Indian civilian populace, did you ?? And this is the very point I questioned you about, viz Quote: the word Excess in the english language AFAIK is not nescessarily meant to be used for a comparative purpose . in the sense that the word excess is not used to compare two similar events. It is rather an adjective used to describe the extremism in an incident vis-a-vis accepted views of normalcy. I had thought that you made the error of comparing 2 incidents using the word "excess". If, however you didn't make that error and do consider the attacks on civilian populace by the foreign invaders as constituting some sort of normal event, then I must say that I hold the Marathas to a much higher level of standard than the invaders you named could ever aspire to. And if the records of previous/later tyrants are the benchmarks surely you have nothing to say against the CPI(M) on the nandigram issue ?? Quote: Invading armies of that era, seized agricultural produce, wealth, provisions etc. from the land in the local theatre to support their operations. They also destroyed what they did not take, in order to deny it to their enemies. This was par for the course, for every army-- whether their eventual intention was to rule with "benevolence" or otherwise. So whom or what is Maratha behavior in Bengal being described as "excess" relative to? Oh, sure and certainly the following also fall into this category : Quote: The Marathas committed unspeakable atrocities on the helpless population of this district. An eye-witness, Vaneshwar Vidhyalankar, the court pandit of the Maharaja of Barddhaman wrote - ' Shahu Rajah's troops are niggard of pity, slayers of pregnant women and infants, of Brahmins and the poor, fierce in spirit, expert in robbing the property of every one and committing every kind of sinful act. ...'. In 1742, while Bhaskar Pandit was celebrating Durga Puja at Katwa, Nawab Alibardi Khan fell upon him suddenly, after crossing theGanga at Uddharanpur, a mile north of Katwa and drove him out of Bengal. For anyone who wants to know my view towards this phenomenon. | |
| Author: | Rudradev [ 15 Apr 2008 10:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: In the sense that the word excess is not used to compare two similar events. It is rather an adjective used to describe the extremism in an incident vis-a-vis accepted views of normalcy. I had thought that you made the error of comparing 2 incidents using the word "excess". Now we're getting somewhere. What are these "accepted views of normalcy" in your view? Quote: If, however you didn't make that error and do consider the attacks on civilian populace by the foreign invaders as constituting some sort of normal event, then I must say that I hold the Marathas to a much higher level of standard than the invaders you named could ever aspire to. Then you are living in la-la land. "Attacks on civilian populations?" Like any army of their time, the Marathas sent out foraging parties, and if their attempts to forage were resisted (by civilians), then of course the Marathas responded by killing those civilians. Are you going to demand that invading armies of the 18th Century should have followed the Geneva Convention? Quote: And if the records of previous/later tyrants are the benchmarks surely you have nothing to say against the CPI(M) on the nandigram issue ?? LOL so who's setting up strawmen now? MY moral authority to comment on the Nandigram issue is somehow jeopardized because YOU hold the Marathas to some unrealistic standard of behavior, compared to any invading army of their time?  Quote: The Marathas committed unspeakable atrocities on the helpless population of this district. An eye-witness, Vaneshwar Vidhyalankar, the court pandit of the Maharaja of Barddhaman wrote - ' Shahu Rajah's troops are niggard of pity, slayers of pregnant women and infants, of Brahmins and the poor, fierce in spirit, expert in robbing the property of every one and committing every kind of sinful act. ...'. In 1742, while Bhaskar Pandit was celebrating Durga Puja at Katwa, Nawab Alibardi Khan fell upon him suddenly, after crossing theGanga at Uddharanpur, a mile north of Katwa and drove him out of Bengal. Let's just leave that up there so that everyone can have a dispassionate look at this recounting of an "eyewitness" report. And judge for themselves whether it does or does not suggest the rhetoric of apologism that we've grown used to in, say, "Jung" reports on the Indian Army's behavior in Kashmir. No further comment. | |
| Author: | Rudradev [ 15 Apr 2008 10:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
ravi_ku wrote: Quote: This actually suggests that the Marathas *did* have a broader vision than regional imperialism, incorporating the importance of national emblems. Reclaiming Indraprastha, the ancient seat of kings and the capital of Muslim empires since the eleventh century, for Hindavi Swaraj would have had colossal significance throughout the nation. It would also have made a profound psychological impact on the remaining Muslim powers in the subcontinent. It was chiefly the Kafir threat to Delhi in the first place, that so agitated Shah Waliullah. However, as you say, Suraj Mal wanted his own candidate to become Wazir; this was opposed by the Marathas, who after all had fealty from Delhi; and Suraj Mal walked out from the alliance. This is where I think we are still in thinking on the lines of the "historians". Why was delhi more important than say awadh or even gwalior or agra? The "emperor" of delhi was a protectorate of marathas. Let us not make the mistake of reading history with todays lenses. Of course the marathas had a broader vision of putting back the hindus at the top seat rather than regional imperialism, but I think we are making the mistake of seeing all the marathas as the same. What was the interplay between peshwa, gwalior and other maratha sartraps? Ravi_ku, you misunderstand my point. It is not about thinking on the lines of "historians". Delhi was more important as a symbol of national power (rather than simply regional supremacy) for many reasons. It was identified with the ancient Indraprastha. It was the site of Chandragupta Vikramaditya's iron pillar. From the time of Alauddin Khilji to the time of Aurangzeb, it was the seat of *the* dominant Muslim empire in the subcontinent, and the only center of power to which the entire subcontinent had ever been subjugated. There is no denying that mastery over Delhi had a symbolic resonance far more compelling than Gwalior, Agra or any other place. This is why I believe that the Marathas' reclaiming of Delhi as a protectorate was significant. | |
| Author: | Rahul M [ 15 Apr 2008 10:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Now we're getting somewhere. What are these "accepted views of normalcy" in your view? Certainly not set by the foreign invaders and the tyrants which you are so intent on doing. In India, attacks and carnage of unarmed civilian populace was virtually unknown before the advent of the muslim invaders. This fact is well known to be a part of the "dharma" that a warrior was supposed to follow and even older BRF threads carried enough references on that matter. The archived historical battles thread pt-1 IIRC may prove valuable. Quote: Then you are living in la-la land. "Attacks on civilian populations?" Are you going to demand that invading armies of the 18th Century should have followed the Geneva Convention? So, according to you civilization and humane behaviour was invented in the 18th century ?? The fact remains that Indian armies fighting among themselves almost always behaved benignly towards the civilians. There are almost no recorded history of any Indian King's army looting a city/kingdom after annexing it. Obviously, the same can't be said about the foreign armies whom you are so intent on equating with their Indian counterparts. Quote: Quote: The Marathas committed unspeakable atrocities on the helpless population of this district. An eye-witness, Vaneshwar Vidhyalankar, the court pandit of the Maharaja of Barddhaman wrote - ' Shahu Rajah's troops are niggard of pity, slayers of pregnant women and infants, of Brahmins and the poor, fierce in spirit, expert in robbing the property of every one and committing every kind of sinful act. ...'. In 1742, while Bhaskar Pandit was celebrating Durga Puja at Katwa, Nawab Alibardi Khan fell upon him suddenly, after crossing theGanga at Uddharanpur, a mile north of Katwa and drove him out of Bengal. Let's just leave that up there so that everyone can have a dispassionate look at this recounting of an "eyewitness" report. And judge for themselves whether it does or does not suggest the rhetoric of apologism that we've grown used to in, say, "Jung" reports on the Indian Army's behavior in Kashmir. No further comment. And you put in a sneering, contemptous comment about an eye-witness report from those times just because it does not conform with your viewpoint. Speaks volumes about your attitude !! regards. | |
| Author: | Rye [ 15 Apr 2008 10:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rahul M wrote: Quote: So, according to you civilization and humane behaviour was invented in the 18th century ?? The Geneva convention is not the hallmark of civilization and humane behaviour -- it is an internationally accepted norm on how prisoners of war must be treated. The Geneva convention is just a guideline that is usually ignored, e.g. pakistan in Kargil. added later: deleted stuff since it was not relevant to the discussion. | |
| Author: | Keshav [ 15 Apr 2008 10:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rye wrote: So, perhaps you can now use a case like Mahmud of Ghori or Ghazni and their "accepted norm" of treating their prisoners of war with the case of the marathas, and then precisely point out exactly what the Marathas did that was MORE brutal than, and went a step further than Mahmud of Ghazni -- thereby proving that the usage of the word "excessive" was warranted. Only then can your POV be considered valid -- your rebuttals so far have been ad hominems. Let me step in here because I think Rye is misunderstanding Rahul M. Rahul M considers those Muslims to be barbarians in the way they waged war, treated prisoners, non-combatants, other cultures, etc. Rahul holds the Marathas to higher standards. Let me try and explain why. Culture is what differentiates one people from another. Time does not. Time will change, but culture may not. Just because it is the Middle Ages (thus, after the Muslim invasions) why should Hindu values change from the ancient to the Middle Ages? Rahul holds Hindu standards of war which included not killing the king, not hurting non-combatants, not destroying crops, fair treatment of women, no rape, etc. to be higher than other standards of warfare. Relative to this, he considers the quoted Marathas' actions in Bengal as excesses. It is relative to Hindu norms of warfare, not Muslim or "Middle Age" ones. | |
| Author: | Rahul M [ 15 Apr 2008 11:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks, keshav. To further justify why I consider this cultural POV important let me mention the fact that there is not a single recorded instance of rape by the sepoys in the total span of the 1857 uprising, inspite of numerous wartime rumours of the same. The sepoys were mostly illiterate, low grade soldiers with none above what amounts to the rank of major. (Dalrymple) As compared to this exemplary behaviour, the civilized and disciplined brtish army put in a show of genocide , lootage and mass rape that would put the combined efforts of serbia,tutsi and pakis to shame. (Dalrymple) (Last dozen words are my comments) Even I was surprised by this little piece of info. I found it difficult to believe that a rebellious army could act in such a manner !! Such ingrained has been my beliefs in how armies normally behave !! And when Dalrymple's thorough and exhaustive referencing did convince me, I felt an incredible surge of pride about the culture I was born in !! Rye : Quote: So, perhaps you can now use a case like Mahmud of Ghori or Ghazni and their "accepted norm" of treating their prisoners of war with the case of the marathas, and then precisely point out exactly what the Marathas did that was MORE brutal than, and went a step further than Mahmud of Ghazni -- thereby proving that the usage of the word "excessive" was warranted. Only then can your POV be considered valid -- your rebuttals so far have been ad hominems. Rye, unfortunately the above shows that you have not read even a word of what I have written.  | |
