Reply With QuoteThe indian subcontinent had never been unified under a single ruler before the british If I recall correctly, that is something good they (the british ) did.
In a purely nationalist sense one cannot say the Britsh Raj represented a Greater India but if one looks dispasionately at the facts it is clear that the British Raj did incorporate many elements of an Indian golden age. At its height the British Indian included India, Pakistan, Bengladesh, and Burma while the Governor General in New Dehli officially also controlled Sri Lanka, Bhutan, and Nepal. Officially Nepal and Bhutan were subjects of the British crown who were granted home rule but who could not independently conduct foreign policy which was solely vested with the British government (meaning the crown's representative, the Governor General, in New Dehli) including the ability to declare war or make peace.
The Raj was certainly the largest territorial exent Indian ever experienced with Pakistan, India, Bengladesh, and Burma all being officially part of India and with several other countries being subjegated to India. So what do you think? Was the Raj the high point for India?
"Our scientific power has out run out spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." - Martin Luther King Jr.
"A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself." - Joseph Pulitzer
The indian subcontinent had never been unified under a single ruler before the british If I recall correctly, that is something good they (the british ) did.
I need a foot massage
Does it matter? We bettered their curries for them.
India, enduring the bitterness created by the Departure of their Great British Overlords, must surely weep in despair.
Where are the Indians?
QFT.Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
The indian subcontinent had never been unified under a single ruler before the british If I recall correctly, that is something good they (the british ) did.
India has been deeply affected by all invaders, from the Aryans to the Muslims to the British. Elements of all of their cultures have been incorporated into a unique and vibrant result that we can be proud of today.
No; even if we do assume that the Raj was a monolithic entity comprising the territories you listed (which is inaccurate) I'm sure we are all more than happy to have given up some of it for the right to rule ourselves, to devolve power to more local institutions, and for the various other benefits that derive from not being a darkie-inhabited colony.Originally posted by Oerdin
Was the Raj the high point for India?
I do not consider the Aryans invaders, because Aryan was simply the name the local people gave themselves. Remember that Ravana once accused Rama of being un-Aryan.Originally posted by LordShiva
QFT.
India has been deeply affected by all invaders, from the Aryans to the Muslims to the British. Elements of all of their cultures have been incorporated into a unique and vibrant result that we can be proud of today.
Secondly - the Muslims never have considered themselves part of the continuity of this country, and probably never will. Can you please tell me even a single instance of the contribution of people who were patronised by Muslim kings to Sanskrit literature or Indian classical music or Indian philosophy? A pathetic attempt to copy the architecture of Shah Abbas' Persia does not constitute an attempt to enrich India. Mughal architecture looks pathetic when compared to what inspired it.
And the wilful destruction of the indigenous architecture which was done by the Muslims is unforgivable, in my book. I cannot forgive Islam for that. Did you know that 25 temples were quarried for their stone to build the Qutub Minar? You can still see the statues of deities sticking out like a sort thumb from the base of the structure. Did you know that this was standard practice? The mosque they built on top near the minar is aptly named "Strength of Islam", or "Quwwut-ul-Islam". From the point of view of the Hindus, the Muslim invasion was as much of an imperialist intrusion as was the British. All sorts of social evils crept in during that time.
I do not consider a forcedly bastardised culture a "vibrant" one. I'll be happy when Sanskrit is revived and resurrected and is used again as the language of literature, and Old India is reborn. Until then, it is but a phase of the cultural digestion of rubbish.
Originally posted by aneeshm
lol i h8 muslims LOL
Eventis is the only refuge of the spammer. Join us now.
Long live teh paranoia smiley! http://www.eventis.ws/images/smilies/emot-tinfoil.gif
Originally posted by Tacc
lol i h8 commie idiots who mistakenly think i h8 muslims lol LOL
Last edited by aneeshm; January 10, 2007 at 05:07.
I don't think it was, because of two things.Originally posted by Oerdin
In a purely nationalist sense one cannot say the Britsh Raj represented a Greater India but if one looks dispasionately at the facts it is clear that the British Raj did incorporate many elements of an Indian golden age. At its height the British Indian included India, Pakistan, Bengladesh, and Burma while the Governor General in New Dehli officially also controlled Sri Lanka, Bhutan, and Nepal. Officially Nepal and Bhutan were subjects of the British crown who were granted home rule but who could not independently conduct foreign policy which was solely vested with the British government (meaning the crown's representative, the Governor General, in New Dehli) including the ability to declare war or make peace.
