'Indian history was distorted by the British'

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
Your theory is just rehashed AMT.
No, not really.

AMT, as with AIT, assumes that there was a large influx of people into India during this time. On the other hand, I reject the notion of any large influx of people into India at that time, due to a lack evidence. There may have been small-scale migrations, but nothing that decisively shaped the demographics of India. My argument is that acculturation, rather than migration, was the decisive factor.
 

blank_quest

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2012
Messages
2,119
Likes
925
Country flag
Why will a society where there is no sign of Kingship turn into something that needs Horse and Cart..( assuming that it was needed for Business ,where did we find Remains related to IVC elsewhere that proves Business Links? especially that would need Cart and large volumes of Traded goods! )
 

Das ka das

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2012
Messages
895
Likes
456
No, not really.

AMT, as with AIT, assumes that there was a large influx of people into India during this time. On the other hand, I reject the notion of any large influx of people into India at that time, due to a lack evidence. There may have been small-scale migrations, but nothing that decisively shaped the demographics of India. My argument is that acculturation, rather than migration, was the decisive factor.
The important part is that both your theory and traditional AIT propose that IA culture has a foreign origin, ditto for IE languages. Due to lack of genetic evidence most AMT proponents today distance themselves from any mention of a large scale migration. Heck look at the Wikipedia page for Indo-Aryan migration. It states that "linguistics has been the primary basis of Aryan Immigration theories; no evidence of massive migration has been found through examination of skeletal remains."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration
 

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
hence, I have clearly said many times that 'success of India' is hidden in success of China itself. our natural economic order of the world for last over 20 centuries is as below. Indian GDP was on top till the 16th century and again came on the top by 18th century with sharing the top two spot with China till 18th century (check the table). but then the Western War Champions organized different wars and both of these two came down together in 19th and 20th century. and again we find both of these two going up together. and I would like to clearly state that China will always share the top two ranks with India, or both of these will come down together to serve intentions of Western War Champions. and, dont worry for the rank 1 position, first it would go to China and then I hope India would get the first economic rank, the highest GDP size, by 2050. we would just keep China leading mid this first half century with a hope that it would clear all the Western hurdles for India till 2050 :china:

=> List of regions by past GDP (PPP) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
some more in this discussion as below: :ranger:

Linear Relation between India Economy with British Economy during 19th and 20th centuries



List of regions by past GDP (PPP) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

till 1947, Britian, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc were part of one country, the Britain. and if we see this graph, economy size of the state Britain increased on the expanse of the states of South Asia. the larger size of state of British economy since 1820 to 1950, and it had almost a similar decline of economy size of the states of India.

(mainly in between 1820 to 1900, almost a similar/linear growth of economic size of Britain as decline of economic size of India. and after 1900, Britain wasted Indian wealth/talent in WW1 and WW2 so even in Indian economy continue to decline in between 1990 to 1947 also, British economic size was almost same in between 1900 to 1947, have a close look on this graph..............)

and its very simple right now also. for example, if all the talents of Indian Subcontinent start developing techs for British industries only and then Britain starts selling those products at high price in India itself, then simply you will only do agriculture to pay for high price for luxury life of British....... like, how share of agriculture in Indian economy was around 60% at the time of freedom. :rofl:

but it would first be required to rob India completely, looting every gold/diamond and other luxury stuffs, enslaving all those who may do any business, to make them working for the state of Britain only. and then, conduct different competitive exams held in UK to hire the best Indian talents to have high techs, like how British made a system during British Raj in India :pop:

(1819 was the year when British could finally win over Maratha Empire after over 15 years of war, who controlled 80% of today's India, so it is said to be the time when British Rule started in India since then.)
 
Last edited:

afako

Hindufying India
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
3,718
Likes
21,139
Country flag
How can you be so definite? Many things make no sense without AIT/AMT.
AIT serves interests of many parties - White Man, Church, etc to fit the narrative of Euro-centric World. The entire narrative has been forced down the throat of humanity that there is simply no alternative than to peddle in the AIT oriented western superiority model of World View.

The Pillars of this model include self proclaimed scholars, Nobel Prize, Oscars, White Skin Superior > Non-White Narrative , The World is uncivilized when

Only the Indian Narrative can Quash this Crap with the OIT Model. There is simply no challenge!
 