| Author: | Rudradev [ 16 Apr 2008 12:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
So you are, in fact, living in la-la land. Conduct of a *battle* is one thing. Being chivalrous to the vanquished, not harming civilians in a defeated territory and so on, are definitely part of a Kshatriya's dharma. Conduct of a *campaign* is quite another. You have surely heard the phrase "an army marches on its stomach". Surely no less true before Mir Qasim than after. In your view, in pre-Islamic times, how did Indian armies invading far off territories fill their stomachs? For example, Ashoka's very much non-slaughtering army at Kalinga? Or any of the armies that followed in the wake of an Ashvamedha horse? Did they subsist on dharma and fresh air? Did they pack dabbas from home and take them along? Or did they forage from the local fields and farms, like every contemporary army everywhere in the world? And if the local population ("civilian" or otherwise) attempted to resist an army's attempts to forage, did the armies of pre-Islamic India tender a very Dharmic apology and consent to starve? Or did they respond in ways that some local "eyewitnesses" might have gone on to describe as Quote: slaying pregnant women and infants, butchering brahmins and the poor, expertly robbing the property of every one and committing every sin known to mankind Maybe if more of those "eyewitnesses" were quoted on obtuse regionalist websites, we would not be quite so convinced of how squeaky-clean and "Dharmic" war used to be before the invaders came along. You know, I'm glad you're trotting these arguments out because they're a living, breathing example of the consequences of distorted history. Namely, a version of history in which Hindu actions are to be judged in "Dharmic" terms and held to "moral" standards while everybody else's barbarism is "only to be expected". Honestly, Hindus are the only ones in the world who gladly swallow and perpetuate a system of double standards in narrating their OWN history, that actually undermines their OWN interest. Maybe that is somehow "Dharmic" too. Funnily enough, many of the people who exercise such double-standards are the same ones who will moan: Quote: Oh, Prithviraj Chauhan should never have been so gracious to Mohammed Ghori after defeating him the first ten times... then Ghori would not have had the chance to attack and win the eleventh time. or whine: Quote: Oh, why did Indira Gandhi return 90,000 Pakistani POWs without settling Kashmir once and for all etc. I wonder if these Dharmic moralists have ever paused to consider why Shivaji succeeded where Prithviraj Chauhan had failed. Maybe it had something to do with Shivaji's realizing that he was facing a new kind of enemy, and that new means would be required to fight him. | |
| Author: | Keshav [ 16 Apr 2008 01:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rudradev wrote: Maybe if more of those "eyewitnesses" were quoted on obtuse regionalist websites, we would not be quite so convinced of how squeaky-clean and "Dharmic" war used to be before the invaders came along. Rudradev- This whole argument rests on whether or not you believe that Maratha soldiers acted the way Pandit described it, otherwise there is very little that we can compare. No one is saying that pre-Islamic Hindu armies were superhuman to subsist on "dharma and air", but its safe to assume that these people did not kill pregnant women and learned people (assuming you believe in this, which is the hinge of the argument). When Ashoka killed 100,000 he became depressed and went on a transformation that took him to non-violence under Lord Buddha. When Timurlane did the same when he sacked Delhi, he offered it as tribute to Allah. Your comment about double standards comes to this: 1) Hindus keep the double standards, glorify our people as humanistic and others as barbarians. 2) Hindus keep the double standards, glorify our own people and lift others as well (well, its okay, its just Aurangzeb, etc.) 3) Hindus don't keep the double standards and say everyone is a barbarian. The first is definitely the best way to approach this and it involves using the double standards to our advantage. What do you think? | |
| Author: | ramana [ 16 Apr 2008 04:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Folks why does every thread have to become full of noise and empty arguments? I don't see much value being added. Every thread is getting nukkadized while nukkad is becoming more pleasant. Take this as a warning to exercise caution. Thanks, ramana | |
| Author: | Acharya [ 16 Apr 2008 04:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Venkarl wrote: bala wrote: If possible can anyone record this and upload on rapidshare/yousendit/etc.... this is a humble request Quote: The Story of India : Complete BBC Series DVD ~ Michael Wood # Actors: Michael Wood # Format: PAL # Language English # Region: Region 2 ( DVD formats.) # Number of discs: 2 # Classification: Exempt # Studio: 2 Entertain Video # DVD Release Date: 5 Nov 2007 For more than two thousand years, India has been a massive component in world history. But what are the country's origins and how did it come to be what it is today? These are just two of the questions that Michael Wood tries to answer during his quest across the country. Synopsis For over two millennia, India has been at the centre of world history. But how did India come to be? What is India? These are the big questions behind this intrepid journey around the contemporary subcontinent. In this landmark series, historian and acclaimed writer Michael Wood embarks on a dazzling and exciting expedition through today's India, looking to the present for clues to her past, and to the past for clues to her future. The journey takes the viewer through majestic landscapes and reveals some of the greatest monuments and artistic treasures on Earth. From Buddhism to Bollywood, from mathematics to outsourcing, Michael Wood discovers India's impact on history - and on us. | |
| Author: | Aditya_V [ 16 Apr 2008 04:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
For guys interested in why our History was distorted Lord Macaulays Address to the British parliment in 1835 will give a clearer idea Quote: LORD MACAULAYS ADDRESS TO THE E3RITISH PARLIAMENT 2 FEBRUARY, 1835 I have travelled across the length and breadth of India end I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief, such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country unless we break the very backbone of this nation, such is her spiritual and cultural Heritage, and, therefore, I propose th we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self esteern, their native culture end theywill become what we want them, a truly dominated nation. P.S - I have a scanned copy of the orginal article but am not able to uploaded the picture in this forum | |
| Author: | Saurabh [ 16 Apr 2008 06:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Aditya_V wrote: For guys interested in why our History was distorted Lord Macaulays Address to the British parliment in 1835 will give a clearer idea Quote: LORD MACAULAYS ADDRESS TO THE E3RITISH PARLIAMENT 2 FEBRUARY, 1835 I have travelled across the length and breadth of India end I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief, such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country unless we break the very backbone of this nation, such is her spiritual and cultural Heritage, and, therefore, I propose th we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self esteern, their native culture end theywill become what we want them, a truly dominated nation. P.S - I have a scanned copy of the orginal article but am not able to uploaded the picture in this forum Here you are Aditya. The full text of Macaulay's Minute on Education 1835 (2nd Feb 1835). It was delivered (in written form) to the Supreme council of the East India Company. You will remember from your High School history that the British Monarch and Government only became involved in governing India post 1857. Now I would be obliged if you could find the text of your above quote in this speech. In other words the text you quote above has as much credibility as other common internet hoaxes which prey on blind nationalism. Happy reading........ http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/prit ... _1835.html | |
| Author: | Rahul M [ 16 Apr 2008 01:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: So you are, in fact, living in la-la land. Conduct of a *battle* is one thing. Being chivalrous to the vanquished, not harming civilians in a defeated territory and so on, are definitely part of a Kshatriya's dharma. Conduct of a *campaign* is quite another. You have surely heard the phrase "an army marches on its stomach". Surely no less true before Mir Qasim than after. In your view, in pre-Islamic times, how did Indian armies invading far off territories fill their stomachs? For example, Ashoka's very much non-slaughtering army at Kalinga? Or any of the armies that followed in the wake of an Ashvamedha horse? Did they subsist on dharma and fresh air? Did they pack dabbas from home and take them along? Or did they forage from the local fields and farms, like every contemporary army everywhere in the world? And if the local population ("civilian" or otherwise) attempted to resist an army's attempts to forage, did the armies of pre-Islamic India tender a very Dharmic apology and consent to starve? Rudradev, I'm sorry that logical explanations don't interest you. So you think all Indian armies resorted to pillaging/ in order to fill their stomach and killing non-combatants also forms a nescessary part of it ?? a civilian taking up arms/defending against an invading army automatically becomes a combatant. the source OTOH talks about non-combatants and the problems faced by them. But of course this will elicit another brilliant response like : Quote: So you are, in fact, living in la-la land. which seems to be the extent of your 'aha' moment. /end of response. | |
| Author: | Rye [ 16 Apr 2008 01:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rahul M wrote: Quote: I'm sorry that logical explanations don't interest you. What exactly was your logical explanation? I might have missed it in the previous posts. | |
| Author: | Rahul M [ 16 Apr 2008 01:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rye, do know what I was trying to explain ?? | |
| Author: | Rye [ 16 Apr 2008 03:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rahul M. wrote: Quote: do know what I was trying to explain ?? Err.. that is why I am asking you because I don't grok what your point is. | |
| Author: | Sanku [ 16 Apr 2008 04:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rudradev wrote: In your view, in pre-Islamic times, how did Indian armies invading far off territories fill their stomachs? For example, Ashoka's very much non-slaughtering army at Kalinga? Or any of the armies that followed in the wake of an Ashvamedha horse? Did they subsist on dharma and fresh air? Did they pack dabbas from home and take them along? Or did they forage from the local fields and farms, like every contemporary army everywhere in the world? Rudradev I am really surprised at your post; specially given your past posts this one is totally out of character: As to your question why not the following? 1: Purchase of provisions from nearby non hostile populace 2: A supply train from nearby friendly folks Is this assumption all you made your assessment of how the Indian armies must have fought? And why must Indian armies do what ALL contemprory armies did? I assume they would have had their own process wouldn't they? It was not a "flat" world then was it? | |