The Raj was certainly the largest territorial exent Indian ever experienced with Pakistan, India, Bengladesh, and Burma all being officially part of India and with several other countries being subjegated to India. So what do you think? Was the Raj the high point for India?
The "You're brownie scum we're going to civilise" bit, and the "We're going to rape your resources and destroy your institutions" bit, which rather tend to spoil golden ages.
The attitude of the Brits is best summed up by Lord Macaulay, who said, in an infamous speech to the British Parliament, February 2nd, 1835,
And this is not all. He goes further, to say:
[10] I have no knowledge of either Sanscrit or Arabic. But I have done what I could to form a correct estimate of their value. I have read translations of the most celebrated Arabic and Sanscrit works. I have conversed, both here and at home, with men distinguished by their proficiency in the Eastern tongues. I am quite ready to take the oriental learning at the valuation of the orientalists themselves. I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature is indeed fully admitted by those members of the committee who support the oriental plan of education.
[11] It will hardly be disputed, I suppose, that the department of literature in which the Eastern writers stand highest is poetry. And I certainly never met with any orientalist who ventured to maintain that the Arabic and Sanscrit poetry could be compared to that of the great European nations. But when we pass from works of imagination to works in which facts are recorded and general principles investigated, the superiority of the Europeans becomes absolutely immeasurable. It is, I believe, no exaggeration to say that all the historical information which has been collected from all the books written in the Sanscrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgments used at preparatory schools in England. In every branch of physical or moral philosophy, the relative position of the two nations is nearly the same.
[34] In one point I fully agree with the gentlemen to whose general views I am opposed. I feel with them that it is impossible for us, with our limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, --a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.
Do you still think that rule by people like this can be called a high point?
Of course it can, Aneeshm. Look at the ecthy quote in LS's sig--wait, did he remove his sig? Pshht.
1011 1100
I wish we were still a colony. Then you can blame everything on the Brits and not have to pay for anything.
Independence sucks.
"Wait a minute..this isn''t FAUX dive, it's just a DIVE!"
"...Mangy dog staggering about, looking vainly for a place to die."
"sauna stories? There are no 'sauna stories'.. I mean.. sauna is sauna. You do by the laws of sauna." -P.
And your point is?Originally posted by aneeshm
I don't think it was, because of two things.
The "You're brownie scum we're going to civilise" bit, and the "We're going to rape your resources and destroy your institutions" bit, which rather tend to spoil golden ages.
The attitude of the Brits is best summed up by Lord Macaulay, who said, in an infamous speech to the British Parliament, February 2nd, 1835,
And this is not all. He goes further, to say:
Do you still think that rule by people like this can be called a high point?
Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
Douglas Adams (Influential author)
I'm not sure that Lord Macaulay really represented the wider body of British opinion or just his own, moronic, bigoted ignorance.
That said, the quote was worth posting as an example of how bad some of the imperialists were.
And tass wants to live in teh caliphate. hehe
Of course you don't, because to do so would mean the whole "invaders=bad" argument falls apart, especially when, in this case, the invaders are the ones imposing the culture you eclusively hold as "Indian." It makes you ignore all the evidence to back it up.Originally posted by aneeshm
I do not consider the Aryans invaders
What? An invading force destroyed some temples and killed some people? OMG! This never happened anywhere else in history! Of course, never mind that the massacres engineered by one of our "enlightened" Hindu/Buddhist kings in Kalinga make any Muslim bloodthirst pale in comparison.Originally posted by aneeshm
Secondly - the Muslims never have considered themselves part of the continuity of this country, and probably never will. Can you please tell me even a single instance of the contribution of people who were patronised by Muslim kings to Sanskrit literature or Indian classical music or Indian philosophy? A pathetic attempt to copy the architecture of Shah Abbas' Persia does not constitute an attempt to enrich India. Mughal architecture looks pathetic when compared to what inspired it.
Also, do you really believe that the Muslim kings didn't patronise Indian classical music? WTF? It wouldn't be half as developed as it is if it wasn't for their patronage.
Can you please provide some CONCRETE proof that the word Arya refers to a people or a race and not simply the name given by the locals to themselves? Not some linguistic mumbo-jumbo, which can usually be interpreted any which way. I've seen people interpret the SAME passage in three different ways, and each of them draws an equally plausible conclusion, and all three are totally conflicting.Originally posted by LordShiva
Of course you don't, because to do so would mean the whole "invaders=bad" argument falls apart, especially when, in this case, the invaders are the ones imposing the culture you eclusively hold as "Indian." It makes you ignore all the evidence to back it up.
