Our lefty friends and their lofty rhetoric

[Virendra]

Following is a set of summarized excerpts of a review that I've re-organized. The review is of of Romila Thapar's "Early India - From The Origins to AD 1300". The review is by Kalavai Venkat.

Her eminence Romilla Thapar's claims and the truth:

Claim[while washing her hands off the AIT stains]
The Hindus of the 1920s accepted AIT because that helped the upper-caste Hindus to identify themselves with the British.
Truth-
In 1920s India was ruled by British. It is quite obvious that certain (read colonized) sections of the society would toe the British line of AIT. It was the prevailing theory then. Ensured by British as the official theory.
In fact despite of the British having complete control of academics, many like Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, A.C. Das openly challenged the AIT. Interestingly, it was Thapar's mentor A. L. Basham who was supporting AIT till 1960s.

Claim-
Sarasvati sites do not have much noticeable signs of urban culture.
Truth-
There are as many big sites (larger than 100 hectares) to the east of Indus as there are to the west. Eastern sites give more advanced crop cultivation techniques and tools that are still in use in Punjab.
Kalibangan (east of Indus) site not only has its lower town fortified, a feature absent in Mohenjodaro (west of Indus) but it also has termite-proof houses.
Lothal port (east of Indus) has no matching port (west of Indus) in infrastructure. Dholavira, east of Indus even contains stone statues. Sarasvati sites have more material variety than Indus sites.

Claim-
Excavation sites Kot Diji indicates towards an invasion and it finds mention in Rig Veda.
Truth-
No RV verses specified to support the claim. Kot Diji belongs to Regionalization era (3300 BC to 2600 BC) of the civilization which led to urbanization.
The ash layer at Kot Diji indicates destruction by fire. If invading Aryans destroyed it by fire then it happened betweeb 3300 BC and 2600 BC. But AIT camp claims Aryans came in mature phase of IVC/SSC that is 1900 BC. How can they destroy a site between 3300 BC and 2600 BC then?
According to Kenoyer the fire at Kot Diji may not have been forceful because there is evidence to suggest immediate rebuilding and strong continuity in local ceramics. That proves that there was no major and intermittent discontinuity/disturbance in the existing civilization there.

Claim-
Horse was unknown to the people of IVC/SSC and that it was irrelevant to them ritualistically. [Implying that it was the incoming veda writing Aryans for whom Horse was so important so they can't be the architects of IVC/SSC..]
[Truth
B B Lal has already proven the existence of horse at IVC/SSC sites. Terracotta figures at Lothal and Nausharo, horse upper molars, bones from Surkotada and Kachcha.
There is no sudden rise in the occurence of horse remains at IVC/SSC during and after the supposed Aryan arrival. Reversing it - there are only scant horse remains in BMAC civilization sites and others north west of IVC/SSC. Those would've been the staging areas of Aryans if at all they came in from outside. There should be plenty of horse remains there if the hypothesis were true, which is not the case.

Claim-
No vedic objects like fire altars in IVC/SSC sites.
Truth-
Lal has already given evidence of fire altars that were sunk into ground and had a central stele. Circular/Biconvex cakes of clay are placed as if placed as offerings have also been found.
[Here I want to ask how many of you are unaware that during "pooja" in our houses there are always karpur (camphor) and eatables/prasad etc. offered to fire?]
There is presence of ash and charcoal which confirms that the altars were used for fire. The altars were placed such way that those offering worship would have to face east wards. [Again a common practice in our society even today.]

Claim-
Avesta talks of repeated migrations migrations from Persia to Indus valley.
Truth-
No references/arguments given as evidence.On the contrary there is evidence to suggest that the Avesta has borrowed from Vedas and that Vedic tribes migrated in both east and west directions from Sapta-Sindhu region.
"To the East went Ayus; from him descend the Kurus, Pancalas, Kasis and Videhas. These are the peoples that originated as a consequence of Ayus's going forth.
To the West went Amavasu; from him descend the Gandharis, the Sparsus and the Arattas. These are the peoples which originated as a consequence of Amavasu's going forth."

Claim-
Earliest evidence of Indo-Aryans
Truth-
What exactly is the reference/evidence for that? Again, not given. If it is about Mittanis then they are proven as succeeding IndoAryans and not preceding them.
Mittanis ruled between Mediterranean and Northern Syria in the 15th and the 14th centuries BC. They spoke Hurrian, a non-IA language.
All the words of Hurrian that are cognate with IA are found in martial contexts in connection with horses, warriors and chariots. Some IA words are found in males names where such men are mostly of royal stature.
No IA names found in women. All this points to the incoming IndoAryans from India superimposing themselves as the noble class in Mittanis; rather than the absurd conclusion of IndoAryans themselves originating in northern Syria. If it were true we should be seeing lot of IA words everywhere including non-martial context, which is not the case.
Even if we pretend so; the Mittani Aryans have inscribed themselves in Syria which means that they would have been literate before they entered India. Now earliest inscriptions in India belong to 4th century BC.
Is it that the literate Aryans forgot to write by the time they reached India and later got to remember again !!
Best explanation is that these relegated Kshatriyas who went out from India and became martial/noble class among Mittanis at northern Syria. As they were Kshatriyas (not brahmins) it is quite possible that they may not know any lipi/script in first hand practical way and hence would pick the lipi prevalant at their new western homes.

Claim-
Aryans being an external entity, were curious about elephants they found in India and called them "mriga hastin" - the animal with one hand.
Truth-
This imples that dravidians who were supposedly the original inhabitants of IVC/SSC must have been most familiar with elephants.
However the dravidian family speakers are limited to the south Indian peninsula and tamil is the oldest literature with its Sangam anthologies. Now, Sangam literature speaks of Tirupati as the northern boundary of

the tamil region and beyond tirupati it says there are other languages spoken. Sangam poems mention multiple times the war elephants trained and raised in Tirupati the northen most part of tamil region.
Further more poems mention of elephants being trained by Aryans and some even point that Sanskrit was used by mahaouts in the training. Many other poems say that a mixture of Sanskirit and Tamil was use to train elephants. In fact the Rig Veda uses three generic terms for elephants - [varana, srni and ibha ]
If dravidians were better versed with elephants and their training; if elephants were unknown and intriguing entities for Aryans - then why are Aryans taming, training dravidians elephants at the northern most tip of tamil region?