| Author: | Rye [ 16 Apr 2008 04:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Unbelievable, all this dimwitted nonsense about how people in the past *should have* behaved...all in the face of the brutality of war in general -- this is not some olympic sport where people will be disqualified if they do not play right. The rules were set by local commanders who had a mission and probably did not really care if they had to intimidate people to get rations for the troops, especially in cases where the locals were under the control of a non-ally/adversary. Folks should stay off the idiot juice for a couple of days. | |
| Author: | Sanku [ 16 Apr 2008 04:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rye wrote: Unbelievable, all this dimwitted nonsense about how people in the past *should have* behaved... Indeed especially the brilliance about taking the present behavior of non Indians and confidently saying that every one 5000 years back followed the same SOP also squarely falls in your definition too doesn't it. funny how cutting logic cuts both ways. | |
| Author: | Rye [ 16 Apr 2008 04:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sanku wrote: Quote: Indeed especially the brilliance about taking the present behavior of non Indians and confidently saying that every one 5000 years back followed the same SOP also squarely falls in your definition too doesn't it. funny how cutting logic cuts both ways. Don't parse/understand your point (since I am not sure who the non Indians you are referring to), but what I am saying is this: Rahul M. wrote: Quote: So you think all Indian armies resorted to pillaging/ in order to fill their stomach and killing non-combatants also forms a nescessary part of it ?? This kind of worldview/logic is disconnected from the context in those days...no modern technology, just men on horses and on foot trudging for days/weeks on end to meet an enemy in battle. Taking on the enemy would not have been easy given the axiom/maxim "an army marches on its stomach". The necessity was to reach the battleground and fight -- the campaign was to plan on how to get all the food and resources necessary for the army to make its journey. A little bit of knowledge of how warfare is conducted when the maximum human capability of the time was limited (and not the way it is now). | |
| Author: | surinder [ 16 Apr 2008 05:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Saurabh wrote: Aditya_V wrote: For guys interested in why our History was distorted Lord Macaulays Address to the British parliment in 1835 will give a clearer idea Quote: LORD MACAULAYS ADDRESS TO THE E3RITISH PARLIAMENT 2 FEBRUARY, 1835 I have travelled across the length and breadth of India end I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief, such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country unless we break the very backbone of this nation, such is her spiritual and cultural Heritage, and, therefore, I propose th we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self esteern, their native culture end theywill become what we want them, a truly dominated nation. P.S - I have a scanned copy of the orginal article but am not able to uploaded the picture in this forum Here you are Aditya. The full text of Macaulay's Minute on Education 1835 (2nd Feb 1835). It was delivered (in written form) to the Supreme council of the East India Company. You will remember from your High School history that the British Monarch and Government only became involved in governing India post 1857. Now I would be obliged if you could find the text of your above quote in this speech. In other words the text you quote above has as much credibility as other common internet hoaxes which prey on blind nationalism. Happy reading........ http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/prit ... _1835.html I recieved the alleged comment by McCauly. I looked up on the web and found that many web sites had pointed out that thsi statement of McCaulay is not found in any of his writings/speeched. It is, on thier view, a fraud or an urban legend. Maybe that statement attributed to McCaulay was not in any of his writings, but maybe he said it to someone. May be that is what he implied to someone. Is that statement incompatible with McCaulay? Has the MacCaulay's legacy proved that the MacCaulay *could not* have had such views? I think it resonates because there is some truth to it. | |
| Author: | Venkarl [ 16 Apr 2008 05:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmLdP5sxjMLY4IU8UQkmZQ4IssmGxIle1MMB0r1UtiPG_ldNDduchMBC7sjaRv7laGe_RDyi8TQ9UutDINbL7Vp9hgqv4N1xNlj2sIEkkQ6QOKoUSqIVqGCTVUpCCUu5wZYlpbOeWdSVad/s1600-h/INDIA_1835-780841.JPG Distortion of Indian History began from him  Sorry if already posted | |
| Author: | Sanku [ 16 Apr 2008 05:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rye wrote: The necessity was to reach the battleground and fight -- the campaign was to plan on how to get all the food and resources necessary for the army to make its journey. A little bit of knowledge of how warfare is conducted when the maximum human capability of the time was limited (and not the way it is now). Well there are other options than sack; and it is possible that Indian rulers did not conduct far flung campaigns into enemy heartland without first consolidating the victories near there "core lands"; may be they purchased grains; may be they appointed themselves rulers and extracted land revenue in terms of food. May be they called in their allies. The concept of baggage trains loaded with food for a army is not entirely unknown even in the past. Its not that Indian armies were exploring the dark continent when they made first contact. There is a concept of force but this is very different from the concept of excesses. This debate about Dharmic armies started with Rudradev's frustration with characterization's of Marathas. Now the Maratha era was far different from the Dharmic era and all manners of Indians have made different mistakes in that era (and in past) I dont think we need to extrapolate just to justify the Marathas or what not. In fact the Maratha example being talked about is notable because it was different from the expectations even in that era -- otherwise it would not make that much noise -- so even if true that example means that such behavior from the Marathas was not the norm but a singleton example. So untill we have documented PROOF that Indians sacked and burned in the age of Dharma (and we have documented proof against it) let us go easy on extrapolation of one (unusual at that) supposed example of Maratha behavior. Rudradev; a humble suggestion -- India first Maratha's second -- a different message is being sent from your post right now; which I am sure you did not intend. --------- And oh -- good night have to go. | |
| Author: | sanjaychoudhry [ 16 Apr 2008 05:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
An interesting article on Macaulay and his alleged quote: http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/hinduism/macaulay.html | |
| Author: | Rudradev [ 16 Apr 2008 10:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ramana: with all due respect, there's nothing "empty" about this argument... it goes to the heart of exploring the causes and consequences of distorted history, particularly when we ourselves distort history in a manner that is detrimental to us. "Pleasant" it might not be Keshav wrote: Rudradev- This whole argument rests on whether or not you believe that Maratha soldiers acted the way Pandit described it, otherwise there is very little that we can compare. No, it does not. My argument is that the very act of comparison is profoundly daft. That's because there is no legitimate basis for comparing 17th Century Maratha behavior, with some generalized notion of how subcontinental armies behaved from the dawn of Kaliyug (3102 BC) to the arrival of Mir Qasim. The quantity, accuracy and verifiability of historical sources of information declines, the further back you go in history... simply because fewer sources are statistically likely to have survived over longer periods of time. Despite the occasional period of exception (as when some empire kept meticulous records that have survived, like Ashoka's pillar edicts)... as a general rule, the longer ago something happened, the less information is available about it. On the other hand, multiple sources of information are more likely to be available about recent events. However, the availability alone hardly guarantees that those sources will be accurate or unbiased. For example, the much-bandied-about account by Vidhyalankar of the Maratha invasion of Bengal. As court pandit of Raja Bardhhaman, whose lands were being invaded by Bhaskar Pandit, Vidhyalankar is hardly likely to have a neutral narrative. His account is rife with the hysterical rhetoric of deliberate demonization... "expert in... committing every kind of sinful act", for example. This does not make it very credible in my eyes. People will accept the veracity of this source, or not, as a matter of subjective choice. The only reasonable basis for comparison of any historical actor or event is with its contemporary actors and events. At least then, it is likely that a similar plurality of sources and perspectives (including unbiased, prejudiced, accurate and otherwise) will be available for both actors or events being compared. Especially if one is going to draw sweeping conclusions about some particular actor's "excesses" compared to norms, the only norms that can fairly be used as a basis for comparison are contemporary norms. Quote: No one is saying that pre-Islamic Hindu armies were superhuman to subsist on "dharma and air", but its safe to assume that these people did not kill pregnant women and learned people (assuming you believe in this, which is the hinge of the argument). I'm really wondering how it's "safe to assume" anything, of times about which there is a severe paucity of information. Yes, there were dharmic injunctions against killing the innocent in times of war. This is in contrast to Abrahamic societies, where the slaying of any foe was considered to be divinely sanctioned. So that in general, we can say that Indian society conducted warfare in a more humane and civilized manner than Abrahamic societies. That Hindu warriors were instilled with a code of conscience about harming innocents or mistreating the vanquished, which in itself sets them apart from warriors professing Abrahamic faiths. But we can't safely "assume" that foraging, or plunder, or massacres, or any of the ugly aspects of human combat simply never happened. Does every person who goes to a temple and applies a tilak to his forehead, follow Dharmic principles to a tee in every aspect (or even most aspects) of his life? Do we consider that our ancestors from 3000 BC to 800 AD were somehow less prone to human foibles than ourselves? If not, why are we assuming that all Hindu Kings/Generals/Officers/Soldiers of the pre-Islamic era always and unfailingly abided by Dharmic principles in their behavior? Especially when fighting a war... as Rye has explained very well (thanks, Rye): Rye wrote: ...this is not some olympic sport where people will be disqualified if they do not play right. The rules were set by local commanders who had a mission and probably did not really care if they had to intimidate people to get rations for the troops, especially in cases where the locals were under the control of a non-ally/adversary... ...no modern technology, just men on horses and on foot trudging for days/weeks on end to meet an enemy in battle. Taking on the enemy would not have been easy given the axiom/maxim "an army marches on its stomach". The necessity was to reach the battleground and fight -- the campaign was to plan on how to get all the food and resources necessary for the army to make its journey. A little bit of knowledge of how warfare is conducted when the maximum human capability of the time was limited (and not the way it is now). Keshav wrote: When Ashoka killed 100,000 he became depressed and went on a transformation that took him to non-violence under Lord Buddha. When Timurlane did the same when he sacked Delhi, he offered it as tribute to Allah. You're