If that were all, I wouldn't bother so much. It's the systematic erasure of ALL the major temples of north India which gets to me, and not just that, but the ideology which was responsible for their destruction, and which is still alive and well. Can you please tell me the name of THREE major temples in the north which were never ravaged by Muslims? Three would be enough for me.Originally posted by LordShiva
What? An invading force destroyed some temples and killed some people?
And "some people"? Do you have any idea of the sort of killing which went on during the invasion or under Muslim rule? These were people who used to halt their invading army and hold a party whenever they killed a batch of 10,000 Hindus. I guess you don't really know the extent of the atrocities, or you wouldn't say this. The "great" and "tolerant" Akbar ordered the innocent civilians of Chittor to be massacred. He killed 30,000 there itself. The horrors of the Mughal occupation before and after that time need not be elaborated.
Got any figures relating to the Kalinga war? This was the war which convinced Ashok to become a pragmatic pacifist Buddhist, and he became probably the greatest ruler India has ever seen.Originally posted by LordShiva
This never happened anywhere else in history! Of course, never mind that the massacres engineered by one of our "enlightened" Hindu/Buddhist kings in Kalinga make any Muslim bloodthirst pale in comparison.
How much Muslim influence has there been on Carnatic music, exactly? And how much patronage was given to it? And you still fail to answer the more pressing questions - Sanskrit literature and Indian philosophy. What of these two?Originally posted by LordShiva
Also, do you really believe that the Muslim kings didn't patronise Indian classical music? WTF? It wouldn't be half as developed as it is if it wasn't for their patronage.
just blame everything on the US and don't pay them anything for guarenteeing your independence and security.Originally posted by Seeker
I wish we were still a colony. Then you can blame everything on the Brits and not have to pay for anything.
Independence sucks.
Some facts about the "great" Akbar:
http://sify.com/itihaas/fullstory.php?id=13369969
http://www.geolmlsu.org/historypart2.html
http://www.gatewayforindia.com/histo...%20the%20great
The most biased site, but the only one which doesn't ask you to take it for its word, because it gives full references:
http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_histor.../akbar_vs.html
Next day the Rajputs under a new young leader Patta Singh donned on the saffron robes - Kesariya, in preparation for a fight to death, flung open the gates of the fort and charged on to the Mughal army. Patta Singh, his mother and his wife duly died in the ensuing battle as did many Rajput warriors. Later, the victorious Mughal army entered the fort of Chitod. At the time there were 40,000 Hindu peasants and artisans residing on the fort besides the Rajput army. AKBAR THEN ORDERED A MASSACRE OF ALL THE CAPTURED UNARMED 40,000 HINDUS, some artisans indeed were spared and taken away but THE SLAIN AMOUNTED TO AT LEAST 30,000 (5,6,7,8,9) Akbar was particularly keen to avenge himself on the thousand musketeers who had done much damage to his troops, but they escaped by the boldest of the tricks. Binding their own women and children, and shoving them roughly along like new captives, the Rajput musketeers successfully passed themselves off as a detachment of the victorious Mughals and so made their way out of the fort (5,6,7,8,9).
REFERENCES
1. The Great Moghuls, By B.Gascoigne, Harper Row Publishers, New York, 1972, p.15
2. Same as ref. 1, pp. 68-75
3. The Cambridge History of India, Vol. IV, Mughal India, ed. Lt. Col. Sir W.Haig, Sir R.Burn, S,Chand & Co., Delhi, 1963, pp. 71-73
4. The Builders of The Mogul Empire, By M.Prawdin, Barnes & Noble Inc, New York, 1965, pp. 127-28
5. Same as ref. 1, pp. 88-93
6. Same as ref. 3. pp. 97-99
7. Same as ref. 4, pp. 137-38
8. An Advanced History of India, by R.C.Majumdar, H.C.Raychoudhury, K.Datta, MacMillen & Co., London, 2nd Ed, 1965, pp. 448-450
9. Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 th Ed, Vol.21, 1967, p.65
10. Same as ref. 1, p. 85
Several people have posted this sort of evidence in other threads, but you keep ignoring it:Originally posted by aneeshm
Can you please provide some CONCRETE proof that the word Arya refers to a people or a race and not simply the name given by the locals to themselves? Not some linguistic mumbo-jumbo, which can usually be interpreted any which way. I've seen people interpret the SAME passage in three different ways, and each of them draws an equally plausible conclusion, and all three are totally conflicting.
