Our lefty friends and their lofty rhetoric

[Virendra]

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?

Not always. That is when you migrate by choice, not when you move out of necessity/opposition.

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?

It is not the author who structured it in Claim vs. Truth manner as in the post. I did it that way. I wouldn't have to repeat it if you had seen the review link I gave.
Although the review author hasn't used "may be", "could be". He seems more confident of standing scrutiny.
If his review was bogus, he would've received a fitting reply, which I don't see anywhere in the academic circles.

I don't mind leftists using "may be" "could be" if they don't know what exactly happened. For some things no body knows exactly what happened.
But when the same hypothesis is used to reach at convenient conclusions and people gulp it down as gospel truth, it virtually mixes theories and facts. From what I know in a subject like history you can't easily undo once the damage is done.

If they're not sure what happened, why sell it as history?
Hey this is a good idea by the way. Anyone could become a historian. Just put together some mumbo jumbo conjecture and say "You know we're not sure what happened but at least we're being honest by using "may be" and "could be"

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?

Sati was practiced by the section of the society who the invaders targeted with utmost priority. They had it as the first goal to completely destroy and humiliate the ruling class. Because more than the logistical it had a psychological effect as the ruling class is a symbol of the prevailing system.
Invaders would either butcher the helpless peasantry wholesale or leave them if they need the peasantry and lower classes to labor for them. Focus of their lust was the royal women and that is where maximum Sati recurrence is.
Sati was may have been practiced on an individual level even in the lower classes or peasantry. But there is nothing to tell that it was an organized tradition as in the women of ruling classes and was as furious/frequent.
Attacking the country side villages where peasantry/lower caste lived, would lead to abandoning and villagers would disperse into hideouts/hills/forests.
Attacking the cities and forts where the Kingdom's army makes its last stand would be a different scenario and flight is not the norm we've seen. In those cases the army and royals are trapped for fight till death.
The few plausible scenarios where I could see peasantry doing Sati includes Chittor, where peasantry had gathered in the fort for protection.

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.

37 Skeletons in an unconventional grave. What are we trying to be prove by it? AIT? AMT?
Yes there could've been n number of squatting tribes roaming around, who strolled up till that region. Question is - what can be said about them (in graves) without using the famous "may be" and "could be"? Dales also says that there are no signs of violent contact at that site. They could be anyone, a small tribe that came in touch with the last Harappans of IVC/SSC.
There is no evidence of major genetic influx into Indian gene pool during or around the stipulated centuries of AIT/AMT.

Is there any picture of a fire altar? I have not seen one. Fire worshiping is also practiced in former Soviet Central Asia. What is the point here? What does it prove or disprove?

Excavation Sites in Rajasthan - Archaeological Survey of India

Besides the above two principle parts of the metropolis there was also a third one-a moderate structure situated upwards of 8O m e. of the lower town containing four to five fire altars.

http://www.archaeologyonline.net/indology/kalibangan-fire-altars.jpg
So the point is of cultural continuity. If there was a distinct external culture that replace Harappans, present days Indian wouldn't be worshiping by fire exactly the way Harappans did.

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.

How does any of it support Thapar's stand that there were considerate migrations from Persia to Indus valley?
While there is no evidence for west to east movement (as for Persia to Indus Valley), there are verses (quoted already) to suggest east to west migrations emanating from IVC/SSC region.

Rig Veda was not written in Sanskrit.

Then in what?

The elephant is not native to Central Asia, so it is more likely that elephants were new to the Aryans.

First prove your hypothesis that Aryans were native to Central Asia.

Hindus did carry out large scale attacks and massacre on Hindus, especially on the instructions of the then Shankaracharya.

Argument was of Hindu attacks on Buddhists/Jains. Anyway, proof please.

Mahabharata started with cattle-theft. Cattle-theft and cattle-raids were probably prevalent all over the country.

Ok humble beginnings, fine. Was Mahabharata war itself a petty feud?