right. And THIS IN ITSELF is enough cause for us to feel proud of the fact that all things in our heritage, including war, were conducted in a more humane, civilized manner than in other societies. We do not need to adhere to some fiction about how no tragic incidents ever happened in the wars of pre-Islamic India, and then shoot ourselves in the foot by holding the Marathas (or the Indian government of today, or anybody else fighting on the side of Dharma) to this purely fictional standard. Why do people not see this? Are we Muslims, who must take literally the stories of our military leaders ascending to heaven on winged horses? We don't have to distort our history into fables, to make it palatable to ourselves. Warts and all, our history is good enough to take pride in just the way it happened, because it is STILL more civilized than anyone else's. Satyameva jayate... we are who we are, because our dharmic ethos is intelligent enough, and mature enough, to reconcile its moral view of the world with reality. As opposed to myth. The very fact that 100,000 people died at Kalinga is evidence that things did not always go according to some Dharmic fair play in times of war. Having a Dharmic ethos was no perfect guarantee against untoward or horrific incidents. What makes India a Dharmic society is that it produced an Ashok, whose conscience prevailed upon him to restructure his entire system of governance in response to the tragedy. As opposed to a Timur/Babar/Khilji/Ghauri, for whom the mass-murder of kaffirs was itself a ticket to heaven. That is the consequence of our civilization having established a Dharmic context for its worldview. Be proud of that. We don't need fairy stories to justify our pride in who we are. The second part of my argument, is that it is monumentally self-defeating to make such a comparison (Maratha behavior according to source "Vidhyalankar" vs. generalized notions of dharmic military behaviour) because it leaves us vulnerable to the kind of psyops we've always been reeling from. Keshav wrote: Your comment about double standards comes to this: 1) Hindus keep the double standards, glorify our people as humanistic and others as barbarians. 2) Hindus keep the double standards, glorify our own people and lift others as well (well, its okay, its just Aurangzeb, etc.) 3) Hindus don't keep the double standards and say everyone is a barbarian. The first is definitely the best way to approach this and it involves using the double standards to our advantage. What do you think? I think it is ill-advised to be corralled into choosing between three oversimplistic formulae, when constructing something as consequential as our civilizational narrative. We don't owe outside observers the self-constraint of a one-size-fits-all moral paradigm, any more than we are obligated to trivialize our identity for their easy understanding and consumption. The first of your three formulae, however, is certainly not the "best". It has, in fact, cost us dearly to cite "humaneness" as the defining factor in our civilizational superiority. Consider this. If we have to use "humaneness" as an overarching attribute to glorify our people, we hand our adversaries a double-edged sword... one that is being used against us all the time. India is continuously lambasted by enemy psyops for failing to behave like a "Gandhi". Even while Pakistan is feted for behaving like an "Ayub/Jinnah" rather than a "Mullah Omar", and China actually thanked for behaving like a "Deng" instead of a "Mao". We are taken to task for >Not signing the NPT >Not giving Kashmir "self-determination" >Not following "Panchsheel" with respect to China on the Tibet issue >Not pressuring the government of Burma to restore democracy etc. Even while China proliferates nukes to Pakistan and beyond, China represses Tibet while Pakistan represses POK/Gilgit/Baluchistan, China p1sses all over "Panchsheel" while claiming Arunachal, America does a roaring trade with Burma's chief patron China while lecturing India, etc. These psyops would mean nothing, except that we happen to be particularly vulnerable to allegations casting doubt on our "humaneness" and moral standing. We get really bothered by accusations that the Indian army carried out an atrocity in J&K, for instance... because we consider being in tune with "humaneness" a hallmark of our civilization. So the question is, why are we particularly vulnerable to these types of psyops? There is nothing wrong, prima facie, with claiming moral superiority over others on the grounds of "humaneness". After all, it is the truth... and one does not have to be morally perfect in order to be morally superior. The problem arises when geniuses like Rahul M (and there are many such) substitute absurd notions of absolutely unimpeachable conduct for historical fact; and from those notions, derive ridiculous standards of behavior which they use to castigate others *fighting on the side of dharma*. Rahul M's allegation is that in the invasion of Bengal, the Marathas committed "excesses" of brutality as compared to some notion of Dharmic war in the past. His argument is that such behavior (even if true) should be condemned in Marathas since they were Hindus, whereas it was only to be expected from Muslim or European invaders. Why is the moral basis for this, any different from the moral basis of arguments that India being "the land of Gandhi" should pull back its troops and "resolve Kashmir in a Gandhian manner"? If we are are so willing to point a blameful finger at our own people by engaging in reverse moral exceptionalism... holding Indians to an absurdly critical and demanding moral standard while others get a free pass ... then the enemy propagandists have already won. Where is the need for them to make villains of us when we are so busily doing it to ourselves? Our "humaneness" is certainly a great attribute of our civilization, but it is not the only attribute worthy of our pride. We don't have to make it the fount of *all* that is glorious about Indic society and history. When we lionize Gandhi we can lionize Patel and Bose equally. Our moral authority to condemn Afghan and British brutality, does not derive from our holding Marathas to a *higher* moral standard of behavior. It exists independently of that... just as our moral authority to condemn the ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Bangladesh or Kashmir, exists independently of the Ahmedabad riots. Sanku: Please read what I have to say above, before deriving any messages. Also remember. Brutality vs. Humaneness in the conduct of war is not a 0/1 Boolean duality. Deriving "all or nothing" conclusions about a 4000-year period of history is impossible. Given a lack of universally accepted coinage, especially in *enemy* territory, there was no scope for an army to "purchase" supplies while on expedition. The only way they could have purchased was by barter... and if they could carry enough items to barter, why couldn't they just bring their own supplies? And which commander would rely on promises of supplies from "nearby friendly folks", even if such folks happened to be conveniently available in a given theatre of campaigning? Foraging was a fact of life in military operations, and there is no reason to believe Indian armies were an exception to this. War is messy. Bad things happen. Dharma does not immunize Indian society from the possibility of those things happening. It does enable Indian society to deal with those things better than other societies. We regret them, try to make amends. Others celebrate them, justify them, even encourage them with divine sanction. That is enough to say we are Dharmic, and proud of it. Only the morally weak need to falsify history, or replace it with fantasy. By the way... since so many people seem to imply that I'm being racist, or chauvinistic or whatever with respect to the Marathas... let me clarify that I'm not a Maharashtrian, and not a Bengali either. I'm not here to "defend" them from accusations of brutality or whatever... I'm only pointing out some fundamental flaws in the double-standard that some people are judging them by. | |
| Author: | Airavat [ 17 Apr 2008 01:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rudradev wrote: Maybe I was not clear. I'm not saying the Sikhs or Rajputs sacked Delhi before Panipat... they did not. The Marathas, who claimed Delhi as a protectorate, did not allow it. Delhi, by which we mean the Delhi Empire of the later Mughals, did not become a "protectorate" of the Marathas until 1784. It was only then that Mahadji Scindia's Purbia and Maratha troops garrisoned the cities of Delhi, Aligarh, Mathura, and Agra. And the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam lived on a pension provided by Mahadji Scindia. Before this time the Marathas never had such control over the Mughal Emperors. The full details of the Panipat campaign posted on the Historical Battles thread. And what happened after Panipat. Rudradev wrote: I will defer to you on the details of what Jodhpur and Amber actually contributed to Abdali's war effort; suffice it to say, that they were allied with Abdali rather than the Marathas. They were allied with neither. The Hindu States in Rajasthan had been invaded by the Marathas from 1736 and forced to pay tribute. Later the Marathas began intervening in the succession disputes within these states, leading to open wars between Marathas and Rajputs.....this change in Maratha policy came about because of Malhar Rao Holkar, whose base of Indore was close to Rajasthan, and who influenced the Peshwa into accepting this change in policy. In Jaipur the ruler Ishwari Singh committed suicide (1750), when his capital was surrounded by Maratha armies, to prevent his imprisonment and humiliation at their hands. In Jodhpur the Marathas attempted to remove Vijay Singh and place his cousin Ram Singh on the throne (1755-57). These futile Maratha campaigns against the Rajput states robbed them of the ability to make allies and at the same time reduced their own resources. As the Maratha commander Raghunath Rao writes in a letter to the Peshwa from Jaipur, "I am feeding myself only by looting villages. In this country most places are fortified and not a grain of food can be obtained without fighting. I have no money and cannot even raise a hand." And worse these Maratha-Rajput battles occured at a time when Ahmad Shah Abdali invaded and sacked Delhi, Mathura, Vrindavan, and Gokul in 1757, with Raghunath Rao not able to lift even a finger to defend them. Rudradev wrote: As for European artillery officers... these had been operating in the armies of many Indian kingdoms since at least the mid-seventeenth century. Manucci, an Italian artillery officer in the service of Aurangzeb, is a major source of information about Jai Singh's Deccan campaigns against Shivaji. So I do not think Mysore and Hyderabad were unique in regard to having access to European officers. European officers in the 17th century were too few in the armies of Indian kingdoms. More importantly they only served in the artillery and did not have command of that arm. The transformation of Indian infantry and artillery only happened in the 18th century, when European officers had total command of a local ruler's infantry and artillery. Rudradev wrote: For example, the much-bandied-about account by Vidhyalankar of the Maratha invasion of Bengal. As court pandit of Raja Bardhhaman, whose lands were being invaded by Bhaskar Pandit, Vidhyalankar is hardly likely to have a neutral narrative. That is actually the Raja of Burdwan. And the full name of Bhaskar Pandit was Bhaskar Ram Kolhatkar. Another eyewitness to these atrocities was the Bengali poet Gangaram: "The Bargis began to loot the villages. Every class of men took to flight with their property but the Bargis encircled them in the plain. They snatched away gold and silver, rejecting evertything else. Of some people they cut off the hand, of some the nose and ears, some they killed outright....." The important point here is the reference to "Bargis", who committed these outrages. There were three classes of Maratha cavalry: Silhedar, Bargi, and Pindhari. Of these the Pindharis were the worst and little need be said about them, the Bargis were horsemen mounted and given arms by their employers, the Silhedars on the other hand owned their own horses and arms and were usually of the Maratha noble families. So the atrocities were committed only by a section of the Maratha army. And also Maratha tactics of plundering and devastation of crops, arose during their resistance to the Mughal invasions. In that war the local people in the Deccan were allied with them against the Mughals, hence these tactics were successful. But when these same tactics then stayed with them in other conflicts, and most unfortunately, even in the wars against Hindu States, it lead to alienation among the Hindu population. Updated: MARATHAS IN EASTERN INDIA | |
