The Rigvedic People: 'Invaders'?/'Immigrants? -- New book by BB Lal. Kazanas' links refuting Witzel and 'mass migrationists'. Author : NICHOLAS KAZANAS.
Aryan books international was founded in 1992 as a publishing company dedicated to Indological books with an aim to offer readers the best in Indian Art & Culture. The vision was to create an organization based on Learning, Innovation & Quality.
www.aryanbooks.com
It is a sad commentary on the state of Itihasa of
BHARATAM Janam that some retarded like Witzel continue to harp on the 'mass migration' of 'Aryans' into ancient India to explain the identity of Bharatam Janam. Unless this sonorous harping is ended, Bharatam Janam will continue to be kept in the dark about their roots.
I have posited an alternative of mleccha, meluhha as Proto-Prakrits integral to the Indian
sprachbund together with the
chandas reciters and Samskritam speakers. Indus script has been deciphered as metalwork catalogs rendered rebus in meluhha/mleccha using hieroglyphs. That position has to take deep roots after BB Lal succeeds in convincing the researchers -- based on the archaeological and literary evidence -- that both mleccha and 'Aryan' speakers were indigenous to the ancient geographical domain called Hindustan
aasetu himachalam (from Setu of Indian Ocean to Himalayas) in which the ancestors of present-day Bharatam Janam laid the foundations for dharma-dhamma, say, from 8th millennium BCE. (I suggest this date based on the archaeological evidence of Bhirrana and
https://friendsofasi.wordpress.com/writings/the-8th-millennium-bc-in-the-lost-river-valley/ The 8th Millennium BC in the ‘Lost’ River Valley -- Indian Civilization Evolved in the 8th Millennium BC in the ‘Lost’ River Valley – Dr B. R. Mani
.
I hope BB Lal's new book will set the contentious 'Aryan' problem on an evidence-based, falsifiable framework, devoid of racist or doctrinaire wild goose chase with repetitive assertions imagining an elusive
urheimat of mythical (non-existent) proto-Indo-Europeans.
I say they were mleccha, meluhha who laid the roots of the Sarasvati-Sindhu (Hindu) civilization ca. 8th millennium BCE. Is this a good time-line to start the narration of Itihasa of Bharatam Janam on the Tin Road from Hanoi to Haifa traversing in caravans and seafaring merchants and traders on the Indian Ocean? Why the Tin Road? Because,
bharatam janam means 'metalcaster folk'.
Kalyanaraman
Dr. S. KALYANARAMAN is a life-member of and
regular participant in the World Association of Vedic Studies. He is a)
author of a multi-lingual comparative dictionary for over 25 ancient
languages of India BHARAT, b) author of 14-volumes on Vedic River Sarasvati,
civilization and script, c) editor of two editions of Rama Setu -- scientific,
archaeological and security aspects and d) author of Public Administration
in Asia, 2 vols. He is National President of Rameshwaram Rama Setu
Protection Movement and Director, Sarasvati Research Centre of Akhila
Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Yojana. He has a Ph.D. in Public
Administration from the Univ. of Philippines and degree in Economics and
Statistics from Annamalai University. He was a senior executive in
Karnataka Electricity Board, Indian Railways and Asian Development Bank
(ADB). In ADB where he worked for 18 years, he was responsible for setting up the world-wide network of
info. systems and disbursement of a 60-billion usd portfolio of loans. On Indian railways, he played a
pioneering role in introducing computers apart from functioning as financial advisor. He is recipient of
Vakankar Award (2000) and Dr. Hedgewar Prajna Samman (2008, 19th award).
See
(33:40)(1/2)
Nicholas Kazanas, " A Vedic Scholar " from Greece - interviewed by S. Kalyanaraman Published on Dec 11, 2012
(10:17) (2/2)
In Chennai on 1 March 2011, the interview covered a wide range of issues related to vedic civilization, sprachbund (language union or linguistic area), indian ocean community and vedic studies.
"Economic Principles in the Vedic Tradition" by N. Kazanas has been published in 1992 by Aditya Prakashan, www.adityaprakashan.com.
The paper deals with economic principles as found in the more ancient sources of the Vedic period in so far as this is possible. Unlike a particular application of a law which may well be affected by circumstances and thus appear to be different from place to place and time to time, a principle has an unchanging, universal quality. Despite few economic terms used throughout the text like Land Value Taxation (which means simply taxing the value of land alone) there is nothing complex or complicated in this study and reading it does not require any training in Economics. By showing the relation of the Indic principles to certain modern concepts and particularly to Land Value Taxation the paper goes a long way in bringing into light many valuable economic concepts and practices supported by an institutional framework.