Vedic Aryans
See also: Vedic period and Rigvedic tribes
The first undisputed horse remains in India are found in the Bronze Age Gandhara Grave culture context from ca. 1600 BC (although there are claims[citation needed] of horse bones found in Harappan and even pre-Harappan layers). This likely corresponds to an influx of early Indo-Aryan speakers over the Hindukush (comparable to the Kushan expansion of the first centuries AD). Together with indigenous cultures, this gave rise to the Vedic civilization of the early Iron Age. This civilization is marked by a continual shift to the east, first to the Gangetic plain with the Kurus and Panchalas, and further east with the Kosala and Videha. This Iron Age expansion corresponds to the black and red ware and painted grey ware cultures.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migrationIndo-Aryan migration refers to the theory that speakers of Indo-Aryan languages migrated into the Indian subcontinent during the 2nd millennium BCE, as opposed to being autochthonous to the region.
Based on linguistic evidence, most scholars have argued that Indo-Aryan speakers migrated to northern India following the breakup of Proto-Indo-Iranian and the subsequent Indo-Iranian expansion out of Central Asia (Mallory 1989)[page # needed].[1] These scholars argue that, in India, the Indo-Aryans interacted with the remnants of the Indus Valley civilization, a process that gave rise to Vedic civilization (Parpola 2005).
Archaeological data indicates that there was a shift of settlements from the Indus Valley region to the east and south during the later 2nd millennium BCE, but is inconclusive with regard to a preceding immigration into India ( Shaffer 1995, Shaffer 1999).
The linguistic facts of the situation are little disputed by the relevant scholars (Bryant 2001, p. 73–74). However, linguistic data alone cannot determine whether this migration was peaceful or invasive. Different linguists have argued for either, or for a combination of both, on extra-linguistic grounds. The alternative to Indo-Aryan migration is known as Indigenous Aryan Theory, claiming either a Proto-Indo-Iranian Urheimat in India, or in its stronger "Out of India" incarnation, even a Proto-Indo-European one; either variant has little academic support.
I'm not an expert on historical temples. Of course many were destroyed. And it's unfortunate, from an archaeological point of view. This is hardly unique to India.Originally posted by aneeshm
If that were all, I wouldn't bother so much. It's the systematic erasure of ALL the major temples of north India which gets to me, and not just that, but the ideology which was responsible for their destruction, and which is still alive and well. Can you please tell me the name of THREE major temples in the north which were never ravaged by Muslims? Three would be enough for me.
From Wiki: "The whole of Kalinga was plundered and destroyed: Ashoka's later edicts say that about 100,000 people were killed on the Kalinga side and 10,000 from Ashoka's army; thousands of men and women were deported."Originally posted by aneeshm
Got any figures relating to the Kalinga war? This was the war which convinced Ashok to become a pragmatic pacifist Buddhist, and he became probably the greatest ruler India has ever seen.
http://www.musicalnirvana.com/introd...l_history.htmlOriginally posted by aneeshm
How much Muslim influence has there been on Carnatic music, exactly? And how much patronage was given to it? And you still fail to answer the more pressing questions - Sanskrit literature and Indian philosophy. What of these two?
Also, why are the latter two questions "more pressing?"Indian Classical music emerged as two separate traditions - north Indian Hindustani and the south indian Carnatic, mainly because of this Islamic influence. Muslim kings ruled over much of North India for nearly 700 years. Much of aristocracy was culturally Persian. Given that most of the arts, esp. music, was supported by kings and aristocracy, it should come as no surprise that musicians adopted their styles to suit the tastes of their pay-masters. Also, the slow and indirect influence of Persian music on Indian was to be expected.
The most important changes relate to the change of style to a more melodious and fanciful form, emergence of new musical forms like Khayal and Ghazal and emergence of several new instruments like Sitar, Sarod and Tabla. Dhrupad the earliest form of Hindustani music, emerged around 13th century and reached its pinnacle during the reign of Mughal emperor Akbar. Khayal which originated during 18th century, can be thought of as the ultimate blending of Indian musical theory and Persian musical expression. Ghazal as a poetic form started around 10th century in Persia and came into prominence in India after urdu started developing as the language of poetry in Indian courts.