| Author: | ShauryaT [ 17 Apr 2008 01:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rudradev wrote: By the way... since so many people seem to imply that I'm being racist, or chauvinistic or whatever with respect to the Marathas... let me clarify that I'm not a Maharashtrian, and not a Bengali either. I'm not here to "defend" them from accusations of brutality or whatever... I'm only pointing out some fundamental flaws in the double-standard that some people are judging them by. One of the best posts on BRF. Rudradev: Thanks for the time to pen your thoughts. It shed light on a way to look at events and gain perspective. | |
| Author: | Abhijit [ 17 Apr 2008 04:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
RD, an absolutely outstanding post. I cannot find words to praise the clarity of thought and the amazing ability to articulate it - Right up there with Shiv, JEM, N^3, Kaushal, KG et al. | |
| Author: | Sanku [ 17 Apr 2008 05:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rudradev wrote: Sanku: Also remember. Brutality vs. Humaneness in the conduct of war is not a 0/1 Boolean duality. Deriving "all or nothing" conclusions about a 4000-year period of history is impossible. RD brilliant post -- and I overall agree to your post till the time you come to part after the above statement: BTW please remember I think we need to try and uncover the truth and just as we should not impose imaginary standards of peace and justice -- we should not extrapolate a standard behavior outside India to one within. Like you I strive to learn the correct history Quote: Given a lack of universally accepted coinage, especially in *enemy* territory, there was no scope for an army to "purchase" supplies while on expedition. I am not so sure of that -- the coinage in that era was the metal in its weight and purity -- unlike today -- the seal was not the be all and end all of coin value. Gold coins could be used -- if it was not there would trade only with barter which we know was not the case (unless you count gold coins as barter) Since we have Indians coins in Greece and vice versa I do not see your assumption around restrictions on coinage being true. Quote: The only way they could have purchased was by barter... and if they could carry enough items to barter, why couldn't they just bring their own supplies? Gold for grain is barter but it is much easier to carry gold instead of grain is it not? Quote: And which commander would rely on promises of supplies from "nearby friendly folks", even if such folks happened to be conveniently available in a given theater of campaigning? Rely? Not rely -- but use that as his first option till he was desperate -- and folks dont get desperate very often in India. Quote: Foraging was a fact of life in military operations, and there is no reason to believe Indian armies were an exception to this. Foraging != looting and killing non combatants. Further foraging also has it own inherent disadvantages and was thus not always a preferred option -- for example when Alexander was crossing deserts he would not be relying on foraging correct? He certainly wasnt asking his men to live on Dharma and air . Further in enemy territory foragers are at risk also increase the chance of troop dispersion and warn the enemy by their movements. Further a foraging army is exposed to the risk of scorched earth tactics. A massive army could also not subsist on such logistics since it would have a far far greater number of humans concentrated on one place than otherwise the land provides for supplies would be needed to be brought in from else where.More on logistics Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army Many intesting books if you google army logistics in ancient India Quote: War is messy. Bad things happen. Dharma does not immunize Indian society from the possibility of those things happening. No it does not remove the possibility but reduces the number of break downs -- a cursory look at IA history compared to ANY army history will bear out that fact. The answer is not boolean; but the number is far less. Indians do not and did not loot non-combatants this is on record many times. Quote: That is enough to say we are Dharmic, and proud of it. Only the morally weak need to falsify history, or replace it with fantasy. Yes absolutely -- and denying your own past because it does not fit in with others notion of war in my mind is also the same. Quote: I'm only pointing out some fundamental flaws in the double-standard that some people are judging them by. Rudradev no offense meant but "some" double standards are also seen in your post IMVVVVHO The bottom line is -- we have documented history of Dharmic war -- it is up to you to prove that the Maratha example (if true) was the overarching norm (which does not mean that bad things dont happen -- but justifications for extrapolation must be more than war is messy -- Indians did do "wrong" in one war -- possibly they would have been in all wars) On to Maratha example quoted by Airavat Quote: "I am feeding myself only by looting villages. In this country most places are fortified and not a grain of food can be obtained without fighting. I have no money and cannot even raise a hand." What does that tell us -- he is being FORCED to loot because he has NO MONEY NO FRIENDS Certainly not a statement from a person for whom relying on looting the countryside was the chief way of provisioning. A failure of democracy and supply chain management leading to desperation. Marathas -- A unique situation in a post Islamic India where the tactics used against the Islamists were unfortunately used against brothers since that was the way Marathas knew how to conduct campaigns -- a very very very difficult example to extrapolate to all before hand. And yes our Dharmic parvutti was the reason of our loss to Islamic hordes -- this is documented -- but that is poor reason to toss away the fact that we were indeed Dharmic and foolishly so in some cases by and large. | |
| Author: | Sanku [ 17 Apr 2008 07:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rudradev wrote: This actually suggests that the Marathas *did* have a broader vision than regional imperialism, incorporating the importance of national emblems. Reclaiming Indraprastha, the ancient seat of kings and the capital of Muslim empires since the eleventh century, for Hindavi Swaraj would have had colossal significance throughout the nation. It would also have made a profound psychological impact on the remaining Muslim powers in the subcontinent. It was chiefly the Kafir threat to Delhi in the first place, that so agitated Shah Waliullah. I believe the CURRENT Kashi Vishvanath temple in Kashi was built by Maratha's. They did not destroy the Mosque that Auranzeb had built by destroying the older temple since in their own words "they wanted to let the muslims know that they were not like them" but were in power never the less. One of many things to thank the Marathas for -- Jai Bhavani; Har har Mahadev. | |
| Author: | Keshav [ 18 Apr 2008 02:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Hope the mods allow |
Ramana expressed interest in this so I hope this won't be considered off-topic: What are the 10 most important moments in Indian history, politically, scientifically, in literature, and in the arts? | |
| Author: | ramana [ 18 Apr 2008 03:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I offer: Accession of Chandragupta Maurya Narasimha Varma Pallava Accession of Rajaraja Chola. Actually I would get to meet Kundavai Devi:) Defeat of Prithvi Raj Chauhan Harihara Raya Shivaji Baji Rao 1857 | |
| Author: | Avarachan [ 19 Apr 2008 10:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Regarding the recent debate concerning dharma and the conduct of war, I think some BRFites might find the following explanation useful. This is certainly not a definitive or official position of the Orthodox Church, but it is typical. Peace and War in The Eastern Orthodox Church http://www.stgeorgecathedral.net/article_0103.html Following the traditions of Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Church Fathers, the Orthodox Church teaches that peace is divinely ordained condition for human existence, and that every form of conflict and strife is a manifestation of sin. War, as the antithesis of peace, therefore belongs to the realm of human sin. Thus warfare as an activity belongs to realm of fallen human existence and can in no way embody the justice, righteousness, and indeed peace that are the very essence of the reconciliation of God and humanity. However, when one examines the services of the Orthodox Church in greater detail, one finds other petitions that imply recognition of warfare as an activity in which God’s people are actively involved. The national armed forces are regularly commemorated, and it is asked that they be granted “victory over every enemy and adversary.†| |
| Author: | Keshav [ 20 Apr 2008 12:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
ramana wrote: I offer: Accession of Chandragupta Maurya Narasimha Varma Pallava Accession of Rajaraja Chola. Actually I would get to meet Kundavai Devi:) Defeat of Prithvi Raj Chauhan Harihara Raya Shivaji Baji Rao 1857 Its interesting that all of your points are political and that you only offered eight. Part of Indian history that is lamented can be summed up by a quote from Karl Marx: Karl Marx, The New York Tribune, August, 1853 wrote: " Indian society has no history at all, at least no known history. What we call history, is but the history of the successive intruders who founded their empires on the passive basis of that unresisting and unchanging society. Arabs, Turks, Moguls, who had successively overrun India soon became Hindooized; the barbarian conquerors being, by an eternal law of history, conquered themselves by the superior civilization of their subjects" Was our society so stagnant that only eight events are considered to have changed India? is stagnation a sign of something worse in society? Is our science so theoretical that it never had any application? Were there any literature movements that affected large swathes of India?* Any political ideologies that had sway in different generations? Non-temple art seems also to have been widely neglected. *I consider language to have been the largest barrier to Indian nationhood, centralized government, and culture | |
| Author: | csharma [ 20 Apr 2008 01:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
In 1853, India's history was not well understood. For example, the Harappan civilization was not known. I am not sure if the pre-Islamic history was well known at that point. | |
| Author: | Keshav [ 20 Apr 2008 01:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
csharma wrote: In 1853, India's history was not well understood. For example, the Harappan civilization was not known. I am not sure if the pre-Islamic history was well known at that point. No one knows why and no one here will blame religion for it, but for whatever reason (and this has been said before) India doesn't seem interested in history or recording its own history. In this sense, if we look to after the fall of the Guptas, can we say there was very little non-religious cultural connection between states that did not speak the same language? Its as if each successive generation woke up and hadn't learned anything from the one before it, so nothing changed from time to time. Considering this, we just don't see the same movements that one sees in Europe, such as the Renaissance or the Industrial Revolution or Existentialism and what not. | |