Thus we meet the same concern about the distribution of wealth that occupies the mind of modern economists. How much does a man or a family need to earn and how much should be given to the royal treasury (i.e. the State) and how should these be determined? Or to put it in other terms, how should taxation be levied? Then, how should the State dispose of its revenue? Also, how should lending operate and what would be fair rates of interest? The lawgivers in ancient India were fully aware of all these issues. One aspect of modern economies that is not treated by the ancients is unemployment because this problem appeared as such, on a large scale, only with the increase of population, the land enclosures (=privatization) and the industrial revolution in Europe at the end of the 18th century. But the texts take it for granted that people should feel secure in their different employments. A most surprising feature is the principles of free access to land for all and the Land Value Tax which should be the source of Government revenue (and expenditure). It is surprising because Land Value Taxation is supposed to be a fairly modern concept. |
|
|
|
'Archaic Greece and the Veda' by N. Kazanas
This paper examines many parallels in the archaic Greek culture and the Vedic one. These are themes, poetic techniques, motifs and ideas in literature, mythology, philosophy, religion and ritual. For example, it is obvious that the names Zeus (Gr) and Dyaus (Vedic) are closely related. As in Greek mythology there is dog Kerberos guarding the entrance to Hades, so in the Vedic myths there are two dogs watching the path to Yama's netherworld. Many of these parallels have affinities with similar motifs in other Indo-european cultures like Celtic, Germanic and so on. Most classicists ignore these affinities or similarities and claim ( as W. Burkert does extensively) that many such elements in the Greek culture derive from Near-eastern sources. Thus Burkert thinks that the practice in Greece of having a young man or a seer sprinkling with a branch of laurel or tamarisk a polluted person or place came from Mesopotamia. However, the same practice is found in early Vedic texts where an apamarga branch is used. Consequently this paper argues with many examples that where such motifs and practices in Greece are found in the Vedic and other Indo-european cultures, they are most probably inherited forms from the Proto-Indo-European period before the dispersal of the various branches. |
|
|
|
'The Collapse of the ait and the prevalence of Indigenism' : NICHOLAS KAZANAS.
This essay The Collapse of the ait and the prevalence of Indigenism: archaeological, genetic, linguistic and literary evidences by N. Kazanas refutes the theory of the Aryan invasion or immigration into India which was current for nearly 200 years. |
|
|
|
'Vedic and Avestan' by NICHOLAS KAZANAS.
In this essay the author examines independent linguistic evidence, often provided by iranianists like R. Beekes, and arrives at the conclusion that the Avesta, even its older parts (the gaθas), is much later than the Rigveda. Also, of course, that Vedic is more archaic than Avestan and that it was not the Indoaryans who moved away from the common Indo-Iranian habitat into the Region of the Seven Rivers, but the Iranians broke off and eventually settled and spread in ancient Iran.
Vedic and Avestan was first published in Vedic Venues: Journal of the Continuity of Vedic Culture 2012, vol 1, published by Aditya Prakashan for the Kothari Charity Trust. |
|
|
|
'Rigvedic all-inclusiveness' by N. Kazanas
The Rigveda contains and seems to preserve more common elements from the Proto-Indo-European Culture than any other branch of the family. This essay examines various points of language, poetry and philosophy but it focuses mainly on grammatical elements, lexical and syntactical, and on aspects of (fine) poetry. This is one aspect showing that Vedic and its culture is much closer to the PIE language and culture than any other branch in that family. Moreover, it shows that it is most unlikely that Vedic moved across thousands of miles over difficult terrains to come to rest in what is today N-W India and Pakistan, in Saptasindhu or the Land of the Seven Rivers. Certain other aspects show that Iranian moved away from Vedic and Saptasindhu and most probably the other branches did the same at a very distant but undetermined period. Finally, monotheism is also a notable feature in the RV despite its pronounced polytheism.
The article has already been presented in two Conferences in India and will be published in the book Perspectives on Origin of Indian Civilization edited by Angela Marcantonio & Girish Nath Jha in association with the Center for Indic Studies, Dartmouth (USA).
On Sarasvati
Here is Prof K.S. Valdiya's response to the comments made in 'In Indus Times, the River didn't Run Through It' by Lawler, Science 1 April 2011 | |
| | An International Seminar on "How deep are the Roots of Indian Civilization: an Archaeological and Historical Perspective" was held in New Delhi during 25-27 November 2010. Eminent archaeologists and other scholars attended the Seminar.
Dr M. Witzel misrepresents this event in his usual insulting way with the comments he posts in the group: Indo-Eurasian_Research. Here Dr Kazanas replies to him.