The Hindustani system may be thought as a mixture of traditional Indian musical concepts and Persian performance practice. The advent of Islamic rule over Northern India may have caused the musicians to seek patronage in the courts of the new rules. For instance the word tabla is a generic term for drum in Arabic language. It is possible that concept of time of a Raag has also come from Persia, since this concept is absent in Carnatic music and present in Persian music.
I love this. It's the most biased site. Which basically means that they're all biased, but this one, it's a bit more biased than the rest.Originally posted by aneeshm
Some facts about the "great" Akbar:
http://sify.com/itihaas/fullstory.php?id=13369969
http://www.geolmlsu.org/historypart2.html
http://www.gatewayforindia.com/histo...%20the%20great
The most biased site, but the only one which doesn't ask you to take it for its word, because it gives full references:
http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_histor.../akbar_vs.html
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
This is going to be a long, long debate. But you asked for it. So let's get to it.
I'll provide that citation. From the (quite controversial) work of Rajaram (this is one in a series of debates - I'll leave it to you to dig out the reply, for which I have the counter-reply already prepared, after which the opposition apparently falls silentOriginally posted by LordShiva
Several people have posted this sort of evidence in other threads, but you keep ignoring it:
Vedic Aryans
See also: Vedic period and Rigvedic tribes
The first undisputed horse remains in India are found in the Bronze Age Gandhara Grave culture context from ca. 1600 BC (although there are claims[citation needed] of horse bones found in Harappan and even pre-Harappan layers). This likely corresponds to an influx of early Indo-Aryan speakers over the Hindukush (comparable to the Kushan expansion of the first centuries AD). Together with indigenous cultures, this gave rise to the Vedic civilization of the early Iron Age. This civilization is marked by a continual shift to the east, first to the Gangetic plain with the Kurus and Panchalas, and further east with the Kosala and Videha. This Iron Age expansion corresponds to the black and red ware and painted grey ware cultures.
(Just read the bolded bits and you'll realise that the horse evidence actually supports the non-invasion theory.)
All those references enough for you?
Theory and evidence
A historical theory must account for all the evidence and not selectively accept and ignore data. Further, a man-made theory cannot substitute for primary data.
ALBERT EINSTEIN once said: "A theory must not contradict empirical facts." He was speaking in the context of science, especially how historians of science often lacked proper understanding of the scientific process. As he saw it the problem was: "Nearly all historians of science are philologists (linguists) and do not comprehend what physicists were aiming at, how they thought and wrestled with these problems." When such is the situation in physics where problems are clear-cut, it is not surprising to see issues in a subject like history being much more contentious. This is particularly the case when trying to understand the records of people far removed from us in time like the creators of the Vedic and Harappan civilisations. As a result of some recent historical developments like European colonisation and Western interest in Sanskrit language and linguistics, several myths and conjectures, through the force of repetition, have come to acquire the status of historical facts. It is time to re-evaluate these in the light of new evidence and more scientific approaches.
When we come to these myths, none is more persistent than the one about "No horse at Harappa." This has now been supplemented by another claim that the spoke-wheel was unknown to the Harappans. The point of these claims is that without the horse and the spoke-wheel the Harappans were militarily vulnerable to the invading Aryan hordes who moved on speedy, horse-drawn chariots with spoke-wheels. This claim is not supported by facts — an examination of the evidence shows that both the spoke-wheel and the horse were widely used by the Harappans. (The idea seems to be borrowed from the destruction of Native American civilisations by the Spanish and Portuguese `conquistadors'. The conquistadors though never used chariots).
As far as the spoke-wheel is concerned, B.B. Lal, former Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India, records finding terracotta wheels at various Harappan sites. In his words: "The painted lines (spokes) converge at the central hub, and thus leave no doubt about their representing the spokes of the wheel. ... another example is reproduced from Kalibangan, a well-known Harappan site in Rajasthan, in which too the painted lines converge at the hub. ... two examples from Banawali (another Harappan site), in which the spokes are not painted but are shown in low relief" (The Sarasvati Keeps Flowing, Aryan Books, Delhi, pages 72-3). It is also worth noting that the depiction of the spoke-wheel is quite common on Harappan seals.