| Author: | csharma [ 20 Apr 2008 01:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I am not sure if one can say that Indians were not interested in history. For example, Chandraguta of the Gupta Age assumed his name knowing fully well about the earlier Chandragupta. That was like 500-600 years before his time. Hindus might have mixed history with fiction. I think Mahabharata and Ramayan actually must have happened but not in the way they are described. Constant revisions for various reasons might have made these documents a bit devoid of historical context. That is just my conjecture. Regardless of central authority, kingdoms knew they were part of same civilization. There was talk among Hindu Kings of forming a coalition against the invading Islamic armies. The use of Sanskrit was also common amongst all kingdoms. | |
| Author: | Keshav [ 20 Apr 2008 08:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
csharma wrote: Regardless of central authority, kingdoms knew they were part of same civilization. There was talk among Hindu Kings of forming a coalition against the invading Islamic armies. I highly doubt this. Hindu kings very rarely had a sense of "Hinduness" or did not consider that important on the political stage. Hindus consistently betrayed each other for favor from Islamic princes (bribes and what not) or from other kings, regardless of religion. Please provide a source. In the same light, there was no concept of Hindu or Dharmic civilization. Kings at this time were bound by particular lineages to a particular clan which formed the basis for their kingdom. These lineages, for kings and clan may have been slightly mythological with kings claiming descent from Devas and what not. Unless you provide a reliable source, I don't think Hindus thought of themselves as part of a pan-Indian/religious civilization till very late into the Middle Ages and into the Colonial Period. Quote: The use of Sanskrit was also common amongst all kingdoms. A truly composite culture cannot be obtained by having elites mix. The average person was not taught Sanskrit. | |
| Author: | Adrija [ 20 Apr 2008 04:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Keshav wrote Quote: India doesn't seem interested in history or recording its own history. That is so completely not true. We have literally tones of recorded material, all of which record our kingships, culture, literature, art, etc, it is just that these are not in the currently accepted sense- the western sense, that it. Please let us remove our Macaulay glasses before blindly accepting such judgements imposed on us by colonialists whose pime purpose was to deny us our heritage do go and read up at least some of our literature, which is nowadays falsely classifed as "religious/ mythology" | |
| Author: | Keshav [ 20 Apr 2008 04:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Adrija wrote: Please let us remove our Macaulay glasses before blindly accepting such judgements imposed on us by colonialists whose pime purpose was to deny us our heritage I will give you that, but Indians are generally not interested in their history, whether it was recorded or not. There are very few Indian historians who are willing to frame history in a novel format for the lay person and from my father's experience in India, he said a few of them are reading Western versions (Western) of Indian history if at all. Here's another question to tackle: To what degree is India a product of its history? Europeans view the world as "going somewhere" rather than just "being" and often view their history as culminating into something - meaning that Greece and Rome affected this, which in turn affected this and this, and finally we ended up with what we have today. Do you think is true or is this result of historians attempting to construct a narrative for European history? Because India's system of governance was pretty much copied from someone else, we have no transitional period (and this goes for Indian art as well) between one and the other and the entire thing seems artificial. Example: Kings and kings (there were some Republics during the Mauryas and Guptas but not widespread) from 4500 BC until 1947. BOOM. Parliamentary democracy. Silk paintings of RadhaKrishna. BOOM. Abstract art. | |
| Author: | Adrija [ 20 Apr 2008 05:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: but Indians are generally not interested in their history, whether it was recorded or not. There are very few Indian historians who are willing to frame history in a novel format for the lay person and from my father's experience in India, he said a few of them are reading Western versions (Western) of Indian history if at all. So, is the issue that we do not record our history, or that we do not frame it properly? I think we agree on the first (that we do record our history, even if that is is non-western formats)? Re the second point, do you know about the Mahabharat? Ramayana? Kirshna's exploits in Vrindavan? Vikram and Vetaal? Harihar? The race of Raghu? Bharat (not Ram's brother, but the one after whom Bharat is named?), the son of Dushyant All these were conveyed to us in our childhood by an oral tradition which survives from the time we started recording these events (lets us not go in the dates these happened, for that is a battle we still have to fight) Again, let us NOT judge our past by the current, macaulay-imposed notions of history......... Re the latter part of your post, and what we are taught in schools, our system of governance is from our colonial masters (you would be suprised just how much of that we retained, which accouts for a lot of our current governance problems actually), but that may be OT so I will stop here | |
| Author: | csharma [ 20 Apr 2008 06:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The idea of some Hindu kings getting together to resist Islamic armies in mentioned in John Keay's book on Indian history. It did not materialize, though. | |
| Author: | JE Menon [ 20 Apr 2008 06:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
>>Indians are generally not interested in their history, whether it was recorded or not. I would not go quite so far as that... Historical record are not scanty. There are millions of manuscripts rotting away that are still unread. However, our enthusiasm for inquiring about ourselves was somewhat wanting. Name, for example, one pre-British Indian archaeologist. The field as a whole was introduced by the colonisers. And we know now, how much archaeology has helped us find out about ourselves over the past 200 years or so... Every act has unintended consequences, generally speaking. Colonialism is no exception. Undoubtedly the British did not expect that within decades of their leaving India, members of the Queen's family would be borrowing money from a rich Indian's wife to tide themselves through a touch financial patch.... | |
| Author: | Keshav [ 20 Apr 2008 08:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
JE Menon wrote: I would not go quite so far as that... Historical record are not scanty. There are millions of manuscripts rotting away that are still unread. That is true. Hunts for these manuscripts are becoming more frantic, I've heard with the idea that many are too old and be thrown out. Quote: However, our enthusiasm for inquiring about ourselves was somewhat wanting. Name, for example, one pre-British Indian archaeologist. The field as a whole was introduced by the colonisers. And we know now, how much archaeology has helped us find out about ourselves over the past 200 years or so... The fact remains that it was the British who started it and not us. That alone shows how much we care for our history. Only so much history can be contained in oral stories. I suppose I don't have too much faith in Indian Indologists to get the job done but time will tell how we frame the Indian narrative. | |
| Author: | darshan [ 20 Apr 2008 10:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I agree with JEM that enthusiasm has lot to do with it. I personally had a friend who has no idea how many wars Bharat fought with Pukes because he never read anything useful history wise. | |
| Author: | skganji [ 20 Apr 2008 11:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Legend of Dwaraka |
Guys, I am really found an interesting article on Dwaraka which is too long but worth looking into it. It is an excellent article tries to look into the archeological findings at Dwaraka and events related to Mahabharata without western prejuidice. http://www.mahabharataonline.com/articl ... .php?id=32 | |
| Author: | Airavat [ 21 Apr 2008 04:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Keshav wrote: Hindu kings very rarely had a sense of "Hinduness" or did not consider that important on the political stage. In the same light, there was no concept of Hindu or Dharmic civilization. Kings at this time were bound by particular lineages to a particular clan which formed the basis for their kingdom. At which time? Ancient India, Medieval India, or the entire span of Indian History? A few scattered examples of unity: The Pratihar, Chauhan, Guhilot, and allied clans of Rajasthan-MP-Gujarat united to defeat the Arab invaders in the 8th century CE. The Later Guptas and the Maukharis united to defeat the Hun invaders in the 6th century CE. Several instances of Indian Warrior Clans uniting against the Indo-Greeks, Sakas, and Kushans. And now some examples of disunity....not among Hindus, but Muslims! In the 13th century CE as the Mongols crushed the Islamic power in Central Asia and Iran, Jalaluddin the son of the Sultan who had been defeated by the Mongols, fled with his followers into India where the Muslim Turks were ruling in the Indo-Gangetic plain. Jalaluddin asked for help against the Mongols from Sultan Iltutmish, in the name of Islamic brotherhood. But Iltutmish refused! He stood by as Jalaluddin and his Muslim army were defeated and crushed by the Mongols on Indian soil, and later even sent an embassy to the kaffir Mongols, asking for their friendship. We know that the Ruhelas (Western UP), the Shia rulers of Awadh (Eastern UP), united with the invader Ahmad Shah Abdali in the 18th century against the Marathas. This is because all three felt a common danger to their interests from the latter. But after Panipat when Ahmad Shah Abdali was engaged in fighting the Sikh misls, neither the Ruhelas nor Awadh came to his aid.....why? What happened to the notion of Islamic brotherhood and jehad against infidels? Because the Sikhs were not a threat to the Ruhelas or Awadh as the Marathas had been. Ahmad Shah complained bitterly of their faithless attitude but safe in their lands and relieved of the Maratha threat, these Muslims calmly ignored him. Keshav wrote: The average person was not taught Sanskrit. First what is an "average person"? In the cities, in the villages, where? And again in which period of Indian History? Or did you discover the average person in each period from your unnamed sources, added them all up, and then came up with one average for the entire span of Indian History? You're turning out to be something of a troublemaker with your loaded statements; first questioning Maratha Hindawi Swaraj on the basis of excesses in certain areas, and now questioning Dharmic civilization, Indian unity and even linguistic unity! Language development and history And if you ask others for "sources" cite your own sources to back your claims. | |
| Author: | csharma [ 21 Apr 2008 05:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Airavat, you are the best person to administer the admonition. Is the book called Operation Kartikeya that is selling on Amazon authored by you? A separate suggestion I have is that given your vast knowledge in various aspects of Indian history, it might be a good idea to write a short book to correct most of the misconceptions that most Indians have. We can have a permanent link on BR for newbies. | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 21 Apr 2008 06:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