Swami Vivekananda openly challenged AIT? Or did he cast doubts? Any quotes?

Sure, here goes

There are patriotic Englishmen who think that the Aryans were all red-haired. Others, according to their idea, think that they were all black-haired.
If the writer happens to be a black-haired man, the Aryans were all black-haired.
Of late, there was an attempt made to prove that the Aryans lived on the Swiss lakes.
I should not be sorry if they had been all drowned there, theory and all. Some say now that they lived at the North Pole.
Lord bless the Aryans and their habitations! As for the truth of these theories, there is not one word in our scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryan ever came from anywhere outside of India, and in ancient India was included Afghanistan. There it ends.
( ~ Vol.3, The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda )

Satisfied?

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).

Aryans couldn't take a direct Kingfisher flight from their (supposed) lebensraum to thousands of miles away in north west India.
Such movements of people happen slowly and there would be numerous staging areas where the population stays before moving further.
The point was - why we do not find horse remains in any of the staging areas of IVC/SSC such as the BMAC.

Claim-
Silappadikaram dates to 5th century A.D.
No evidence either way.

At least the review author and others have detailed elaborate methods to reach at the correct date Silappadikaram, before directly giving the verdict like Thapar. As far as evidence is concerned, there is enough covered in the methods given above (such as the astronomical data).

Regards,
Virendra

 

[A chauhan]

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

PM actually I said so for the last line of your post :-

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

From what I know in a subject like history you can't easily undo once the damage is done.

Rightly said !
These words are the actual reason behind all this discussions, the more you try to undo the damage or wrong beliefs the more opposition you have to face.

 

[pmaitra]

PM actually I said so for the last line of your post :-

It is one thing to say invasion happened, and another thing to say invasion or migration happened. See my last line again.

 

[Nagraj]

@ virendra
nice work.
we need to get rid of these marxists leaning history
plase do provide some links.

 

[pmaitra]

Not always. That is when you migrate by choice, not when you move out of necessity/opposition.

It is not the author who structured it in Claim vs. Truth manner as in the post. I did it that way. I wouldn't have to repeat it if you had seen the review link I gave.
Ok, so it was you who added those 'truth' words, and expect everyone to accept it as gospel truth?

Although the review author hasn't used "may be", "could be". He seems more confident of standing scrutiny.
If his review was bogus, he would've received a fitting reply, which I don't see anywhere in the academic circles.
He seems more confident to you, fine. So?

I don't mind leftists using "may be" "could be" if they don't know what exactly happened. For some things no body knows exactly what happened.
But when the same hypothesis is used to reach at convenient conclusions and people gulp it down as gospel truth, it virtually mixes theories and facts. From what I know in a subject like history you can't easily undo once the damage is done.
It's does not matter whether you mind or don't mind. The point is that any sensible historian will always use "may be," "could be." Your entire argument falls flat on its face. What were you trying to prove by saying "may be," "could be?" Thank you for bringing this up. With this argument, you are only making the leftists sound more credible.

If they're not sure what happened, why sell it as history?
Because it is history. Nobody knows for sure. It involves putting together bits and pieces. I understand you might not like the end product, but if you want to come up with something more credible for people to buy it, you have to provide enough justification for it.

Hey this is a good idea by the way. Anyone could become a historian. Just put together some mumbo jumbo conjecture and say "You know we're not sure what happened but at least we're being honest by using "may be" and "could be"
Of course, they are being honest about history. It is a much better approach than putting "truth" everywhere (with zero references, zero proof, as in the opening post)

Sati was practiced by the section of the society who the invaders targeted with utmost priority. They had it as the first goal to completely destroy and humiliate the ruling class. Because more than the logistical it had a psychological effect as the ruling class is a symbol of the prevailing system.
Invaders would either butcher the helpless peasantry wholesale or leave them if they need the peasantry and lower classes to labor for them. Focus of their lust was the royal women and that is where maximum Sati recurrence is.
Sati was may have been practiced on an individual level even in the lower classes or peasantry. But there is nothing to tell that it was an organized tradition as in the women of ruling classes and was as furious/frequent.
Attacking the country side villages where peasantry/lower caste lived, would lead to abandoning and villagers would disperse into hideouts/hills/forests.
Attacking the cities and forts where the Kingdom's army makes its last stand would be a different scenario and flight is not the norm we've seen. In those cases the army and royals are trapped for fight till death.
The few plausible scenarios where I could see peasantry doing Sati includes Chittor, where peasantry had gathered in the fort for protection.
This entire thing about sati again is completely irrelevant, when it comes to studying ethnic mix of Indians. However, it would be more practical for the widow of a king to become a queen, than for her to commit suicide. It was a phenomenon that happened much later, and should nto be linked to AIT/AMT.

37 Skeletons in an unconventional grave. What are we trying to be prove by it? AIT? AMT?
Yes. That was just one example. There are many others.
Yes there could've been n number of squatting tribes roaming around, who strolled up till that region. Question is - what can be said about them (in graves) without using the famous "may be" and "could be"? Dales also says that there are no signs of violent contact at that site. They could be anyone, a small tribe that came in touch with the last Harappans of IVC/SSC.
There is no evidence of major genetic influx into Indian gene pool during or around the stipulated centuries of AIT/AMT.
There is evidence of people of different races in India, who ended up in an unconventional grave, which increases the likelihood that they died in a conflict. So yes, not all Indians originated in India. Accept it. Either AIT happened or AMT happened. Your theory remains a theory.


Excavation Sites in Rajasthan - Archaeological Survey of India

http://www.archaeologyonline.net/indology/kalibangan-fire-altars.jpg
So the point is of cultural continuity. If there was a distinct external culture that replace Harappans, present days Indian wouldn't be worshiping by fire exactly the way Harappans did.
Ok, presence of fire altars proves what? Nothing.

Read about fire-altars in Central Asia: Sogdiana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How does any of it support Thapar's stand that there were considerate migrations from Persia to Indus valley?
While there is no evidence for west to east movement (as for Persia to Indus Valley), there are verses (quoted already) to suggest east to west migrations emanating from IVC/SSC region.
There is evidence of biologically different races in India. You can deny as much as you want. Migration could have happened either way, but I am likely to buy a less fertile land to more fertile land migration than anything else.
I am still waiting for you to respond to that
Already responded above.

Then in what?
First prove your hypothesis that Aryans were native to Central Asia.
It is already proven that there were people of different races, and they could not have come from Mars, could they? Nothing more to prove. You are just not willing to accept it.

Argument was of Hindu attacks on Buddhists/Jains. Anyway, proof please.
Go to the link and see the various references to research works. Please don't even defend that:
http://--------------/2010/10/how-a...hism-and-founded-hinduism-in-the-8th-century/

Ok humble beginnings, fine. Was Mahabharata war itself a petty feud?
Why bother whether Mahabharata was a petty feud or not? The point was about cattle-raids. My point stands proven. Not sure what you are trying to argue here.


Sure, here goes Satisfied?
So I was correct, he cast doubts about AIT/AMT because it is not mentioned in the scriptures. Read that again.

As for the truth of these theories, there is not one word in our scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryan ever came from anywhere outside of India, and in ancient India was included Afghanistan. There it ends.
( ~ Vol.3, The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda )

Aryans couldn't take a direct Kingfisher flight from their (supposed) lebensraum to thousands of miles away in north west India.
Such movements of people happen slowly and there would be numerous staging areas where the population stays before moving further.
The point was - why we do not find horse remains in any of the staging areas of IVC/SSC such as the BMAC.
Kingfisher flight? Perhaps they arrived form the Moon on a Soyuz capsule. What is your point?

At least the review author and others have detailed elaborate methods to reach at the correct date Silappadikaram, before directly giving the verdict like Thapar. As far as evidence is concerned, there is enough covered in the methods given above (such as the astronomical data).
Thapar gave a verdict? I don't think so. I think you just made that up.

Regards,
Virendra

Answered in blue above.

More points:

1. So you still stand by that theory that Kshatriyas migrated form India and went to Syria?
2. Do you know what Kshatriya means?
3. Did you look up what vivaha means?
4. Are you saying that all Indians are of the same race?
5. Are you denying fire-worshiping in Central Asia?

Honestly, I'd rather students were taught that either AIT or AMT happened, than whatever was claimed in the opening post.

 

[Virendra]

It's does not matter whether you mind or don't mind. The point is that any sensible historian will always use "may be," "could be." Your entire argument falls flat on its face. What were you trying to prove by saying "may be," "could be?" Thank you for bringing this up. With this argument, you are only making the leftists sound more credible.

What do I have to prove? Everything has been proven by the historians using may be and could be.

If they're not sure what happened, why sell it as history?

Because it is history. Nobody knows for sure.

Not nobody. Some know while some choose to look the other side as if it isn't true.

Of course, they are being honest about history. It is a much better approach than putting "truth" everywhere (with zero references, zero proof, as in the opening post)

This was written previously:
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 IMC India - A Critical Review of Romila Thapar's Early India
This was written previously:

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

This was written previously:

I wouldn't have to repeat it if you had seen the review link I gave.

You did not read any of this? You did not know that the original review link was shared ages ago and has all the references and proofs? You're still stuck with that post and do not see the references in original review?

This entire thing about sati again is completely irrelevant, when it comes to studying ethnic mix of Indians. However, it would be more practical for the widow of a king to become a queen, than for her to commit suicide. It was a phenomenon that happened much later, and should nto be linked to AIT/AMT.

Yeah? Well good because it was Romilla Thapar who bought this point up, not me If you didn't notice yet – neither the book nor the review is exclusively about AIT/AMT. Sort out who you're angry with for mixing AIT with Sati - me or Thapar?

There is evidence of people of different races in India, who ended up in an unconventional grave, which increases the likelihood that they died in a conflict

Why? Couldn't they come in contact by other means? Couldn't they become flocks of the same feather, living under culture and language? Isn't India of this day a melting pot?
Lets assume for a moment they died in conflict. There was a feud/riot where they fought with each other and many of them died. Ok what does that prove? Does it prove AIT? Does it prove AMT?

So yes, not all Indians originated in India. Accept it.

Absolutely accepted. According to latest research modern man started from Africa 50,000 years ago and traveling close to sea coast reached India via Arabia. That happened way before the stipulated timelines of AIT/AMT.
There are also competing theories that humans have a multi region origin and some of us originated in Malaysia, but lets leave it for later.
Not All Out-Of-Africa: Malaysia's 1.8MYA Human Settlement - YouTube

Either AIT happened or AMT happened.

Crap. Again, there is no genetic evidence to say that external gene entered India in the stipulated centuries of AIT/AMT. Migration has been there. Human always migrate (at least they used to do more earlier) and no one can challenge that. But a major influx in the centuries when Aryans are supposed to have come? Not there at all.

Your theory remains a theory.

I don't have any theory, it is AIT/AMT who still carry the tag of "theory"

Ok, presence of fire altars proves what? Nothing.

Proves that Harappans and Hindus (if you'd like to count them differently) had same worship practices. Their geometry, location, substances used in the altars – all match the Hindu practice.
Besides, I'm not proving anything here. The review author is only disproving/debunking what Thapar said with authority "No fire altars in IVC/SSC". Onus is on the one who proposes, to prove what they said.

If you'd like, let us hear from the horse's mouth – a marxist historian of AIT/AMT school:
"The discovery of several Vedic fire altars or what resembles them is indeed an embarrassment for those who have all along maintained that IVC/SSC was not IA in nature."
~ Jane McIntosh, A Peaceful Realm - The Rise and Fall of the Indus Civilization pp 121

There is evidence of biologically different races in India. You can deny as much as you want. Migration could have happened either way, but I am likely to buy a less fertile land to more fertile land migration than anything else.

Lets assume that races mixed. When did they mix? 1000 BC? 2000 BC? 8000 BC? 10,000 BC? When ?
Now, when it indeed happened say some xx thousand years ago, we would have to know of the geopgrahy as to which area was fertile then and which not.
Moreover we would have to see whether man of that time looked for soil fertility or something else. Have you accounted for these things?
I think it was a premature conclusion. Migration has happened, I know. And it has happened from outside into India. But as gentics prove, the timing is not at least the centuries stipulated for AIT/AMT.

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

How do you prove that an invasion did not happen?
This is as ridiculous as getting up and telling someone "Prove that you're not a murderer. Until you prove it, I'm going to keep speculating that you may be a murderer !"
The only way is to disprove/debunk the arguments suggesting an invasion. Which is exactly what the review author and many others have done.

It is already proven that there were people of different races

Where? Who?
And even then, what does it have to do with AIT/AMT? For 50,000 years back I could agree but where does anything prove that a particular race from outside entered India between 1900 and 1500 BC?

and they could not have come from Mars, could they?

Yeah sure, first lets settle whether some race indeed came in with good numbers between 1900 BC and 1500 BC or not.

Nothing more to prove. You are just not willing to accept it.

Go to the link and see the various references to research works.

Link was not working but I found the article.
So where is the proof that Adi Shankaracharya instructed people/kings to kill Buddhists .. as you said?
Where is the proof that there was a nefarious religious doctrine behind any violence between Hindus and Buddhists that may have happened?
I didn't find them in the article.

Please don't even defend that:
http://--------------/2010/10/how-ad...e-8th-century/

Why Not?
Apart from few Tibetan Buddhist accounts (who were obviously trying to compete with Hinduism), what other primary sources or proofs have been cited?
For those who couldn't open, here's a sample of the article's writing style:
King XYZ is "said to have" razed xxx number of viharas and monastries and put to death xxx kotis "¦
ABC is "said to have" instigated King xxx to exterminate the Buddhists
King AFG is "said to have" slaughtered all the Buddhist monks in the area around xxx.
And here comes the icing on the cake:
"The Brahimns, who were once voracious beef-eaters, turned vegetarian, imitating the Buddhists in this regard."[/QUOTE]Proof? Zilch ! You call that an irrefutable article?

Why bother whether Mahabharata was a petty feud or not? The point was about cattle-raids. My point stands proven. Not sure what you are trying to argue here.

Why bother?
Because it is an epic that is etched on Indian psyche forever and has taught Indians their dharma for many millennia.
Because Romilla Thapar says "The Mahabharata "may have been" a localized feud". She is not talking about what triggered Mahabharata as you are. She is talking about the Mahabharata itself as a petty feud.

So I was correct, he cast doubts about AIT/AMT because it is not mentioned in the scriptures. Read that again.

How is it just a doubt and not denouncing? If as he says Aryans did not come from outside by any means, what is left of AIT/AMT?
Lets try again:
"According to some, they came from Central Tibet, others will have it that they came from Central Asia. There are patriotic Englishmen who think that the Aryans were all red-haired. Others, according to their idea, think that they were all black-haired. If the writer happens to be a black-haired man, the Aryans were all black-haired. Of late, there was an attempt made to prove that the Aryans lived on the Swiss lakes. I should not be sorry if they had been all drowned there, theory and all. Some say now that they lived at the North Pole. Lord bless the Aryans and their habitations!
As for the truth of these theories, there is not one word in our scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryan ever
came from anywhere outside of India, and in ancient India was included Afghanistan. There it ends. And the theory that the Shudra caste were all non- Aryans and they were a multitude, is equally illogical and equally irrational."
(There, he said it. External origin theories are equally illogical and equally irrational as the Shudra non-Aryans hypothesis is. You still think he is merely casting a doubt? Read further if you want more)
"It could not have been possible in those days that a few Aryans settled and lived there with a hundred thousand slaves at their command. These slaves would have eaten them up, made "chutney" of them in five minutes. The only
explanation is to be found in the Mahâbhârata, which says that in the beginning of the Satya Yuga there was one caste, the Brahmins, and then by difference of occupations they went on dividing themselves into different castes, and that is the only true and rational explanation that has been given. And in the coming Satya Yuga all the other castes will have to go back to the same condition."

Kingfisher flight? Perhaps they arrived form the Moon on a Soyuz capsule. What is your point?

The point was sitting there right in front of your eyes. The set of three statement right above your own line. Lets try again:
Aryans couldn't take a direct Kingfisher flight from their (supposed) lebensraum to thousands of miles away in north west India.
Such movements of people happen slowly and there would be numerous staging areas where the population stays before moving further.
The point was - why we do not find horse remains in any of the staging areas of IVC/SSC such as the BMAC.
Instead of addressing it, if you are going to repeat that they came from Moon on Soyuz capsule, then end of debate.
You think a group of nomads got on their horses from their central asian base;
traveled thousands of miles almost non-stop;
developed astronomic knowledge despite of being on the move;
found the exact gap in Hindukush to pass over in north west India;
settled down in an already existing advanced civilization;
invented sanskrit script and started writing the famous vedas;
yet in all those vedas they never ever mentioned even a wee bit about their central asian lebensraum;
yet they never ever told their brothers in central asia/europe of the land they found or the language and vedas they created?
Quite a theory !!

Thapar gave a verdict? I don't think so. I think you just made that up.

It appears I didn't. This is what the review quotes "She dates Silappadikaram to the 5th century AD (~ Early India pp 345) and as usual fails to furnish any supporting reference or argument".

More points:

*So you still stand by that theory that Kshatriyas migrated form India and went to Syria?

I know that migrations happened and there were ancient links between India, northern Syria due to that migration and that the migration happened from India not the other way around.

*Do you know what Kshatriya means?

Yes, the one who protect the society from damage; the one who has power and provides dominion. It comes from the Sanskrit word -kṣatrá which means power, dominion, supremacy. Ksatra is also hailed as the vital force which protects the body from wounds.

*Did you look up what vivaha means?

Vivaha comes from dhatu – 'Vah' which means to conduct, lead, carry. Vi + Vaha is 'conduct/lead/carry away'. In our cultural context it means that the bride makes a journey to groom's house or that he groom comes to take the bride away. The same 'Vah' is used in 'Prahava' to indicate a strong stream flowing from one place to the other.

*Are you saying that all Indians are of the same race?

I don't know about race. But I know for sure that ethnicity are multiple.

*Are you denying fire-worshiping in Central Asia?[

It is not just the fire worship. Whenever wherever man learned about fire he worshiped fire one way or other, fire became his life line.
It is about the complete practice – the way worship was done then and is done even today in India. Geometry of the altars, east facing worshiper, offerings in fire such as camphor and eatables etc.
Which of the supposed European branches from central asian Aryan land had or have the same practice?

Honestly, I'd rather students were taught that either AIT or AMT happened, than whatever was claimed in the opening post.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[pmaitra]

^^

Ok, I think you have not proven anything, and are questioning how Romila Thapar presented history. You prefer 'this is the truth' approach (going by your OP), while I give more credibility to 'maybe,' 'could be' approach. You believe Kshatriyas moved out of India and went to Syria while I believe Aryans came form Central Asia and either invaded or migrated. You believe carrying away a bride was not in vogue, while I believe in 'vivaha.' Frankly, leftist and Marxist historians (whatever that means), have more credibility, than nationalistic claptrap.

You are entitled to your beliefs, and yes, I call them beliefs, while I am entitled to logical reasoning and high likelihood of AIT/AMT.

Let's leave it at that.

 

[Bhadra]

Tara Chand and Majumdar, AL Bhasam etc enjoy more credibility than Romilla thapar, Irafan Habib etc.......