Horse and Vedic symbolism
The horse and the cow are mentioned often in the Rigveda, though they commonly carry symbolic rather than physical meaning. There is widespread misconception that the absence of the horse at Harappan sites shows that horses were unknown in India until the invading Aryans brought them. Such `argument by absence' is hazardous at best. To take an example, the bull is quite common on the seals, but the cow is never represented. We cannot from this conclude that the Harappans raised bulls but were ignorant of the cow. In any event, depictions of the horse are known at Harappan sites, though rare. It is possible that there was some kind of religious taboo that prevented the Harappans from using cows and horses in their art. More fundamentally, it is incorrect to say that horses were unknown to the Harappans. The recently released encyclopedia The Dawn of Indian Civilisation, Volume 1, Part 1 observes (pages 344-5): "... the horse was widely domesticated and used in India during the third millennium BC over most of the area covered by the Indus-Sarasavati (or Harappan) Civilisation. Archaeologically this is most significant since the evidence is widespread and not isolated."
This is not the full story. Sir John Marshall, Director General of the Archaeological Survey when Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro were being excavated, recorded the presence of what he called the `Mohenjo-Daro horse'. Giving salient measurements, comparing it to other known specimens, he wrote: "It will be seen that there is a considerable degree of similarity between these various examples and it is probable the Anau horse, the Mohenjo-Daro horse, and the example of Equus caballus of the Zoological Survey of India, are all of the type of the `Indian country bred', a small breed of horse, the Anau horse being slightly smaller than the others." (Mohenjo-Daro and the Indus Civilisation, volume II, page 654). It is important to recognise that this is much stronger evidence than mere artefacts, which are artists' reproductions and not anatomical specimens that can be subjected to scientific examination.
Actually, the Harappans knew the horse and the whole issue of the `Harappan horse' is irrelevant. In order to prove that the Vedas are of foreign origin, (and the horse came from Central Asia) one must produce positive evidence: it should be possible to show that the horse described in the Rigveda was brought from Central Asia. This is contradicted by the Rigveda itself. In verse I.162.18, the Rigveda describes the horse as having 34 ribs (17 pairs), while the Central Asian horse has 18 pairs (36) of ribs. We find a similar description in the Yajurveda also.
This means that the horse described in the Vedas is the native Indian breed (with 34 ribs) and not the Central Asian variety. Fossil remains of Equus Sivalensis (the `Siwalik horse') show that the 34-ribbed horse has been known in India going back tens of thousands of years. This makes the whole argument based on "No horse at Harappa" irrelevant. The Vedic horse is a native Indian breed and not the Central Asian horse. As a result, far from supporting any Aryan invasion, the horse evidence furnishes one of its strongest refutations.
All this suggests that man-made theories (like "No Harappan horse") and those in linguistics cannot be used to override primary evidence like the Vedic Sarasvati (described below) and the dominant oceanic symbolism found in the Vedas. To see this we may note that South Indian languages like Kannada and Tamil have indigenous (desi) word for the horse — kudurai — suggesting that the horse has long been native to the region. The same is true of the tiger (puli and huli) and the elephant (aaney). Contrast this with the word for the lion — simha and singam — that are borrowed from Sanskrit, indicating that the lion was not native to the South. A man-made theory in linguistics, because it is not bound by laws of nature, can be made to cut both ways. It cannot take the place of evidence.
Primary evidence
In any field it is important to take into account all the evidence, especially evidence of a fundamental nature. This can be illustrated with the help of what we now know about the Vedic river known as the Sarasvati. The Rigveda describes the Sarasvati as the greatest and the holiest of rivers — as ambitame, naditame, devitame (best of mothers, best of rivers, best goddess). Satellite photographs as well as field explorations by archaeologists, notably the great expedition led by the late V.S. Wakankar, have shown that a great river answering to the description of the Sarasvati in the Rigveda (flowing `from the mountains to the sea') did indeed exist thousands of years ago. After many vicissitudes due to tectonic and other changes, it dried up completely by 1900 BC. This raises a fundamental question: how could the Aryans who are supposed to have arrived in India only in 1500 BC, and composed their Vedic hymns c. 1200 BC, have described and extolled a river that had disappeared five hundred years earlier? In addition, numerous Harappan sites have been found along the course of the now dry Sarasvati, which further strengthens the Vedic-Harappan connection. As a result, the Indus (or Harappan) Civilisation is more properly called the Indus-Sarasvati Civilisation.
The basic point of all this: we cannot construct a theory focusing on a few relatively minor details like the spoke-wheel while ignoring important, even monumental evidence like the Sarasvati river and the oceanic symbolism that dominates the Rigveda. (This shows that the Vedic people could not have come from a land-locked region like Afghanistan or Central Asia). A historical theory, no less than a scientific theory, must take into account all available evidence. No less important, a man-made theory cannot take the place of primary evidence like the Sarasvati river or the oceanic descriptions in the Rigveda. This brings us back to Einstein — "A theory must not contradict empirical facts." Nor can it ignore primary evidence.