One of the oldest definitions of history ( itihasa) wa by Vishnugupta ( more popularly recognized as Chanakya. He mentions this definition in the context of the training of a Prince and th esyllabus he should follow. it turns out that that Itihasa is an important part of the training of a prince ( and i am sure of others) I quote myself "The original meaning of Itiihaasa had a more precise meaning than the word History. The etymology attested to by Panini indicates itiha to mean ‘thus indeed , in this tradition’ . One of the earliest references to Itihaasa in the literature of antiquity is in Chanakyas’s Arthashastra. Our investigations lead us to believe that the Maurya empire for which he was the preceptor began in 1534 BCE. He defines Itihaasa, in the context of the syllabus prescribed for training of a Prince, with the following words; पॠ| |
| Author: | Sanku [ 21 Apr 2008 06:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thank you Kaushal Garu; for the words of wisdom as always. I had a question -- would the dating problem be irrelevant for Indian historians due to the use of embedded star charts in historical account? Just as modern day computer documents have embedded signatures in them; similarly by embedding a star chart most account times were frozen correctly for eternity (well as long as stars burnt at least) For example Mahabharata is now accurately dated back to 3000 BCE; primarily by uncanny accuracy of its star sighting records. Could this be a usual method -- or was is limited to only "higher" texts -- also what according you is the more accurate date for Vishnugupta's work -- around 1300 BCE as has been postulated by many; or the usual western Bible driven dating theory (of starting the world in 1300s) actually managed to get this right in 300-400 BCE period per fluke? | |
| Author: | Sanku [ 21 Apr 2008 06:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Keshav wrote: The fact remains that it was the British who started it and not us. That alone shows how much we care for our history. Only so much history can be contained in oral stories. The last I checked; there was no Indian in the period mentioned working on calculus in any universities; no Indian physicists; no economists of note; no people in the GoI of that time. Nothing but clerks and soldiers for the British empire No doubt this also means that all the above fields came into existence with the British in late 19th century. Correct? Or is there a correlation with the time and political power and colonialism? No doubt the western educated -- "history begins with us" folks will know the answer right away -- after all both their sense of history; the depth of knowledge and the rational thinking process which connects the various threads together will help them see the answer immediately. Quote: I suppose I don't have too much faith in Indian Indologists to get the job done but time will tell how we frame the Indian narrative. If any one will do it it will be Indians; the non Indians have done more harm than good -- mucking about with something is not necessarily constructive. | |
| Author: | csharma [ 21 Apr 2008 09:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kaushal, How did you come up with 1500 BCE for Chanakya's time. Should it not be around Alexander's incursion into India ~300 BC? | |
| Author: | shiv [ 21 Apr 2008 10:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Keshav wrote: The fact remains that it was the British who started it and not us. That alone shows how much we care for our history. Only so much history can be contained in oral stories. Er - objection. Almost all of human history is oral stories today - much of which is being lost (and has already been lost) because they are not being recorded or not being given credence. I say "not being given credence" deliberately. There are two reasons for "not giving credence" to oral histories: 1) People do not want to believe them, but will accept history in a format that they are accustomed to getting history from and have been told is the right method to study history 2) (And this is the more significant reason) - Oral histories are rubbished by cultures that do not want the old oral histories to survive The history of most of Africa, Arabia, Europe and the Americas before Christ and Mohammad falls in this category - ruthlessly wiped out by the history that came thereafter - primarily because written records exist after these two relatively recent religions sent out their legions, and the oral histories that pre-dated them have been consigned to - well - the rubbish heap of history. Vandals, Goths, Visigoths, pre-Islamic Arabs, Incas and Mayas, Ahura Mazda, and a whole lot of other traditions are "myths and legends" today precisely because memories and cultures and music and language of real people have been wiped out and replaced by what we are to accept as "The real history of the world" The only protestors left are in India - and a few pockets in Europe. "Consigning what is older to history" and converting the current into the new history is the work of "recorded history" as we know it. India is one of the few areas in the world where the oral history record is still alive and there still remains a body of scholarship to point that out without getting snuffed out by the history of religion. Recorded history forms a miniscule part of the history of lives and cultures that existed, and even today the greatest possibility of reconstructing what they were like comes from making adequate records of oral histories. It would be naive to consider a few books and fewer historians as the fount of all history. Throughout antiquity humans have "recorded" their past in songs and stories and legends - often marking events, heroes and gods in those stories. Survival of such stories would automatically be fatal to both Roman Christianity and Islam - both of which have murdered and coerced to suppress other histories. Now which recorded history book or historian is bold enough to acknowledge that? Heck a Rushdie gets a death sentence even today. | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 21 Apr 2008 01:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sanku wrote: Thank you Kaushal Garu; for the words of wisdom as always. I had a question -- would the dating problem be irrelevant for Indian historians due to the use of embedded star charts in historical account? Just as modern day computer documents have embedded signatures in them; similarly by embedding a star chart most account times were frozen correctly for eternity (well as long as stars burnt at least) For example Mahabharata is now accurately dated back to 3000 BCE; primarily by uncanny accuracy of its star sighting records. Could this be a usual method -- or was is limited to only "higher" texts -- also what according you is the more accurate date for Vishnugupta's work -- around 1300 BCE as has been postulated by many; or the usual western Bible driven dating theory (of starting the world in 1300s) actually managed to get this right in 300-400 BCE period per fluke? I wouldnt say it is irrelevant. But the fact remains that the occidental has been very inconsistent in his objections to the astronomical dating paradigm. This was because he is afflicted with the loin cloth syndrome. The LCS is one in which the occidental cannot fathom the possibility of a civilization advancing unless it is accompanied by several layers of clothing, ignoring the fact that in tropical countries , people always wore a minimum amount of clothing and less rather than more. I am being facetious but the fact remains that they are very reluctant to accept that Indians had a very sophisticated astronomical knowledge. Albrecht Weber one of many Occidental indologists who spent his life time studying Indian texts (while denigrating them for the most part) takes the stand that the Indics may have developed the astronomical knowledge but they probably did it (you guessed it) while they were on their way to India. Left unsaid in most statements of the occidental is the underlying premise that it just could not be - that a country which was so easily conquered by the European is capable of any civilizational achievement | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 21 Apr 2008 02:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
csharma wrote: Kaushal, How did you come up with 1500 BCE for Chanakya's time. Should it not be around Alexander's incursion into India ~300 BC? This is based on astronomical dating . Prof Narahari Achar who is at Memphis, and has done considerable work on Astronomical dating using Planetarium software, confirms the Puranic version of our itihasa ( which has now been effectively wiped out of our memory thank s to Macaulay). The complete paper i s available in book form at lulu .com. do a search on Astronomical dating once you are at the site. The paper is also available at my site indicstudies.us/History/HEC2007. although i request that you do not download the whole book which has multiple authors. You have to unlearn almost the entire history of India in order to put together the new framework . Th Occidental , in this instance Sir william followed by a whole slew of British historians, who parroted hi s assumptions was the first to use the greek synchronism (Sandrocottus = Chandragupta Maurya) as the sheet anchor o f Indian history . He died shortly thereafter had he known that there was another Chandragupta in indian history namely Chandragupta of the imperial Gupta dynasty, h emay have corrected his mistake, but then again he may have not. Remember , that Sir william was trying to learn sanskrit and unearth documents at the same time during the period 1780. He found great reluctance on the part of thePandit community to share the knowledge. Again in my opinion there were 2 reasons. 1. The great Bengal famine of 1770 which wipe dout 1/3 of bengal by slow starvation (those of you who advocate the thesis that the British invented indian history, will not fail to see the irony in the fact that you are right - so much so that they omitted or downplayed the extent and the inconvenient fact such as the horrendous famines which rocked India after the british took over. In my telling of the British colonial period the major paradigm would be the impoverishment and malnourishment(euphemism for denying them adequate food) of the Indian populace. Read a book called Annam Bahu Kurvitha by MD Srinivas etal 2. Apart from the Pandit population being thinned out by starvation. there was reluctance on the part of the pandits to share the knowledge with somebody who was not a fit candidate. When you earn your PhD you have to pass a qualifying exam to indicate your fitness for scholarship. In the Indi tradition it is no different. there are no short cuts to becoming a doctor . You have to put in your time roughly 12 years after high school. In the same way, you cnnot become a vedic pandit without putting in your time , roughly 18 year in Gurukula, otherwise you are bound to misinterpret things | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 21 Apr 2008 02:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The story of the Indian contribution to many subjects such as the calculus has not been told in its entirety.A generous dose of humility is very appropriate here, accepting the fact that the only thing we know with certainty is we know little. The definitive work on the contribution to the computational sciences is yet to be compiled .Although C K Raju (do a google)has done a monumental job with the calculus. There is a tendency to accept assumptions as facts with the result that arguments on this subject amount to obvious tautologies or circular arguments based on the assumption, that the British said so and therefore it must be true. | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 21 Apr 2008 09:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
“India Lacks Historical agency†| |
| Author: | gandharva [ 21 Apr 2008 09:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Just in case it is useful to this discussion. Political history of ancient India, from the accession of Parikshit to the extinction of the Gupta dynasty (1923) http://www.archive.org/download/politic ... ycuoft.pdf | |