SilentKiller

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
799
Likes
377
Country flag
I can prove to some extent than Aryans came from outside india...it might not be invasion but can be taken as migration of people.
Main reason is HORSES, as per vedics , horses were integral part of aryan culture and for kings wars were made on horses.
Sacrifices were made of horses, so they were part and parcel of life of aryans.

But its proven that there were no horses in indian sub continent before 1800 BC, so indus valley civilization which existed before that time was non aryan.
So Aryans came from outside and brought horses with them.

People migrate for sake of good pastures and better living, during 3000 - 1000 bc, there was said to be a lot of changes to world,
Castism said at time of Mahabharata was quite different, an Kastria word doesn't means high caste etc it used to mean just and good and protector of needy. so even if the ruler was born to Kshatriya but if he becomes unjust he could be called Sudra as he lost his virtue. its was we interpret what was written.

Mahabharata did happened as there is proof of same but it wasn't that big...try and get to some facts, its they way to say u were right and others were wrong.
Always remember HISTORY IS WRITTEN BY WINNERS NOT LOSERS. so one has to go into facts and research a lot to come to truth.

try and search about gypsies/Romani of Europe, they north Indian mostly jats who migrated to Europe to fled Muslim invasion in 12th and 13th century.
Romani people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also to present one more point, u know parsi people?
they follow the religion called Zoroastrianism, its quite old religion if not older than hindu religion but quite the same.
They too follows a lots of books and lot of which are quite similar to our own. They got this culture also from people coming from central asia.
 

Blackwater

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
21,157
Likes
12,211
Indian history was distorted by the British


On lighter note. I think Indian history on this forum is distorted by our beloved FARHAAN not by british
 

SilentKiller

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
799
Likes
377
Country flag
@civfanatic - I have read some of Thapar's work and I am generally in agreement what she has to say about the foreign Aryan, gradually mixing with the local Harappan culture.

What I cant seem to locate though is a precise reason for the more advanced local culture to decline and its place taken over by a significantly pedestrian and unsophisticated civilization. If it was a gradual mixing of the two cultures, then shouldn't the more advanced local folks been able to preserve their way of life? I would assume that short of war no other calamity could force lead a massive civilization like IVC, spread over lakhs of square miles to swap its advanced way of life for something far less sophisticated.
Well search the History wan u will find some similar thing.
Demise of Romans, Romans were advanced, had quite good army, but army disintegrated as bad leaders came and a less advanced clan/empire destroyed it.
That empire was know as HUNS.

Try and sreach for indian history b/w 600ad to 1000ad. u will find none for indian.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SilentKiller

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
799
Likes
377
Country flag
Hmm, the same rehashed arguments mostly propagating the western view is still considered by the elites on this forum as a de facto truth.

The migration theories which are made up with a "Gengis Khan mentality" which is what AIT was and now the Harvardian Witzel's AMT is - which is to say that all migrations revolved around pillaging and occupation. Most migrations probably do not occur that way and language is more likely to spread because of people to people contact and commerce. People to people contact and commerce was thriving in the area between Egypt, Iraq, Iran and India between 3000 BC and 2000 BC. There is archaeological proof for that. If you look at accounts of travellers from a much later era you realise that until about 150 years ago long distance overland transport usually meant journeys lasting weeks or months. There were no letters to be written and little news to be exchanged. But people would pick up wives on the way and frequent travellers would have "a wife in every port" so to speak.

If your mother tongue is Marathi and you marry a French girl, she will not do koochie koo to your kid in Marathi. She will do it in French. The word "mother tongue" is significant in recognizing this fact. You may have a bilingual child after 6 years, but this fact was probably as true 5000 or years ago as it is today.

Some from of Prakrit may have been the common tongue across a wide area of not just India - but way across all the way to Iran. There is no proof of this - but there definitely is proof of a "Sanskrit like language" being present across those areas dating back to 1500 BC. Trade between Harappa. BMAC and Mesopotamia between 3000 BC and 2000 BC would have ensured a string of in-between towns and settlements where food and shelter could be found for travellers and caravans, and inevitably sick or injured people would linger in these areas till recovery and a few of them would marry there or find a wife there.

It is most likely that Indo-European language spread in this way - from the oldest urban settlements and trade rather than a village language being imposed by force on horseback. I suspect that other than the exceptional circumstances of South America a conquering, murderous horde has never managed to impose his language on anybody without a commercial advantage lasting many generations. South America may be a case of population replacement. Folk memories do not seem to retain any information about populations replacement.