N.S. RAJARAM
You win the understatement of the Year Award. Not many. ALL. EVERY SINGLE ONE above a certain critical size was destroyed. And not just destroyed incidentally, but deliberately and with conscious intent.Originally posted by LordShiva
I'm not an expert on historical temples. Of course many were destroyed. And it's unfortunate, from an archaeological point of view. This is hardly unique to India.
I'm not foolish enough not to check the wiki before making such claims. It provides no source or citation, so we can't trust it. And even assuming, for purposes of argument, that it was true, what does that prove - it only proves that Ashok was violent before his conversion. After his conversion to Buddhism, all that destructive energy was transformed into constructive energy. He GENUINELY repented, and tried to make amends. Can you tell me of any Muslim ruler so transformed, or hell, even any Muslim ruler who realised just how wrong he was even on his deathbed?Originally posted by LordShiva
From Wiki: "The whole of Kalinga was plundered and destroyed: Ashoka's later edicts say that about 100,000 people were killed on the Kalinga side and 10,000 from Ashoka's army; thousands of men and women were deported."
You didn't answer my question (ref. Carnatic music).Originally posted by LordShiva
http://www.musicalnirvana.com/introd...l_history.html
Also, why are the latter two questions "more pressing?"
And these two questions are more pressing because the amount and quality of Sanskrit literature produced in a time period, and the philosophical ideas which go with that literature, has been the measure of India's cultural status during that period.
Last edited by aneeshm; January 10, 2007 at 11:39.
OK, so it was bad wording on my part. The bias of the other three sites is unknown, but existent, therefore I said they are biased. It is entirely possible, however, that they be biased AGAINST my point of view.Originally posted by DaShi
I love this. It's the most biased site. Which basically means that they're all biased, but this one, it's a bit more biased than the rest.
Originally posted by aneeshm
OK, so it was bad wording on my part. The bias of the other three sites is unknown, but existent, therefore I said they are biased. It is entirely possible, however, that they be biased AGAINST my point of view.
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
I got the top three sites from a random Google search. How the hell am I expected to know their baises? I just assumed that they would be biased one way or the other. The fourth site I know, so I said that it was biased, but it was also the most reliable, because it never made any claims itself, it simply cited other sources.Originally posted by DaShi
That's a silly piece of research. The fact that the Aryans knew what an ocean was or that the Dravidians have a word for horse proves nothing. The linguistic evidence is far more compelling.Originally posted by aneeshm
All those references enough for you?
To go on the counter-offensive: so what? How was the destruction of buildings more harmful to the development of Indian culture than the preservation and propagation of rigid social stratification by Hindu kings beholden to their priest class?Originally posted by aneeshm
You win the understatement of the Year Award. Not many. ALL. EVERY SINGLE ONE above a certain critical size was destroyed. And not just destroyed incidentally, but deliberately and with conscious intent.
I don't need to. You said that the Muslims destroyed Indian music. I showed how the opposite is true. That they didn't affect Carnatic music as much, given that most of their influence was in the North, is entirely besides the point.Originally posted by aneeshm
You didn't answer my question (ref. Carnatic music).
There was plenty of non-Sanskrit literature produced that is as much a part of Indian culture as Sanskrit literature. "Indian" is not synonymous with "Sanskrit" or "Hindu."Originally posted by aneeshm
And these two questions are more pressing because the amount and quality of Sanskrit literature produced in a time period, and the philosophical ideas which go with that literature, has been the measure of India's cultural status during that period.
This just keeps getting bettter.Originally posted by aneeshm
I got the top three sites from a random Google search. How the hell am I expected to know their baises? I just assumed that they would be biased one way or the other. The fourth site I know, so I said that it was biased, but it was also the most reliable, because it never made any claims itself, it simply cited other sources.
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
I suspect this will ultimately be proven to be the crux of the debate."Indian" is not synonymous with "Sanskrit" or "Hindu."
-Arrian
grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
I suspect you're right.Originally posted by Arrian
I suspect this will ultimately be proven to be the crux of the debate.
*sigh*Originally posted by LordShiva
That's a silly piece of research. The fact that the Aryans knew what an ocean was or that the Dravidians have a word for horse proves nothing. The linguistic evidence is far more compelling.