| Author: | Rahul M [ 21 Apr 2008 10:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
keshav, rangarajan's copy isn't with me at the moment but at least the reference to itihasa is certainly there unless memory is playing tricks with me. the definition is not present AFAIK. | |
| Author: | Keshav [ 21 Apr 2008 10:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rahul M wrote: keshav, rangarajan's copy isn't with me at the moment but at least the reference to itihasa is certainly there unless memory is playing tricks with me. the definition is not present AFAIK. I deleted my comment because I found the relevent passages. There are two references to "Itihass" on pages 106, 143. The one on 106 is simply outlining all those scriptures involved in the different branches of knowledge which Chanakya includes three Vedas (Rig, Sama, Yajur - the Atharvaveda is mainly a spell book), Puranas, Itihaasa (epics, primarily), Dharmashastras, previous Arthashastras, and other sciences. Currently reading Chanakya's "Arthashastra", it dispells the notion that there were no political commentators or political thought before Chanakya. He mentions many schools of political thought and agrees or disagrees (vast majority of the time he disagrees). It very much non-religious in the sense that it does not involve itself in modes of worship or philosophy but constantly references dharma and adharma as rules for kingship and what not. Definitely not Machiavellian in morality and a helluva lot smarter. The "Arthashastra" at 744 pages is definitely not "airy fairy". I can't imagine how long it was in the original format. | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 24 Apr 2008 03:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
for those inthe orlando area, i will be conducting WORKSHOP IN TH E WAVES COMNFERENCE. stay tuned, thiis on June 27-29 Dear all, I have made some important changes to the document. which we can use as the background to the Workshop. I would like to remind everybody that the Delhi conference, ICIH2009 is still in the future (January 9-11,2009), and i am looking forward to seeing a lot of you there. It is planned as a multidisciplinary event with 3 major strands (or Sulvas as in SulvaSutras) History and Chronology (with special reference oo those areas where there was significant distortion) Civilizational Aspects (including transmission of Knowledge from East to West) Geopolitical Aspects For the waves workshop we will focus in one aspect namely the Colonial paradigm of Indian history which has been peddled as the true and in fact the only History of india. This is part of the introduction to the multivolume series on Indologists who have studied India thru the ages, that i am in the process of writing. Can those of you who would like to contribute to the pedagogical aspects of this Workshop pl. get in touch with me asap. Thank you and looking forward to a highly intellectual session in Orlando. I am looking for a prompt, response as we are running short of time , KV On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Dr.BVK Sastry (IVHU) Namaste Thank you Dr.Vepa. I am sure you are bringing a rich experience and information explosion after the Delhi program and also your own researches at Europe and England. The document you forwarded is shared to this team so that there is a bigger picture of the workshop. I am copying your mail to the WAVES Board. Dr. Kosla Vepa has confirmed a workshop session as below for WAVES. Can you help the workshop invitation mailing to go to a larger audience please | |
| Author: | Abhijit [ 01 May 2008 05:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
replying to a post in the paki thread because it fits here. Quote: Unfortunately it is not only in NCERT books but even our midst, the story of our history is almost lost. Fortunately I was educated in a vernacular medium school and was raised in a family that took its history seriously and even more fortunately, had some really great history teachers who made us aware of the real history. Plus, being a Mumbaikar, I learned the Maratha history before it was murdered by the current kaangrasi jokers. Because of Shivaji Maharaj, at least a large section of Mahrashtrians are aware of the islamic atyachaar - they still vote for kaangress but they are not as brainwashed as I found a lot of North Indians, Bengalis were. NCERT has really created a whole generation of Indians who are completely unaware of the horrific past - and the past keeps becoming present again and again. | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 01 May 2008 07:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ironically, the least distorted period in our History is the islamic period. The Islamic Historians,in general were truthful about their own actions. They made no bones about their belief in general that killing as many kaffirs as possible was a laudable goal. All you have to do is to read Elliot and Dowson. It is the other periods in Indic History that have been seriously mangled . In particular the British account of the colonial period is a work of great fiction and the chronology of the ancient period is seriously distorted, along with a lot of gratuitous embellishments, that any resemblance to the truth is purely accidental. | |
| Author: | sanjaychoudhry [ 02 May 2008 03:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
X-posted from psyops thread. Quote: Last week I met Dr. Prodosh Aich, the author of "Lies with Long Legs," in Delhi. The book rips into the myths about early British Indologists such as William Jones and investigates their background, patrons and financiers. The book was a result of a team of about 8 German students and professors headed by Dr. Aich which did original research in archives in Calcutta, Germany and London to come up with some shocking truths about these early Indologists and their "theories" about Indian history. I am currently reading the book and plan to write a detailed review and snyopsis of the book here on BRF. Over many tea sessions, Dr. Aich and I agreed to promote the book in India. (He is a professor in a German university.) For that, he gifted me 20 copies of the book (Rs 650 each) which I have to give as complimentary to varous libraries in Delhi where history students come to do their research such as Nehru Memorial Library. I have also been tasked to look for a Hindi transaltor for the book. Also, in the pipeline is a cheap paperback version. Dr. Aich is currenlty looking for sponsors for a huge project (costing about Rs two to three crores) to investigate the roots of Hinduism in south India. An important discovery has been made of an ancient temple in South India that will lay to rests many myths about spreading of Hinduism from north to south. I have the entire project synopsis with me and will be posting it on BRF soon. The problem is there is no foundation in India that may be interested in sponsoring this project but I am trying. | |
| Author: | Kaushal [ 02 May 2008 03:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have his book, and it is a keeper. I have been trying to get hold of him, but i dont seem to have an accurate email., ,can you ask him to get in touch with me by email Kosla DOT Vepa AT indicstudies DOT us... I would like to invite him personally (on the phone) to be an invited speaker at the conference. I will also give an address in Delhi where he can have his books sent for exhibition at the conference. | |
| Author: | sanjaychoudhry [ 02 May 2008 03:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kaushal wrote: I have his book, and it is a keeper. I have been trying to get hold of him, but i dont seem to have an accurate email., ,can you ask him to get in touch with me by email Kosla DOT Vepa AT indicstudies DOT us... I would like to invite him personally (on the phone) to be an invited speaker at the conference. I will also give an address in Delhi where he can have his books sent for exhibition at the conference. Kaushal, can you pls email me at sanjaychoudhry at hotmail dot com | |
| Author: | ashish raval [ 02 May 2008 04:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Could not find a better place to post: http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/apr/25temp.htm | |
| Author: | ramana [ 02 May 2008 04:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It would be polite to post a small description rather than a bare link. Thanks. Keshav wrote: ramana wrote: I offer: Accession of Chandragupta Maurya Narasimha Varma Pallava Accession of Rajaraja Chola. Actually I would get to meet Kundavai Devi:) Defeat of Prithvi Raj Chauhan Harihara Raya Shivaji Baji Rao 1857 Its interesting that all of your points are political and that you only offered eight. Well I didnt want to hog the whole list. I generously let others have two to contribute Yes all are policitical but they are all events when India was on ascendent! Besides if you think about it a everything is political. With out rajanugrha(royal patronage) nothing ever really happens. By rajanugraha, I mean prosperity, stabilty and security that foster an atmosphere for development in all other spheres of life. | |
| Author: | John Snow [ 02 May 2008 05:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sanjay I can contribute directly small amounst, but can rope in bunch of people to donate after getting them high on my Idly Vada Dosa upma and samabr kind of feast. We can start generating ideas, I had generated funds donations and interest free loans to the tune of 700,000 USD. Keep ramana garu informe and he will farm it. | |
| Author: | sanjaychoudhry [ 02 May 2008 05:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
John Snow wrote: Sanjay I can contribute directly small amounst, but can rope in bunch of people to donate after getting them high on my Idly Vada Dosa upma and samabr kind of feast. We can start generating ideas, I had generated funds donations and interest free loans to the tune of 700,000 USD. Keep ramana garu informe and he will farm it. John, your offer is simply great. Allow me some days to post the full project brief here. Also, I will sound off concerned parties that starting a Trust for the project will be a good idea where people can donate directly toward the project. Will keep in touch. | |
| All times are UTC | |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ | |
. Movers And Packers Bangalore are exceptionally meeting desires in this field due to the way that our gathering of expert specialists has been from long time in this industry for a significant time span. They all have passed an extraordinary test and are ready to handle each kind of equipment; glass things and the materials tend to damage or routinely bear the most breakage part in development process. We use differing sorts of schedules for unmistakable assets for packing. In this bleeding edge time, mechanical standard squeezing is done with real air-sputtered poly bags/ sheets, fragile thick and thin wipe sheets, casings, etc.
ReplyDeletehttp://packersmoversbangalore.in/
http://packersmoversbangalore.in/packers-and-movers-bangalore-to-hyderabad
Packers And Movers Delhi prompt moving, relocation and shifting services for people and corporation moving to Delhi and round the India. For Movers Packers Delhi city full target report on supply of revenue and effective Movers And Packers Delhi, contact today 08290173333. We include our network in major cities like Bengaluru, Bangalore, Gurgaon, Hyderabad, Chandigarh, Haridwar, Chennai, Noida, Mumbai, Pune, Jaipur, Lucknow, Patna, Bhopal, Bhubaneswar, Ahmedabad and Kolkata.
ReplyDeletehttp://packers-and-movers-delhi.in/
http://packers-and-movers-delhi.in/packers-and-movers-jama-masjid-delhi
I like your website very much thanks for your share. all the imformation are useful for me,I will come again.Please visit here:
ReplyDeletehttp://packers-and-movers-gurgaon.in/
http://packers-and-movers-gurgaon.in/packers-and-movers-janaula-gurgaon
http://packers-and-movers-gurgaon.in/packers-and-movers-janaula-gurgaon