Greek is much younger. The history of the Greek language and it basically starts around 1000 BC. Any similarity in folklore only adds to a well known connection between old civilizations, but the late origin of Greek tends to favour a late entry of PIE into Europe and not the "simultaneous spread" of language through India and Europe between 2000 BC and 1000 BC. That theory is convenient to explain the appearance of Greek, but ignores the "Indo Iranian" area that had civilization for 2000 years before Greece.

The Brits were masters at this and succeeded in screwing our psyche. Modern documents which are declassified states clearly they created Pakistan to ensure South Asia always remains a couldron.
I would like to correct some points you gave. Well greeks are older than what u say, greek civilization quite old, it starts from 2000 bc.
Mycenaean Greece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A lot of research has been done on it, as all western believe them self to be desendents of Greeks and Romans. they feel proud for same and have done a lot research and preserved there old sites, but we have neglected ours.

I find it very hard that we are fighting on these forums but when we get to taj mahal or red fort or and any such indian historic sites we feel ok to ruin them, we write name on them etc.
 

SilentKiller

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
799
Likes
377
Country flag
All the world's misfortune in general and India in particular is the white pigs fault. If only the Nawab of Bengal had won the Battle of Plassey and with the help of France conquered England and the rest of Europe the world would have been a paradise:rolleyes:

To call a people pigs, is low.
Its easy to put blame on others for our own mistakes.
British came to india in 1600 bc but conquered first land in 1757. mughal empire started collapsing in 1707 ad but for 50 yrs, british did nothing.
Its same as ah bhel mujhe mar (asking Bull to hit you)...we became week and compelled them to rule us. They didn't won the battle of plassey, we lost it we betrayed ourself.
Who ever is proud of maratha rule can be but i can't, they were only good till shivaji and his son, then they became worst rulers. they had best infantry division during anglo-british wars but still lost as there was a lot of infighting b/w them and leaders were pathetic.
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
Its easy to put blame on others for our own mistakes.
British came to india in 1600 bc but conquered first land in 1757. mughal empire started collapsing in 1707 ad but for 50 yrs, british did nothing.
Its same as ah bhel mujhe mar (asking Bull to hit you)...we became week and compelled them to rule us. They didn't won the battle of plassey, we lost it we betrayed ourself.
Who ever is proud of maratha rule can be but i can't, they were only good till shivaji and his son, then they became worst rulers. they had best infantry division during anglo-british wars but still lost as there was a lot of infighting b/w them and leaders were pathetic.
There was a very severe famine in 1802. If that had not happened, the marathas would have kicked British out of Bengal. They had already done the preparations. Mughals were a spent force a long long time prior to British became dominant.


Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk
 

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
People? first have a look on the background of these people, what background they brought with themselves when they arrived in India, as below...:tsk:



after looting India, smuggling of heroine to China was the very first business of British in India.....:uk:

the reason why Mr Gandhi never liked these people, as below:


and as stated in this video itself, the main points of freedom struggle of Mr Gandhi, as stated on this government website of India, as below :ranger:

The Three Main Points, Why India lost to Britain in 1818

Further to the above talks, we remember that we are talked the main few points as below, why British could won over Marathas, and then over the whole India this way, after a 15 years of struggle in between 1803 to 1818 war with Marathas......

1st, the very first thing which is taught in primary schools is, "Poor people are good in fighting, and ready to die if something they may earn through a war, as of till the 19th century." and India was a 9 times bigger economy than the Britain till the 18th century, bigger economy than the whole Western Europe in fact. too much money this country had, even the small to medium size Hawelies used to have many boxes filled with gold and diamond, India which was the only source of diamond till 17th century, with having a very large share of gold till then too..... and here, British came to India from the background where even one diamond could result in 100s of death in EU/US during that period.....:ranger:

2nd, there were many in Indian society who were 'unhappy' with the rulers. and British first made friendship with the Indian rulers for years, then they got the people of their interests from India. they measured every strength of Marathas, buying their people, and then they fought a 15 years of war to finally win over a country, where they got "everything", a nine times bigger economy which also gave them Indian Military which formed the "back-boon'' for the British during their WW1, WW2 struggles....