Misrepresentation, again.
The author is not basing anything on the claim that the Aryans knew about the sea. He is saying that what is significant is that the sea is an all-pervading presence in the Vedas, which could not have happened had the Aryans been central Asians.
Also, the fact that the Dravidians have a word for the horse is quite significant - it means that the horse was known to the Dravidians before contact with the Aryans, which demolishes the theory that they did not know of it.
And again, you ignore the most central part of the guy's thesis - that the Vedic reference to the horse gives the horse 34 ribs, whereas central Asian horses have 36 ribs. Had the Aryans been central Asians, the Vedas would have said 36 instead of 34.
This is the clinching bit, which no amount of playing with words can discount.
Ah. So now we have you justifying temple destruction.Originally posted by LordShiva
To go on the counter-offensive: so what? How was the destruction of buildings more harmful to the development of Indian culture than the preservation and propagation of rigid social stratification by Hindu kings beholden to their priest class?
But I'll address your question anyway.
In the first instance, Hindu kings were by no means beholden to their priests. The myth of Brahmin domination is just that - a myth. The kings did pretty much as they pleased. The duties of Brahmins were three-fold: as priests, as advisors, and as philosophers or religious leaders.
The overwhelming majority of Brahmins were simple priests who performed ceremonies, and were quite dependent on society for sustenance. A small and elect minority were patronised by the king and by other rich people, and these people were their advisors. Their advice was still often ignored. Never were the ruling classed "beholden" to anybody. Politicians never are.
An example, from the play of Shudraka, Mrichchakatika:
As far as I can recollect, the protagonist is a Brahmin, who is mistreated by lots of people, but wins out in the end. He is never shown as if anybody is "beholden" to him or to any priests.
Mricchakatika (The Little Clay Cart)
One of the earliest known Sanskrit plays in the post-Vedic age, this play is thought to have been composed by Shudraka in the 2nd century BC. Rife with romance, sex, royal intrigue and comedy, the juicy plot of the play has numerous twists and turns. The main story is about a young man named Charudatta, and his love for Vasantasena, a rich courtesan or nagarvadhu. The love affair is complicated by a royal courtier, who is also attracted to Vasantasena. The plot is further complicated by thieves and mistaken identities, and thus making it a greatly hilarious and entertaining play. It invited widespread admiration when staged in New York in 1924. The play was made into a 1984 Bollywood movie Utsav, directed by Girish Karnad. The Indian play depicted in the film Moulin Rouge! may have been based on The Little Clay Cart
And you seem to be ignorant of even the facts. The social stratification you speak of was most rigid in the South. In most other places, caste was quite a fluid institution. The best example I can give is that of Shivaji. He is one person who the whole of Maharashtra loves as an iconic figure, and he is our hero. He is also the hero of the Hindus of India, because he threw out the Mughals and other Muslim rulers, and broke their power. He was from a nominally low caste. But because of his actions, his caste is not considered low any longer.
And his most trusted advisors, the Peshwas, who maintained his empire even after the disintegration of his line as the most faithful stewards as long as humanly possible, were Brahmins. He never had any animosity towards them, nor they towards him. He was a person who dreamed of setting up a Hindu empire, and towards that end, he even appointed a person to Sanskritise the administration, who did a thorough job, and from which a lot of the administrative terminology in Marathi is still derived.
Why would a person from a nominally low caste want to set up a Hindu empire, and why would he trust Brahmins as his closest advisors, if caste was so rigid?
Big, fat, blazing strawman. I never said ANYTHING of the sort. I just said they did not patronise it. Which is true - they did not patronise the orthodox form of music, which survives in the Carnatic form. But in this regard, I must admit that the Muslim influence did give rise to something new (if not necessarily better). We now have two traditions instead of one.Originally posted by LordShiva
I don't need to. You said that the Muslims destroyed Indian music. I showed how the opposite is true. That they didn't affect Carnatic music as much, given that most of their influence was in the North, is entirely besides the point.
Such as? Did it equal in quality OR quantity the breadth and scope of the work of Kalidasa, or Shudraka, or Valmiki, or Vyasa?Originally posted by LordShiva
There was plenty of non-Sanskrit literature produced that is as much a part of Indian culture as Sanskrit literature. "Indian" is not synonymous with "Sanskrit" or "Hindu."
You claim a Dravidian heritage. What works have been produced in Tamil, then, which is the classical language of the south, during the Muslim era, which can compare with the Tamil epics?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks