Did the British Raj represent Greater India?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian


QFT.

This yearning for the lost golden age (mythical, usually) is something you see in pretty much every culture. You can never go back. Trying now would result in a pale imitation (assuming at the outset that this golden age was really as golden as you may think).

More scholarly study of the Origins of Hindu Civilization (tm), on the other hand, with the result of gaining a better understanding of History... that's both a worthy goal and one that strikes me as attainable.

Then again, it won't be particularly useful in propping up a political agenda...

-Arrian

Nobody wants the old Golden Age back. We want a totally NEW Golden Age, surpassing the old one in every regard, making it look small by comparison.

Ring in the new, ring out the old, and all that.....


What gave you the idea that we want the past back?

[Barnabas]

The "aryan invation theory" shouldnt be seen as a an "eurocentric attack" on indian history

If you look at this map



You will see that Europe was as invaded by those indo european speaking nomads as india.
For example Spain only became a predominantly indo european speaking country when the romans invaded them and taught them latin, before many non indoeuropean langauges were spoken there, like Iberian, and there is still half a million of basques who are the only speakers of pre indoeuropean languages in europe.
If I recall correctly the picts in scotland were not indo european speakers, and also I think what sets apart germanic languages from other indo european languages is their pre indo european substratum.

So europe was as invaded as india, it shouldnt be seen as an attack on indias history.

You remind me of what some turks (from turkey) do , whom dont like that their lands was previously greek, armenian, hittite etc and try to prove that turks have a history of thousands of years in turkey, by saying that troyans were turks, or that sumerians were turks, or etruscans were turks etc etc

[Arrian]

I'll be happy when Sanskrit is revived and resurrected and is used again as the language of literature, and Old India is reborn.

This is a fundamentally backward-looking statement. That's why.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
The "aryan invation theory" shouldnt be seen as a an "eurocentric attack" on indian history

The reason for thinking that Aryan invasion theory might've been advanced by Europeans is basically that such a theory was pretty useful in justifying the British Raj.

That doesn't automatically make the theory wrong, mind you. But a theory that presents an advanced, light-skinned people who allegedly have common roots w/modern (19th century) Europeans invading and conquering a group of dark-skinned backwards people and then producing a golden age... well, I can see the allure.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian


This is a fundamentally backward-looking statement. That's why.

-Arrian

Sanskrit has always been a dynamic, forward-looking language. Old India was a land of great rebellion and constant upheaval. That's what made it so great and interesting in the first place! A static Golden Age is boring. It is only when there is change that life is worth living. The measure of how Golden an Age is is how much new stuff they produced, not how much old stuff they preserved.

That is, in fact, one of the chief complaints I have with the Muslim invaders. They effectively froze the progress of India at the invasion stage, and set us back effectively by hundreds of years, by not allowing the natural growth and evolution of the indigenous system during those years. The cost we paid was not just the cost of iconoclastic invasion, but also the cost of simply sitting still or concentrating our whole energies on throwing the invader out for hundreds of years instead of growing and evolving, like Europe did during that same time. And because we got left behind Europe, European colonialism became possible.

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by Arrian


The reason for thinking that Aryan invasion theory might've been advanced by Europeans is basically that such a theory was pretty useful in justifying the British Raj.

That doesn't automatically make the theory wrong, mind you. But a theory that presents an advanced, light-skinned people who allegedly have common roots w/modern (19th century) Europeans invading and conquering a group of dark-skinned backwards people and then producing a golden age... well, I can see the allure.

-Arrian

But that theory was quickly replaced by one which said that the local civilization was one of the most advanced civilizations in the world, that the invaders had the horse but were basically barbarians, and that they didnt create a golden age, but created dark age, afterr all the indus scrypt was completely forgotten, and "writing" was lost in those lands for many centuries when the harappan civilization fell.

[Arrian]

Right, and that makes a helluva lot more sense.

Leaving aside the political stuff, there seems to be a lively debate concerning the linguistic and archeological records. In short, I think the jury is still out, and will be for some time.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride


But that theory was quickly replaced by one which said that the local civilization was one of the most advanced civilizations in the world, that the invaders had the horse but were basically barbarians, and that they didnt create a golden age, but created dark age, afterr all the indus scrypt was completely forgotten, and "writing" was lost in those lands for many centuries when the harappan civilization fell.

That would have served imperial interests quite well, by making out that, as the Aryans were barbarians, and the whole of Indian culture was founded on these "barbarians", the Brits have a job of civilising them. It would also undermine the people's loyalty to their rulers, by alienating them.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian
Right, and that makes a helluva lot more sense.

Leaving aside the political stuff, there seems to be a lively debate concerning the linguistic and archeological records. In short, I think the jury is still out, and will be for some time.

-Arrian

Which is what I've been saying all this time.

[Arrian]

concentrating our whole energies on throwing the invader out for hundreds of years instead of growing and evolving, like Europe did during that same time.

Europe was constantly at war. It's not like European culture was left to itself to meditate on how to take over the world!

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Which is what I've been saying all this time.

Not really, no. You haven't been nearly that wishy-washy. You've been asserting the competing theory.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian


Europe was constantly at war. It's not like European culture was left to itself to meditate on how to take over the world!

-Arrian

All those wars were between states whose cultural identity derived from the common cultural heritage given to them by the Romans. Had Europe been conquered by Islam, you'd have known what I mean.

[Barnabas]

Yes, Aneeshm, as late as 1680 the Turks were in the gates of Vienna.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian


Not really, no. You haven't been nearly that wishy-washy. You've been asserting the competing theory.

-Arrian

I'm the lawyer for the prosecution, you're the lawyers for the defence. Let's wait for the jury verdict, shall we?

[Arrian]

So the Islamic invasions of Europe didn't happen, I suppose.

Speaking of the Romans, what do you think they did to the Celts?

-Arrian

p.s. After, of course, the Celts ****ed with the early Romans. What goes around, comes around.