Claim-
Hindus perpetrated violence on the Buddhists and Jains; destroyed viharas and constructed Hindu temples on the ruins.
Truth -
Sita Ram Goel challenged her to produce evidence to substantiate her assertion. She mentioned three inscriptions, two of whom have no connection with any Buddhist or Jain monuments and the third one was already debunked by the authorities as a fake/concoction.
Thapar and her kind however have no words for the brutality of Communist regime of China over Tibetan monks who weren't protected better anywhere than in India.

Sita Ram Goel´s work of Islamic history was published in 1993 - - six years of opportunity for the "eminent historians" to refute his work. Quite the contrary, it is the Indian Marxist historians who now stand discredited on many issues in Indian history.
A standard Soviet work A History of India by K. Antonova, G. Bongard-Levin, G. Kotovsky (Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1979), which, for example, on Aurangzeb, is free of the inverted concoctions of the Indian

Marxist academics and agrees with the evidence presented by Goel: "Aurangzeb was a cold, calculating politician, and a fanatical Moslem, who stripped Hindus of their rights. Between 1665 and 1669, he gave orders for Hindu temples to be destroyed and for mosques to be erected from their debris."

Claim-
[No need of reference. No need of Evidence. "May be" "Could be" all the way. Enjoy !! ]
a) The Mahabharata "may have been" a localized feud, and the Bhagavad Gita a wholesale interpolation.
b) The Ramayana "probably" was a local feud, and the Southern locales in the Ramayana "may have been" later day interpolations.
c) Alexander the Great was "perhaps" hostile to the Brahmins, and so they hated the Yavanas.
d) Ashoka didn't inscribe in Tamil, "perhaps" because that language didn't have a script then.
e) The Greek Goddess Ardochsho enters India at the turn of the first millennium AD, and gets absorbed into the Hindu pantheon as Shri.
f) The Gupta Age was not the Golden age. Archeological evidence reveals that the laity was more impoverished than under the previous rulers.
Truth-
Observe the pattern? It alway starts with a phyothetical uncertainity using the words like perhaps, may be, could be and then suddenly the statement is concluded quite assertively as if the speculation itself has

magically transformed into evidence !
If Mahabharat and Ramayana were indeed local feuds then why are they so popular in the entre Indian sub continent and even S E Asia. If they got popularized via ballads, why only these feuds and not other innumerable feuds. As early as 1st century A.D. tamils were completely aware of these epics and even the Sangam poetry has expressed them in detail. Many poets eugolize their Kings and stories again and again with the events as well as personalities of Mahabharata and Ramayana.

Claim-
Sanskrit texts have unkind words for Yavanas because Alexander didn't patronize the brahmins.
Truth-
Even the Sangam works of Tamil heartland call Yavanas unkindly, namely mlecchas and portray them as serving the tamil royalty.

Claim-
Ashoka didn't inscribe his edicts in Tamil because Tamil didn't have a script then.
Truth-
Our lefty historians always argue that only the upper classes of society were literate. If that were true, then only the upper castes would have been able to read the inscription in any case.
So, even if Tamil hadn't had a script, Ashoka could have inscribed his Tamil edicts in the Brahmi script, just as the inscriptions following soon were so.
As they also claim that Brahmins were Sanskirt speakers and were only forced to learn Tamil went they came to Tamil region then the Brahmins would have had no difficulty understanding the Brahmi inscriptions.
Real reasons for Ashoka not inscribing in Tamil are:
1) His rule didn't extend over the Tamil country but ended with Southern Karnataka
2) Tamil language was not spoken in Karnataka. As the contemporary Tamil sources themselves state explicitly (Akananaru 211:7-8)

Claim-
Shri is a non-Aryan and Greek import. Shri "may have been" a fertility Goddess.who was absorbed into Arthashastra and later got projected as wife of Vishnu.
Truth-
No evidence cited.

Claim-
The Bhakti movement of the South "may have been" influenced by Christianity
Truth-
No evidence cited.

Claim-
Class struggle into India's past; a struggle in which Sanskrit came to symbolize the ethos of the upper castes, while the laity was at best indifferent to the same for they remained unlettered.
Truth-
The prescriptive Shilpashastras of artisan class were mostly written in Sanskrit,

Claim-
If Gupta age was golden then so was Chola and Mughal era.
Truth-
That was her evidence to claim that during Gupta age commoners were poorer than they were under previous rulers.

Claim-
Silappadikaram dates to 5th century A.D.
Truth-
As usual, no evidence cited. Apparently the seminal works written over the last several centuries on the dating of this epic weren't even opened before announcing this verdict.
V. R. R. Dikshita has summarized many methods to date the epic such as:
1) The product of modern Indological research, arranges the Tamil epics and anthologies, on a relative chronological scale, using the percentage of Sanskrit words used as the basis.
As per this method, Silappadikaram uses eleven percent Sanskrit words, as compared to the thirty percent used in the Bhakti literature of the Azhwars and the Nayanmars.
Since, the latter two lived between the 5th and the 10th century AD, and allowing for at least 3 centuries for Sanskritization of literary Tamil from eleven percent to thirty percent, the epic is dated to the 2nd century A.D.
2) Use of the astronomical references contained in the epic, as well as matching those keys with those in another contemporary epic Manimekhalai.
A medieval commentator of Silappadikaram, Adiyarkkunallar collates information regards the calendar used in the epic and the position of the stars recorded therein.
The calculations based on this data places the critical events of the epic in the year 174 AD.
3) Method is called 'Gajabahu synchronism' that is based on the reference in the epic to the Sri Lankan king by that name, who attended the coronation of the Chera monarch.
Gajabahu ascended the throne around 171 AD, so the reference to him in the narrative of the epic is credible.

Claim-
The earliest evidence for Sati occurs in Eran125 in AD 510.
Truth-
No evidence again.
This practice was found across several cultures even from the Mesolithic settlements. In early bronze age cultures of Italy and in southeastern europe - "Tomb of the Widow" is the burial place of the wife, when her warrior husband died.
~J P Mallory (author - 'In search of the IndoEuropeans")
The Greeks under Alexander noticed this practice being observed in Punjab and when Alexander advanced to Kathaians at Sangala. "..and the women burnt themselves along with their deceased husbands"
~ Strabo
Tamil Sangam literature records this practice in details - "a woman either joined her husband in his funeral pyre or burial urn, or led the austere life of a widow comparable to that of an ascetic".
~Purananuru pg 246
Tamil woman implores the potter to make her husband's burial urn large enough to hold the widow as well
~Purananuru pg 256
The woman with children was rather expected to observe widowhood.
~Purananuru pg 250
Manusmriti and Skanda Purana do not advice or mention Sati at all. They rather only presribe expected behavior for widows - to lead an ascetic life of honor.
For all practical purposes, it was only the royalty that took to sati.
This was practiced on a large scale only during the times of Islamic invasions. The Rajput women embraced the funeral pyre of their husbands, to avoid being raped and ending up in the harem of the Islamic aggressors.

Claim-
Cattle raids were very common in Peninsular India, and alleges that the commemorative stones depicting sati were meant to cultivate a heroic ethos in defense of the settlements not protected by the royal army.
Truth-
No evidence cited again.
In the Marxist scheme of things, any Indian war has to be a "cattle raid" and practices like sati have to be reduced to utter banality.
If she were right, then what does one do with all those instances of the women of royal households committing sati?
Tonsuring of the widows continued even till a few decades ago among the Brahmins of Tamilnadu. The Brahmins are not known to have participated in the battlefield, until mid medieval times.
Was this tonsuring of the Brahmin widows till modern times too a practice aimed at cultivating heroic ethos for defense against "cattle raids"?

Claim-:
"¢ There is no reference to the Varna system in the Sangam Tamil literature.
"¢ Only around 500 AD, references to the Brahmin settlements begin to appear.
"¢ The Brahmins introduce the Varna system around the 8th century AD, though with limited success.
"¢ The Brahmins, upon settling in the Tamil country, had become vegetarians.
"¢ While the Brahmins were hierarchy conscious, the other Tamil poets were egalitarian.
"¢ The Bhakti movement was a rebellion against the Vedic religion; the Bhakti saints opposed the Vedic religion, the Brahmins and the Varna system; the Brahmins were opposed to the Bhakti tradition.
Truth-
There are numerous references to the Varna system in the Sangam literature.
One of the songs says that even though a person may belong to a lower Varna among the four, if he were to acquire knowledge, then those born of the higher Varnas would respect him. ~Purananuru 183:8-10
Another song says that even if those of higher birth fell into poverty, the virtues of their higher birth wouldn't desert them, while yet another says that one's character could only be commensurate with what is befitting the Varna into which he is born. ~Pazhamozhi
The oldest extant Tamil grammatical treatise prescribes under what circumstances men of each Varna can go on sabbatical or separation.
It says that a Brahmin can go away for learning the Vedas or on diplomacy, a king for matters of war and intrigue, and then adds that for the sake of establishing dharma and theistic life, men of all the four Varnas can separate [from their homes].
Elsewhere, the same book also lists what the duties of each of the four Varnas have traditionally been. It says that a Brahmin wears the sacred thread, carries the kamandala and uses the tortoise shaped wooden plank as his seat [for studying the scriptures], and he can also be a minister or the king.
A Jaina saint considers it inauspicious when the Brahmins give up chanting of the Vedas and take to other professions. In Silappadikaram, the newly married Kovalan and Kannagi are dissuaded from entering a settlement where the Brahmins musicians reside. ( ~ Silappadikaram 13:38 - 40 )
A woman suspects her man of infidelity, because of the new fragrance on his body, which she believes he acquired from a prostitute. He protests that he is innocent, takes a vow on the Brahmins [because they were revered in the society] and pleads that the fragrance on his body is due to his traversing the path full of groves where the wafting breeze carried the fragrance of the flowers that grew there. ( ~ Paripadal 8:51 - 55 )
The list goes on and on....
Appar who was a Jain ascetic and became a great Saiva saint (one of the Nayanmars) , praises Siva as the Lord of the Vedas.
Sambantar, another great saint has written at length about the greatness of the Vedic sacrifices.
About the bhakti tradition, the saint Tirumular sings:
Of crystal made is the Linga, that the Brahmins worship
Of gold, the Kings worship
Of emerald, the Vaishyas worship
Of stone is the Linga, the Shudras worship
( ~ Tirumantiram 172 )
In several songs, Siva is called The Brahmin ( ~ Paripadal 5:22-30 )
Even between the Saivite and the Vaishnavite saints of the great Bhakti tradition, there were many Brahmins (Sambantar, Sundarar, Manickavasagar, Periyazhwar etc).

Claim-
The Bhakti saints tried to establish a parallel between the God and the king ! Bhakti movement actually strengthened the institution of the king.
Truth-
The Bhakti saints didn't praise the king at all, let alone present him as something divine. One of the Vaishnavite Bhakti saints, Poigai Azhwar, emphatically sings that he wouldn't praise anyone but Vishnu. ( ~ Nalayira Divya Prabhantam "1st Tiruvandadi", 11, 63 - 64, 88, 94 )

Claim-
Tirukkural is a post-Sangam literature.
Trith-
Barring a few pieces, it is difficult to date the Sangam literature with any accuracy. At best we can present a range of dates for their composition. Anyway, A Sangam song (in Purananuru) makes an
unmistakable reference to Tirukkural 110, while another (Kurinchippattu 15 - 18) carries a paraphrase ofTirukkural 134. This shows that the anthologies had a chronological overlap.

Claim-
Most of the Sangam poetry describes raids, plunder and bride capturing !
Truth-
Tamil ethos considered it a virtue not to harm women, let alone "capturing" them as brides.

Conclusion:
Most of the Leftist historians, as Dilip Chakrabarti points out, hail from very affluent, urban, westernized, upper caste Hindu families.
They have never been associated with the traditions that make Hinduism. They have rarely ever had a first hand experience of rural Indian life, where the Indian culture is nourished.
Since most of them lack even a cursory knowledge of India's classical languages, and very little fieldwork or traditional learning to their credit, they are forced to fall back upon the 19th century Euro centric interpretations of India's culture.
These historians also have a lot to gain materially by politicizing history. The material rewards come in the form of fellowships, lecture tours or even a faculty position abroad, if one is willing to sell oneself to propagating the Euro centric notions

 

[Virendra]

Re: Out lefty friends and their lofty rhetoric

And now the turn of his eminence K M Shrimali :-

First consider this:

In July 1998, Manoj Raghuvanshi, host of a popular ZEE TV program called Aap ki Adalat, Aap ka Faisla (Your Court, You Judge) invited Arun Shourie and one of the "eminents," K. L. Shrimali.
Raghuvanshi posed the question first to Shrimali whether Aurangzeb was a religious bigot.
Despite Raghuvanshi´s repeating the question, Shrimali gave no clear answer, only asserting that Aurangzeb´s court had many Hindu nobles.
Shourie countered this by pointing out that there were many Indians among the persons honored by the British with titles - and both for the same reason.
In Shourie´s words: "How does this wipe away the destruction of Hindu temples by Aurangzeb? Aurangzeb had entertained no doubt about the fact that his primary impluse was the religious one.
And that he faithfully implemented an essential element of his religion, Islam, that is to destroy the places of worship of other religions."
As evidence, Shourie read out several passages from Sita Ram Goel´s book "Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them, The Islamic Evidence".
All Shrimali could mumble was that it was a "questionable source." When Shourie pressed the point that the source was the Akhbarat (Newsletter) of the Court of Aurangzeb himself written on the very day the news reached the court; the "eminent" historian merely repeated "questionable source."
Shourie comments: "So, when an ´eminent´ historian says that the sources were questionable, they must be questionable" - - this is their technology when cornered."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And then also :

With much righteousness Shrimali remarked that he was full of apprehensions because the sorts of persons who were now taking over the ICHR [Indian Council of Historical Research] were persons who had been distorting history, and suppressing facts.
'For example?' asked Manoj Raghuvanshi. Beef was eaten in ancient India, said Shrimali, and these people suppress this fact.
And what is the evidence for that? Asked Raghuvanshi. There are hundreds of writings to that effect, Shrimali said loftily. In which Ved, in which text, which verse in which text? Asked Raghuvanshi.
I have not brought the books with me, said Shrimali, but the evidence is all over. [Seriously? As a historian on ancient India is that your defense for what you just said like a gospel truth?? ]
But name one text name one verse Raghuvanshi persisted. Shrimali could not or did not name a single text, to say nothing of any verse or passage from it.
Someone from the audience interjected. Here are fours Veds, he said; handing over the books, read us a single passage from any of them, which supports what you are saying.
Raghuvanshi took the books from the person and took them over to Shrimali. Shrimali refused to look at them. Indeed, he recoiled.
Raghuvanshi then went to his table and began reading out passages after passages from the Veds in which there were strongest possible commands to not to eat beef.
At my request he asked Shrimali to read the verses himself. Shrimali refused to do that. Instead, he became even more aggressive.
So what if I cannot recall a text or recite a verse? He said. [ But you just said there are hundreds of writings as evidence. You don't remember even one of them? ]
But you are an expert on Ancient India, Raghuvanshi said.
What has my not being able to recall a verse had to do with my being an expert? Shrimali answered.
Even if you produce scores of verses against eating beef, that will not prove that beef was not eaten, Shrimali now maintained.But Sir just now onus was on you to prove that beef was eaten (you said it). When did it turn on us into proving that it was not eaten? :shocked: Guilty till proven innocent is it ??
But when the Veds lay down that the cow is not to be killed, how do you keep saying that there was no prohibition against eaing beef? Raghuvanshi asked.
I did not say the Veds, he said, I said 'Vedic literature.'
All right. Name a single book from that 'Vedic literature', which supports your position. Raghuvanshi asked.
He did not do so.
The exchange went on – with Raghuvanshi and the audience asking for a single passage, for the name of a single book, and Shrimali refusing – failing is the correct word – to furnish either.
The program was broadcasted in the third week of July. Clearly Shrimali had come out in poor light. He therefore started writing critiques of the program in newspapers – or rather that he started writing the same critique in different newspapers. The following statements of Shrimali are taken from The Hindu, 10 September 1998.
'Blatant editing of the program,' he charged. 'Mr. Raghuvanshi combined the role of both the prosecutor and the judge,' he wrote. 'I am less bothered about highly personalized and somewhat uncivilized attack on me in the context of the question on beef eating,' he said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Blatantly edited, really? Why not he himself give the original version then? Well he had all the time in the world after that show to go back to his study table, pull out the books or sources and prove himself.
But except screaming and denouncing, he gave no evidence, no argument .. nothing. You say something, they ask you for evidence to prove what you said and you call it a 'personalized attack'. Awesome ]
What did he wanted to achieve by shoving down our throat his hypothesis that despite of numerous evidence that our ancestors hated cow slaughter they still ate beef? What makes him so desperate?
Also Mr. Shrimali was more interested in the political games of ICHR which was to have new members back then in 98; whom it seems Shrimali didn't like much.
They traduce, they abuse, they denounce, they spit and run, but if you so much as ask them to substantiate what they are saying, they are deeply offended. A highly personalised attack, they scream.

 

[KS]

Re: Out lefty friends and their lofty rhetoric

^^ Can you please give me the video/transcript/recording of the above mentioned incident ?

 

[Virendra]

Re: Out lefty friends and their lofty rhetoric

The program was aired in July 1998. I tried to search it on You Tube and Zee websites but as the case is 15 years old, I'm not very hopeful.

 

[A chauhan]

Good work Virendra ! so these leftist historians have no knowledge at all, they did guessing at best ! and leftist give us their work as proofs

 

[anoop_mig25]

Well what we expect form Leftish . persently this people are were confused today . both their external source of guidance have embraced western captailsm but they cant do so what to do and hence they lost JNU student elections

 

[maomao]

Wow Virendra!!

Great work at decimating self-proclaimed intellectuals of the left, who are not more than a loathing self-hating insecure lot!

These people have destroyed the fabric of the society and they need to be wiped out, before other issues are tackled.....Hindus need to first clean up their own house by exterminating - leftist/secular ideology!

 

[The Messiah]

^ hindu ideology is secular ideology.

but some want India to emulate saudi arabia

 

[Virendra]

Wow Virendra!!

Great work at decimating self-proclaimed intellectuals of the left, who are not more than a loathing self-hating insecure lot!

These people have destroyed the fabric of the society and they need to be wiped out, before other issues are tackled.....Hindus need to first clean up their own house by exterminating - leftist/secular ideology!

The work is of Kalavai Venkat and others like him. I only tried to fit it into a post that is it. Yeah those occasional blue comments could be mine
I've seen the guy in some online conversations with Rajiv Malhotra as well; don't remember the url though.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[A chauhan]

^ hindu ideology is secular ideology.

but some want India to emulate saudi arabia

Don't worry, no matter how hard Indians try to emulate SA they can't and won't become as radical as S Arabians.

 

[pmaitra]

Kalavai Venkat's credibility is directly proportional to the number of references he has provided. This goes with every historian. I see none. His credibility, therefore, is zero.

Just because he claims something to be the truth, does not make it the truth.

There is no evidence to believe Aryan Invasion did not happen, as much as there is no evidence that it did happen. There is evidence of multiple races, so it is very much possible that there was either an invasion or migration of Aryans.

 

[Virendra]

Ok read again - "summarized excerpts of a review that I've re-organized."
Like I said this was a summary of the review and in effort of the changes for posting, a lot of references are missed.
Read the complete one here. There is no lack of references - IMC India - A Critical Review of Romila Thapar�s Early India

 

[KS]

The leftists strike again -- on a personal level and not on the content.

Attacking the messenger and not the message, the preferred modus-operandi of leftists, like that of Mr.Shrimali as mentioned in post # 2.

For the uninitiated, there are about 203 references in the link Virendra provided.

 

[Virendra]

There is no evidence to believe Aryan Invasion did not happen, as much as there is no evidence that it did happen

Fine, but why is AIT still shoven up the minds of academia, students and general public?
If theories are taught, instead of irrevertible truth. We might as well start including AMT, OIT and various other Ts that would come up

 

[A chauhan]

Kalavai Venkat's credibility is directly proportional to the number of references he has provided. This goes with every historian. I see none. His credibility, therefore, is zero.

Just because he claims something to be the truth, does not make it the truth.

There is no evidence to believe Aryan Invasion did not happen, as much as there is no evidence that it did happen. There is evidence of multiple races, so it is very much possible that there was either an invasion or migration of Aryans.

The bold portion of your sentence ends your argument ! and again AIT was a European theory, why to believe it on first hand if there is no evidence of AIT !

 

[LurkerBaba]

"¢ The Bhakti movement was a rebellion against the Vedic religion; the Bhakti saints opposed the Vedic religion, the Brahmins and the Varna system; the Brahmins were opposed to the Bhakti tradition.

Isn't this part more or less correct ? IIRC Lingayatism rejects the Vedas

Lingayatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[pmaitra]

Following is a set of summarized excerpts of a review that I've re-organized. The review is of of Romila Thapar's "Early India - From The Origins to AD 1300". The review is by Kalavai Venkat.

Her eminence Romilla Thapar's claims and the truth:

Claim[while washing her hands off the AIT stains]
The Hindus of the 1920s accepted AIT because that helped the upper-caste Hindus to identify themselves with the British.
Truth-
In 1920s India was ruled by British. It is quite obvious that certain (read colonized) sections of the society would toe the British line of AIT. It was the prevailing theory then. Ensured by British as the official theory.
In fact despite of the British having complete control of academics, many like Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, A.C. Das openly challenged the AIT. Interestingly, it was Thapar's mentor A. L. Basham who was supporting AIT till 1960s.
Swami Vivekananda openly challenged AIT? Or did he cast doubts? Any quotes?

Claim-
Sarasvati sites do not have much noticeable signs of urban culture.
Truth-
There are as many big sites (larger than 100 hectares) to the east of Indus as there are to the west. Eastern sites give more advanced crop cultivation techniques and tools that are still in use in Punjab.
Kalibangan (east of Indus) site not only has its lower town fortified, a feature absent in Mohenjodaro (west of Indus) but it also has termite-proof houses.
Lothal port (east of Indus) has no matching port (west of Indus) in infrastructure. Dholavira, east of Indus even contains stone statues. Sarasvati sites have more material variety than Indus sites.
The entire Harappan Civilization consists of 2 phases. The author apparently is oblivious of that. How is he drawing such conclusions when even the historians do not agree on the IVC script?

Claim-
Excavation sites Kot Diji indicates towards an invasion and it finds mention in Rig Veda.
Truth-
No RV verses specified to support the claim. Kot Diji belongs to Regionalization era (3300 BC to 2600 BC) of the civilization which led to urbanization.
The ash layer at Kot Diji indicates destruction by fire. If invading Aryans destroyed it by fire then it happened betweeb 3300 BC and 2600 BC. But AIT camp claims Aryans came in mature phase of IVC/SSC that is 1900 BC. How can they destroy a site between 3300 BC and 2600 BC then?
According to Kenoyer the fire at Kot Diji may not have been forceful because there is evidence to suggest immediate rebuilding and strong continuity in local ceramics. That proves that there was no major and intermittent discontinuity/disturbance in the existing civilization there.
Interesting perspective:

Thirty-seven skeletons found in a state of unplanned interment at Mohenjo Daro were put forth as evidence of a massacre at the hands of the Aryans (Wheeler 1968). Dales and others have since pointed out that the stratigraphic location of these skeletons in the residential area, rather than in the "citadel," and in levels of post-site abandonment, indicate that the "victims" were Post Harappan squatters. A full seven feet of debris separated the "victims" and the true Harappan occupation levels (Dales 1964). More conclusively, detailed skeletal analysis has shown that the "victims" were biologically different from true Harappans.

Indus Valley Civilization: The Demise of Utopia
Question is, what were biologically different people doing in an unconventional 'grave?'

Claim-
Horse was unknown to the people of IVC/SSC and that it was irrelevant to them ritualistically. [Implying that it was the incoming veda writing Aryans for whom Horse was so important so they can't be the architects of IVC/SSC..]
[Truth
B B Lal has already proven the existence of horse at IVC/SSC sites. Terracotta figures at Lothal and Nausharo, horse upper molars, bones from Surkotada and Kachcha.
There is no sudden rise in the occurence of horse remains at IVC/SSC during and after the supposed Aryan arrival. Reversing it - there are only scant horse remains in BMAC civilization sites and others north west of IVC/SSC. Those would've been the staging areas of Aryans if at all they came in from outside. There should be plenty of horse remains there if the hypothesis were true, which is not the case.
Afghanistan gets its name from Ashwakayana, and Ashwa means horse, because, Aryans are believe to have crossed the Hindu Kush on horses as they invaded or migrated (whatever floats your boat).
Claim-
No vedic objects like fire altars in IVC/SSC sites.
Truth-
Lal has already given evidence of fire altars that were sunk into ground and had a central stele. Circular/Biconvex cakes of clay are placed as if placed as offerings have also been found.
[Here I want to ask how many of you are unaware that during "pooja" in our houses there are always karpur (camphor) and eatables/prasad etc. offered to fire?]
There is presence of ash and charcoal which confirms that the altars were used for fire. The altars were placed such way that those offering worship would have to face east wards. [Again a common practice in our society even today.]
Is there any picture of a fire altar? I have not seen one. Fire worshipping is also practiced in former Soviet Central Asia. What is the point here? What does it prove or disprove?
Claim-
Avesta talks of repeated migrations migrations from Persia to Indus valley.
Truth-
No references/arguments given as evidence.On the contrary there is evidence to suggest that the Avesta has borrowed from Vedas and that Vedic tribes migrated in both east and west directions from Sapta-Sindhu region.
"To the East went Ayus; from him descend the Kurus, Pancalas, Kasis and Videhas. These are the peoples that originated as a consequence of Ayus's going forth.
To the West went Amavasu; from him descend the Gandharis, the Sparsus and the Arattas. These are the peoples which originated as a consequence of Amavasu's going forth."
Avesta has borrowed nothing from the Vedas. The Vedas and Avestha incorporated philosophies that were common among the peoples of that region (Central Asia). Both the Vedas and Avestha borrowed from the prevailing philosophies. The fact that there is an attempt to make the Avestha subordinate to the Vedas reeks of RSS propaganda.
Claim-
Earliest evidence of Indo-Aryans
Truth-
What exactly is the reference/evidence for that? Again, not given. If it is about Mittanis then they are proven as succeeding IndoAryans and not preceding them.
Mittanis ruled between Mediterranean and Northern Syria in the 15th and the 14th centuries BC. They spoke Hurrian, a non-IA language.
All the words of Hurrian that are cognate with IA are found in martial contexts in connection with horses, warriors and chariots. Some IA words are found in males names where such men are mostly of royal stature.
No IA names found in women. All this points to the incoming IndoAryans from India superimposing themselves as the noble class in Mittanis; rather than the absurd conclusion of IndoAryans themselves originating in northern Syria. If it were true we should be seeing lot of IA words everywhere including non-martial context, which is not the case.
Even if we pretend so; the Mittani Aryans have inscribed themselves in Syria which means that they would have been literate before they entered India. Now earliest inscriptions in India belong to 4th century BC.
Is it that the literate Aryans forgot to write by the time they reached India and later got to remember again !!
Best explanation is that these relegated Kshatriyas who went out from India and became martial/noble class among Mittanis at northern Syria. As they were Kshatriyas (not brahmins) it is quite possible that they may not know any lipi/script in first hand practical way and hence would pick the lipi prevalant at their new western homes.
Kshatriyas went out from India and became martial/noble class among Mittanis at northern Syria is complete drivel. IVC was more fertile than Syria. Most migrations in history has happened from more impoverished to less impoverished regions. It is as likely that Kshatriyas migrated out to Syria as it is that the earth is flat.
Claim-
Aryans being an external entity, were curious about elephants they found in India and called them "mriga hastin" - the animal with one hand.
Truth-
This imples that dravidians who were supposedly the original inhabitants of IVC/SSC must have been most familiar with elephants.
However the dravidian family speakers are limited to the south Indian peninsula and tamil is the oldest literature with its Sangam anthologies. Now, Sangam literature speaks of Tirupati as the northern boundary of

the tamil region and beyond tirupati it says there are other languages spoken. Sangam poems mention multiple times the war elephants trained and raised in Tirupati the northen most part of tamil region.
Further more poems mention of elephants being trained by Aryans and some even point that Sanskrit was used by mahaouts in the training. Many other poems say that a mixture of Sanskirit and Tamil was use to train elephants. In fact the Rig Veda uses three generic terms for elephants - [varana, srni and ibha ]
If dravidians were better versed with elephants and their training; if elephants were unknown and intriguing entities for Aryans - then why are Aryans taming, training dravidians elephants at the northern most tip of tamil region?
Rig Veda was not written in Sanskrit. The elephant is not native to Central Asia, so it is more likely that elephants were new to the Aryans. This does not exclude the possibility that Aryans learnt to capture and train elephants.
Claim-
Hindus perpetrated violence on the Buddhists and Jains; destroyed viharas and constructed Hindu temples on the ruins.
Truth -
Sita Ram Goel challenged her to produce evidence to substantiate her assertion. She mentioned three inscriptions, two of whom have no connection with any Buddhist or Jain monuments and the third one was already debunked by the authorities as a fake/concoction.
Thapar and her kind however have no words for the brutality of Communist regime of China over Tibetan monks who weren't protected better anywhere than in India.
Hindus did carry out large scale attacks and massacre on Hindus, especially on the instructions of the then Shankaracharya.

Claim-
[No need of reference. No need of Evidence. "May be" "Could be" all the way. Enjoy !! ]
a) The Mahabharata "may have been" a localized feud, and the Bhagavad Gita a wholesale interpolation.
b) The Ramayana "probably" was a local feud, and the Southern locales in the Ramayana "may have been" later day interpolations.
c) Alexander the Great was "perhaps" hostile to the Brahmins, and so they hated the Yavanas.
d) Ashoka didn't inscribe in Tamil, "perhaps" because that language didn't have a script then.
e) The Greek Goddess Ardochsho enters India at the turn of the first millennium AD, and gets absorbed into the Hindu pantheon as Shri.
f) The Gupta Age was not the Golden age. Archeological evidence reveals that the laity was more impoverished than under the previous rulers.
Truth-
Observe the pattern? It alway starts with a phyothetical uncertainity using the words like perhaps, may be, could be and then suddenly the statement is concluded quite assertively as if the speculation itself has
Of course, any sensible historial will use 'may be,' 'could be,' to express possibility. That is the standard academic practice. Only when people start making claims that something happened with 100% certainty, it no longer remains an academic literature but propaganda.

magically transformed into evidence !
If Mahabharat and Ramayana were indeed local feuds then why are they so popular in the entre Indian sub continent and even S E Asia. If they got popularized via ballads, why only these feuds and not other innumerable feuds. As early as 1st century A.D. tamils were completely aware of these epics and even the Sangam poetry has expressed them in detail. Many poets eugolize their Kings and stories again and again with the events as well as personalities of Mahabharata and Ramayana.
There are lots of things popular in local cultures - including Abrahamic faiths that believe that all humans originated from Adam and Eve.

Claim-
Sanskrit texts have unkind words for Yavanas because Alexander didn't patronize the brahmins.
Truth-
Even the Sangam works of Tamil heartland call Yavanas unkindly, namely mlecchas and portray them as serving the tamil royalty.
The 'claim' and 'truth' are completely incoherent.

Claim-
Ashoka didn't inscribe his edicts in Tamil because Tamil didn't have a script then.
Truth-
Our lefty historians always argue that only the upper classes of society were literate. If that were true, then only the upper castes would have been able to read the inscription in any case.
So, even if Tamil hadn't had a script, Ashoka could have inscribed his Tamil edicts in the Brahmi script, just as the inscriptions following soon were so.
As they also claim that Brahmins were Sanskirt speakers and were only forced to learn Tamil went they came to Tamil region then the Brahmins would have had no difficulty understanding the Brahmi inscriptions.
Real reasons for Ashoka not inscribing in Tamil are:
1) His rule didn't extend over the Tamil country but ended with Southern Karnataka
2) Tamil language was not spoken in Karnataka. As the contemporary Tamil sources themselves state explicitly (Akananaru 211:7-8)
Is the Tamil script different from the Brahmi script? Ashoka's rule did not extend to present day TN, but it was a tributary to the Mauryan Empire. So, that could be one reason. The regions around present day TN, in those days probably had a script. Any script with a lot of curves used leaves for inscription, and evidence therefore cannot be confirmed after so many years, but any script that uses a lot of straight lines used stone engravings, and that evidence is more likely to survive thousands of years. As simple as that.

Claim-
Shri is a non-Aryan and Greek import. Shri "may have been" a fertility Goddess.who was absorbed into Arthashastra and later got projected as wife of Vishnu.
Truth-
No evidence cited.
No evidence either way.

Claim-
The Bhakti movement of the South "may have been" influenced by Christianity
Truth-
No evidence cited.
If there was concrete evidence, they would not have said "may have been."

Claim-
Class struggle into India's past; a struggle in which Sanskrit came to symbolize the ethos of the upper castes, while the laity was at best indifferent to the same for they remained unlettered.
Truth-
The prescriptive Shilpashastras of artisan class were mostly written in Sanskrit,
Sanskrit was a synthetic language and was restricted to the gentry. 'Shilpashastras' may have been written in Sanskrit, but so what? Why wasn't the Buddhists texts written in Sanskrit if it was, as indicated, the language transgressing class or caste boundaries?