3rd, British did have few better arms as European countries were habituated of wars. fighting wars was 'culture' of Europe, similar to Middle East region too that time. Europe was among the most poor, and highly war affected region of this world during Mid Ages. and when they saw wealth of India, they infused their every techniques/strength/war abilities and finally won over marathas after 15 years of war struggle, with help of those who were taken by the British to provide secrets also.............

=> Below is the government website of India :ranger:

Interesting Facts about India

Interesting Facts about India - My India, My Pride - Know India: National Portal of India

India never invaded any country in her last 100000 years of history.

When many cultures were only nomadic forest dwellers over 5000 years ago, Indians established Harappan culture in Sindhu Valley (Indus Valley Civilization)

The name 'India' is derived from the River Indus, the valleys around which were the home of the early settlers. The Aryan worshippers referred to the river Indus as the Sindhu.


The Persian invaders converted it into Hindu. The name 'Hindustan' combines Sindhu and Hindu and thus refers to the land of the Hindus.

Chess was invented in India.

Algebra, Trigonometry and Calculus are studies, which originated in India.

The 'Place Value System' and the 'Decimal System' were developed in India in 100 B.C.


The World's First Granite Temple is the Brihadeswara Temple at Tanjavur, Tamil Nadu. The shikhara of the temple is made from a single 80-tonne piece of granite. This magnificent temple was built in just five years, (between 1004 AD and 1009 AD) during the reign of Rajaraja Chola.


India is the largest democracy in the world, the 7th largest Country in the world, and one of the most ancient civilizations.

The game of Snakes & Ladders was created by the 13th century poet saint Gyandev. It was originally called 'Mokshapat'. The ladders in the game represented virtues and the snakes indicated vices. The game was played with cowrie shells and dices. In time, the game underwent several modifications, but its meaning remained the same, i.e. good deeds take people to heaven and evil to a cycle of re-births.

The world's highest cricket ground is in Chail, Himachal Pradesh. Built in 1893 after leveling a hilltop, this cricket pitch is 2444 meters above sea level.

The world's first university was established in Takshila in 700 BC. More than 10,500 students from all over the world studied more than 60 subjects. The University of Nalanda built in the 4th century was one of the greatest achievements of ancient India in the field of education.

Ayurveda is the earliest school of medicine known to mankind. The Father of Medicine, Charaka, consolidated Ayurveda 2500 years ago.

India was one of the richest countries till the time of British rule in the early 17th Century. Christopher Columbus, attracted by India's wealth, had come looking for a sea route to India when he discovered America by mistake.
:us:

The Art of Navigation & Navigating was born in the river Sindh over 6000 years ago. The very word Navigation is derived from the Sanskrit word 'NAVGATIH'. The word navy is also derived from the Sanskrit word 'Nou'.

Bhaskaracharya rightly calculated the time taken by the earth to orbit the Sun hundreds of years before the astronomer Smart. According to his calculation, the time taken by the Earth to orbit the Sun was 365.258756484 days.

The value of "pi" was first calculated by the Indian Mathematician Budhayana, and he explained the concept of what is known as the Pythagorean Theorem. He discovered this in the 6th century, long before the European mathematicians.


Algebra, Trigonometry and Calculus also originated in India.Quadratic Equations were used by Sridharacharya in the 11th century. The largest numbers the Greeks and the Romans used were 106 whereas Hindus used numbers as big as 10*53 (i.e. 10 to the power of 53) with specific names as early as 5000 B.C.during the Vedic period.Even today, the largest used number is Terra: 10*12(10 to the power of 12).

Until 1896, India was the only source of diamonds in the world
(Source: Gemological Institute of America).


The Baily Bridge is the highest bridge in the world. It is located in the Ladakh valley between the Dras and Suru rivers in the Himalayan mountains. It was built by the Indian Army in August 1982.

Sushruta is regarded as the Father of Surgery. Over2600 years ago Sushrata & his team conducted complicated surgeries like cataract, artificial limbs, cesareans, fractures, urinary stones, plastic surgery and brain surgeries.

Usage of anaesthesia was well known in ancient Indian medicine. Detailed knowledge of anatomy, embryology, digestion, metabolism,physiology, etiology, genetics and immunity is also found in many ancient Indian texts.


India exports software to 90 countries.

The four religions born in India - Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, are followed by 25% of the world's population.
Jainism and Buddhism were founded in India in 600 B.C. and 500 B.C. respectively.

Islam is India's and the world's second largest religion.

There are 300,000 active mosques in India, more than in any other country, including the Muslim world.

The oldest European church and synagogue in India are in the city of Cochin. They were built in 1503 and 1568 respectively.

Jews and Christians have lived continuously in India since 200 B.C. and 52 A.D. respectively

The largest religious building in the world is Angkor Wat, a Hindu Temple in Cambodia built at the end of the 11th century.

The Vishnu Temple in the city of Tirupathi built in the 10th century, is the world's largest religious pilgrimage destination. Larger than either Rome or Mecca, an average of 30,000 visitors donate $6 million (US) to the temple everyday.

Sikhism originated in the Holy city of Amritsar in Punjab. Famous for housing the Golden Temple, the city was founded in 1577.
Varanasi, also known as Benaras, was called "the Ancient City" when Lord Buddha visited it in 500 B.C., and is the oldest, continuously inhabited city in the world today.

India provides safety for more than 300,000 refugees originally from Sri Lanka, Tibet, Bhutan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, who escaped to flee religious and political persecution.

His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists, runs his government in exile from Dharmashala in northern India.

Martial Arts were first created in India, and later spread to Asia by Buddhist missionaries.

Yoga has its origins in India and has existed for over 5,000 years.

Interesting Facts about India - My India, My Pride - Know India: National Portal of India

=> the time British came to India in 18th century, Indian economy was around 9 times bigger than British that time, bigger than even the Total Western European economy as below. they had many Indian traitors, many tactics they used and then they got 'everything' in India, its wealth and also an Indian Army which won rest of the war for them. here, you would just assume a man of street who suddenly became Mayer of that same city, will their coming generation forget that pride they had in past??????

=> List of regions by past GDP (PPP) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GDP on PPP by 18th century

GDP of India: $90,750mil
GDP of China: $82,800mil
GDP of Western Europe: $81,213mil

List of regions by past GDP (PPP) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
even if we have a close look on the data's then we find that even by 1820, GDP of India was around $111,417mil, as compare to total GDP of Western Europe at $159,851mil as below. it may also because of the fact that Marathas lost heavy wealth during the 15 years of war with British till 1818 :meeting:

List of regions by past GDP (PPP) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(this GDP estimate is based on the prices at 1820. here the "Total Western Europe" include the current 17 Eurozone nations, +Britain+Norway+Swedan etc)


Marath Empire

The Maratha Empire (Marathi: मराठा साम्राज्य Marāṭhā Sāmrājya; also transliterated Mahratta) or the Maratha Confederacy was an Indian imperial power that existed from 1674 to 1818. At its peak, the empire covered much of what would become India, encompassing a territory of over 2.8 million km².[2] The Marathas are credited for the re-establishment of Hindu rule in India.

Marathas remained the preeminent power in India until their defeat in the Second and Third Anglo-Maratha Wars (1805–1818), which left Britain in control of most of India.


Maratha Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
No, not really.

AMT, as with AIT, assumes that there was a large influx of people into India during this time. On the other hand, I reject the notion of any large influx of people into India at that time, due to a lack evidence. There may have been small-scale migrations, but nothing that decisively shaped the demographics of India. My argument is that acculturation, rather than migration, was the decisive factor.
I can't disagree.
But then a trickle down sort of minute migration of roaming band of nomads, cannot be credited for the splendid cultural and civilization feats of IVC and elsewhere in India. That right there is the bone of contention. ;)
What great cultural, civilizational contribution could a group of roaming nomads in trickling numbers make to an existing vast, developed, trading and prosperous civilization.
If that were the case, they would be a civilization of their own already and not be roaming in the first place.

There was a very severe famine in 1802. If that had not happened, the marathas would have kicked British out of Bengal. They had already done the preparations. Mughals were a spent force a long long time prior to British became dominant.
Famines around 1800 A.D. were widespread in India. Even Rajasthan was badly hit.
Partly the political landscape and partly the spread of Famine .. made it impossible to replenish grains and water from elsewhere.
Just at the same time Marathas were pillaging Rajasthan for anything they could get. Unfortunate indeed but that is how history is. Full of controversy :)
 

SilentKiller

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
799
Likes
377
Country flag
There was a very severe famine in 1802. If that had not happened, the marathas would have kicked British out of Bengal. They had already done the preparations. Mughals were a spent force a long long time prior to British became dominant.


Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk
I don't know, whether u read proper history or not.
Maratha lost First Anglo War in 1782.
then during 2nd Anglo war.
Arthur Wellesley, commander of british forces said that Maratha were finest solders he saw and fought, but their generals let them down.
Mughals were still a huge force till the end of 17th century but then they lost their power.
A famine cannot be an excuse that you lost the war...and for the correction the huge famine that came was in 1791-92 and not 1802 as mentioned.
Peshwa were pathetic rulers and did nothing to help common people at that time. over 11 million people (common) perished. Rulers were busy in merry making.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
I can't disagree.
But then a trickle down sort of minute migration of roaming band of nomads, cannot be credited for the splendid cultural and civilization feats of IVC and elsewhere in India. That right there is the bone of contention. ;)
I don't think it is a "bone of contention". No one attributes the IVC to a roaming band of nomads. But the cultures that existed in India in the 2nd millennium B.C.E., during and following the Late Harappan Period (c.1900-c.1400 B.C.E.), were much less developed than the IVC at its height in the late 3rd millennium B.C.E. That's what the archaeological record shows. Of course, that fact by itself doesn't mean that there was some great invasion/migration into India around that time, but it does render moot the point of IVC being advanced and the nomads being less-so.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
Differences in development and advancement are visible even today. They by themselves are insufficient to build theories of inward migration.
Barely a few decades back one wouldn't fathom the fact that Punjab/Bangalore and Bihar exist in the same country; with people belonging to the same stream of culture and civilization.
There was a web of 7 mighty rivers between the natural defense from a mountain range and a sea there. An area rich as that was obivously ripe for urbanization and other advances to come up.
It only means that this region has been the epicentre of Commerce, Education etc. Nothing else.

Regards,
Virendra
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
Differences in development and advancement are visible even today. They by themselves are insufficient to build theories of inward migration.
I am not talking about other parts of India. The material remains that we find from c.1400 B.C.E. in the Indus Valley are far less impressive than those from c.2400 B.C.E. The IVC underwent a very clear decline over the course of the 2nd millennium B.C.E.; at the same time, we see new cultures popping up further east in the Indian subcontinent, especially in the Ganga-Yamuna region. Compared to the IVC at its height, these new cultures were much less sophisticated, though unlike the IVC they seemed to possess horses and chariots. We see no urban sites comparable to Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro in the Gangetic plain until a much later date.

In the past couple pages of this thread I argued that the IVC declined primarily due to environmental factors, rather than any invasions/migrations from outside. I also argued that there was quite likely a large-scale eastwards migration of Harappan people from the Indus Valley to the Gangetic plain in the 2nd millennium B.C.E., and that the resulting diffusion of Late Harappan culture (which was quite different from Mature Harappan culture) laid the foundation for the rise of other cultures in the subcontinent. I elaborated more on this in earlier posts, so I won't say too much here.

There was a web of 7 mighty rivers between the natural defense from a mountain range and a sea there. An area rich as that was obivously ripe for urbanization and other advances to come up.
It only means that this region has been the epicentre of Commerce, Education etc. Nothing else.
Interestingly, for most of Indian history, the Indus Valley has been quite peripheral in nature, despite its great fertility and natural wealth. It has seldom been a political epicenter, and has much more often been subject to the power and authority of other regions, especially Central Asia (incl. Afghanistan), the Iranian plateau, and the Indo-Gangetic plain. There were very few powerful states that arose in the Indus Valley, compared to the number that emerged in the aforementioned regions, and virtually all states based in the Indus Valley were of only regional importance. This is largely due, it seems, to the very vulnerable geographic position of the Indus Valley, lying right on the major invasion/migration routes. Almost all powerful Indian states/empires had their base in the Indo-Gangetic plain, and a few were based in the Deccan. Both regions were much more stable and secure than the Indus Valley.
 

Iamanidiot

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
5,325
Likes
1,504
@civfanatic

New research is throwing light that IVC is more expansive than previously thought.Nowadays a line of thought is that Shiva,Vishnu and shrines such as Tirumala,Vadamalpeta,Gudimallam and Pandharpur might be having proto-historic origin
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top