Claim-
If Gupta age was golden then so was Chola and Mughal era.
Truth-
That was her evidence to claim that during Gupta age commoners were poorer than they were under previous rulers.
No evidence either way.
Claim-
Silappadikaram dates to 5th century A.D.
Truth-
As usual, no evidence cited. Apparently the seminal works written over the last several centuries on the dating of this epic weren't even opened before announcing this verdict.
V. R. R. Dikshita has summarized many methods to date the epic such as:
1) The product of modern Indological research, arranges the Tamil epics and anthologies, on a relative chronological scale, using the percentage of Sanskrit words used as the basis.
As per this method, Silappadikaram uses eleven percent Sanskrit words, as compared to the thirty percent used in the Bhakti literature of the Azhwars and the Nayanmars.
Since, the latter two lived between the 5th and the 10th century AD, and allowing for at least 3 centuries for Sanskritization of literary Tamil from eleven percent to thirty percent, the epic is dated to the 2nd century A.D.
2) Use of the astronomical references contained in the epic, as well as matching those keys with those in another contemporary epic Manimekhalai.
A medieval commentator of Silappadikaram, Adiyarkkunallar collates information regards the calendar used in the epic and the position of the stars recorded therein.
The calculations based on this data places the critical events of the epic in the year 174 AD.
3) Method is called 'Gajabahu synchronism' that is based on the reference in the epic to the Sri Lankan king by that name, who attended the coronation of the Chera monarch.
Gajabahu ascended the throne around 171 AD, so the reference to him in the narrative of the epic is credible.
No evidence either way.
Claim-
The earliest evidence for Sati occurs in Eran125 in AD 510.
Truth-
No evidence again.
This practice was found across several cultures even from the Mesolithic settlements. In early bronze age cultures of Italy and in southeastern europe - "Tomb of the Widow" is the burial place of the wife, when her warrior husband died.
~J P Mallory (author - 'In search of the IndoEuropeans")
The Greeks under Alexander noticed this practice being observed in Punjab and when Alexander advanced to Kathaians at Sangala. "..and the women burnt themselves along with their deceased husbands"
~ Strabo
Tamil Sangam literature records this practice in details - "a woman either joined her husband in his funeral pyre or burial urn, or led the austere life of a widow comparable to that of an ascetic".
~Purananuru pg 246
Tamil woman implores the potter to make her husband's burial urn large enough to hold the widow as well
~Purananuru pg 256
The woman with children was rather expected to observe widowhood.
~Purananuru pg 250
Manusmriti and Skanda Purana do not advice or mention Sati at all. They rather only presribe expected behavior for widows - to lead an ascetic life of honor.
For all practical purposes, it was only the royalty that took to sati.
This was practiced on a large scale only during the times of Islamic invasions. The Rajput women embraced the funeral pyre of their husbands, to avoid being raped and ending up in the harem of the Islamic aggressors.
Sati was probably practiced by a section of the society, but to claim that only the Royalty practised sati as a 'practical' purpose is ridiculous! How was it practical - any explanations?
Claim-
Cattle raids were very common in Peninsular India, and alleges that the commemorative stones depicting sati were meant to cultivate a heroic ethos in defense of the settlements not protected by the royal army.
Truth-
No evidence cited again.
In the Marxist scheme of things, any Indian war has to be a "cattle raid" and practices like sati have to be reduced to utter banality.
If she were right, then what does one do with all those instances of the women of royal households committing sati?
Tonsuring of the widows continued even till a few decades ago among the Brahmins of Tamilnadu. The Brahmins are not known to have participated in the battlefield, until mid medieval times.
Was this tonsuring of the Brahmin widows till modern times too a practice aimed at cultivating heroic ethos for defense against "cattle raids"?
Mahabharata started with cattle-theft. Cattle-theft and cattle-raids were probably prevalent all over the country.
Claim-:
"¢ There is no reference to the Varna system in the Sangam Tamil literature.
"¢ Only around 500 AD, references to the Brahmin settlements begin to appear.
"¢ The Brahmins introduce the Varna system around the 8th century AD, though with limited success.
"¢ The Brahmins, upon settling in the Tamil country, had become vegetarians.
"¢ While the Brahmins were hierarchy conscious, the other Tamil poets were egalitarian.
"¢ The Bhakti movement was a rebellion against the Vedic religion; the Bhakti saints opposed the Vedic religion, the Brahmins and the Varna system; the Brahmins were opposed to the Bhakti tradition.
Truth-
There are numerous references to the Varna system in the Sangam literature.
One of the songs says that even though a person may belong to a lower Varna among the four, if he were to acquire knowledge, then those born of the higher Varnas would respect him. ~Purananuru 183:8-10
Another song says that even if those of higher birth fell into poverty, the virtues of their higher birth wouldn't desert them, while yet another says that one's character could only be commensurate with what is befitting the Varna into which he is born. ~Pazhamozhi
The oldest extant Tamil grammatical treatise prescribes under what circumstances men of each Varna can go on sabbatical or separation.
It says that a Brahmin can go away for learning the Vedas or on diplomacy, a king for matters of war and intrigue, and then adds that for the sake of establishing dharma and theistic life, men of all the four Varnas can separate [from their homes].
Elsewhere, the same book also lists what the duties of each of the four Varnas have traditionally been. It says that a Brahmin wears the sacred thread, carries the kamandala and uses the tortoise shaped wooden plank as his seat [for studying the scriptures], and he can also be a minister or the king.
A Jaina saint considers it inauspicious when the Brahmins give up chanting of the Vedas and take to other professions. In Silappadikaram, the newly married Kovalan and Kannagi are dissuaded from entering a settlement where the Brahmins musicians reside. ( ~ Silappadikaram 13:38 - 40 )
A woman suspects her man of infidelity, because of the new fragrance on his body, which she believes he acquired from a prostitute. He protests that he is innocent, takes a vow on the Brahmins [because they were revered in the society] and pleads that the fragrance on his body is due to his traversing the path full of groves where the wafting breeze carried the fragrance of the flowers that grew there. ( ~ Paripadal 8:51 - 55 )
The list goes on and on....
Appar who was a Jain ascetic and became a great Saiva saint (one of the Nayanmars) , praises Siva as the Lord of the Vedas.
Sambantar, another great saint has written at length about the greatness of the Vedic sacrifices.
About the bhakti tradition, the saint Tirumular sings:
Of crystal made is the Linga, that the Brahmins worship
Of gold, the Kings worship
Of emerald, the Vaishyas worship
Of stone is the Linga, the Shudras worship
( ~ Tirumantiram 172 )
In several songs, Siva is called The Brahmin ( ~ Paripadal 5:22-30 )
Even between the Saivite and the Vaishnavite saints of the great Bhakti tradition, there were many Brahmins (Sambantar, Sundarar, Manickavasagar, Periyazhwar etc).
No contest.
Claim-
The Bhakti saints tried to establish a parallel between the God and the king ! Bhakti movement actually strengthened the institution of the king.
Truth-
The Bhakti saints didn't praise the king at all, let alone present him as something divine. One of the Vaishnavite Bhakti saints, Poigai Azhwar, emphatically sings that he wouldn't praise anyone but Vishnu. ( ~ Nalayira Divya Prabhantam "1st Tiruvandadi", 11, 63 - 64, 88, 94 )
Bhakti movement was based on complete devotion to Vishnu, but I am not sure about the 'king' part.
Claim-
Tirukkural is a post-Sangam literature.
Trith-
Barring a few pieces, it is difficult to date the Sangam literature with any accuracy. At best we can present a range of dates for their composition. Anyway, A Sangam song (in Purananuru) makes an
unmistakable reference to Tirukkural 110, while another (Kurinchippattu 15 - 18) carries a paraphrase ofTirukkural 134. This shows that the anthologies had a chronological overlap.
No convincing evidence either way.
Claim-
Most of the Sangam poetry describes raids, plunder and bride capturing !
Truth-
Tamil ethos considered it a virtue not to harm women, let alone "capturing" them as brides.
Don't know about Tamil ethos, but one might want to explore the meaning of the word 'vivaha.'
Conclusion:
Most of the Leftist historians, as Dilip Chakrabarti points out, hail from very affluent, urban, westernized, upper caste Hindu families.
They have never been associated with the traditions that make Hinduism. They have rarely ever had a first hand experience of rural Indian life, where the Indian culture is nourished.
Since most of them lack even a cursory knowledge of India's classical languages, and very little fieldwork or traditional learning to their credit, they are forced to fall back upon the 19th century Euro centric interpretations of India's culture.
These historians also have a lot to gain materially by politicizing history. The material rewards come in the form of fellowships, lecture tours or even a faculty position abroad, if one is willing to sell oneself to propagating the Euro centric notions
The only conclusion that I can draw is that leftists (and also some non-leftists) have shown more responbility by putting forward the 'possibility' by using 'perhaps,' 'maybe,' instead of going gung-ho and stating "This is the truth." This is history, and there is no complete truth.

Countered in red inline.

 

[pmaitra]

Fine, but why is AIT still shoven up the minds of academia, students and general public?
If theories are taught, instead of irrevertible truth. We might as well start including AMT, OIT and various other Ts that would come up

One is justified in challenging AIT, but not justified in making claims like Kshatriyas migrated out of India and went to Syria. Even Mesopotamia lies on the way from India to Syria. Why did the Kshatriyas not settle in Mesopotamia, and instead go to Syria, a less fertile region? People are more likely to migrate to fertile lands from desert regions, than the other way around. Surely you don't believe in that, or do you?

There is no such thing as irreversible truth, and the opening post's author does exactly that - writes 'truth' everywhere. How do I know what he is saying is the truth?

 

[Zebra]

^ hindu ideology is secular ideology.

but some want India to emulate saudi arabia

Prove it please.

 

[pmaitra]

The bold portion of your sentence ends your argument ! and again AIT was a European theory, why to believe it on first hand if there is no evidence of AIT !

When was my argument that AIT did happen? You are seeing hallucinations, my friend.