'Indo-European Linguistics and Indo-Aryan Indigenism' by N. Kazanas
The essay Indo-European Linguistics and Indo-Aryan Indigenism is included in the bookIndo-Aryan Origins and other Vedic Issues written by N. Kazanas, ed. Aditya Prakashan, Dec 2009, N. Delhi. It examines the general IE issue and argues in favour of Indoaryan indigenism against the ait(Aryan Invasion/Immigration Theory) which has been mainstream doctrine for more than a century. The extreme positions that there was no PIE(=Proto-Indo-European) language or that this language is as currently reconstructed are refuted: the evidence suggests there was a PIE language but this cannot be reconstructed and all efforts in this reconstruction are misplaced. Since they are in no way verifiable, they should not be used as evidence for historical events. It is admitted even by rabid Indian nationalists that humans came to India from Africa sometime in the Pleistocene, and now there is evidence of change in the skeletal record of the region indicating that a new people may have entered c 6000-4500; even so, if these people were the IAs(=Indoaryans), they must, surely, be regarded as indigenous by 1700. Recent genetic studies do not suggest any entry of IAs within the last 10 000 years but state that the European peoples came out of South Asia after 50 000 B(efore)P(resent). Apart from such studies, other kinds of evidence and arguments will be used in full to demonstrate indigenism. | |
| | 'An Explanation' : Author NICHOLAS KAZANAS.
An additional piece by way of explanation for some points raised by readers of the 'Open Letter to Prof. Witzel'. (Updated on 7 March 2010 due to a minor correction.)
(Download the PDF file - 130kB)'Open Letter to Prof M. Witzel' by N. Kazanas
Α new book by N. Kazanas has been published in December 2009 by Aditya Prakashan, N. Delhi with the title: Indo Aryan Origins and other Vedic Issues. Prof. Michael Witzel made some comments on this book in Yahoo Groups - Indo-Eurasian_research. Dr Kazanas replies with the Open Letter to Prof M. Witzel.
'The RV predates the Sindhu-Sarasvati Culture' : N. Kazanas
This paper was presented synoptically by Dr N. Kazanas at the Conference THE SINDHU-SARASVATI VALLEY CIVILIZATION: A REAPPRAISAL, in Los Angeles (Feb 2009).
Argument: There are misconceptions about rigvedic pur, ratha and samudra based on the Aryan Invasion/Immigration myth. Then, there are some 10 characteristic features of the Sarasvati-Sindhu Culture which are not found in the Rig Veda. Moreover palaeoastronomical evidence (mainly N. Achar's work) places some BrAhmaNa texts c 3000 and the oldest layers of the MahAbhArata 3067. All this (and more) suggests that the (bulk of the) Rig Veda should be assigned to well before 3200 BCE - however unpalatable to mainstream thought this may be. | |
| |
|
|
|
|
An Explanation
Two men wrote saying that while Prof Witzel deserved the lashing he got in my Open
Letter to him (4/2/10), I went perhaps too far in my accusations of dishonest scholarship.
I don’t doubt at all that W knows Vedic and the RV. I have made this plain in other
earlier writings. Moreover, I accept that he, like all of us, makes inadvertent mistakes and,
whenever I met such, I (corrected them silently and ) bypassed them. I too make errors. Some
years back, I wrote that Whitney translated the word rathavāhana as ‘chariot-frame’ and not
as ‘a platform upon which is transported the chariot’. I was right in that he had used the
compound ‘chariot-frame’ (i.e. box of the cart) but in a subsequent note, which I had missed
in my first reading, he explained that he meant the ‘platform’. In a different paper I took the
phrase brahmā́yám to mean ‘this Spirit absolute’ ignoring the first accent which suggests ‘this
brahmin priest’ or, at best, ‘sanctity, the soul of the world’. The term ‘Spirit absolute’ would
have the accent on the first syllable bráhma-n. And more recently I wrote the Modern Greek
name Dēmētra instead of the classical Dēmētēr !
We all make such errors; most of us are prepared to acknowledge them and are grateful
to have them pointed out. Not so Witzel. He does not acknowledge mistakes and, if they are
spotted, he marshals all kinds of excuses to justify them, or attacks the other writer in most
vulgar, insulting or derisive terms. Thus he accused Talageri, among other unjustifiable
criticisms, of ignorance of linguistics and zoology (!) in their 2000-2001 altercation. Talageri
had written in his 2000 publication that Jahnāvī in the RV is, of course, the river Ganges
(post-rigvedic jāhnavī) and that śiṃśumāra is the Gangetic dolphin. W wrote that Jahnāvī is
the wife of Jahnu and the dolphin is that of the Indus. T replied cogently that no Jahnu is
mentioned in the RV while the context justifies the river-name and śiṃśumāra was said by W
himself to be the Gangetic dolphin in his own EJVS 1999! Indeed on p 465 of his book, T
cites the whole passage from W’s publication. W then replied with vague generalities and
accused T of employing unreliable texts! Such is W’s scholarly style of arguing and
“deconstructing” opponents – a term that both W and his henchman S. Farmer are fond of
using.
In 2003, in his comments (‘Ein Fremdling im Ṛgveda’ , i.e. a stranger in the RV) on my
paper ‘Indigenous Indo-Aryans and the Ṛgveda’ (2000), W, in one of his many incoherent
fault-findings, criticized me for using mythological, not realistic data in my treatment of the
chariot. This of course is his usual diabolic distorting demeanour, because where I used
mythological details, as with the Aśvin’s car, I said so; furthermore I included realistic data
like the types of wood (i.e. śalmali, khadira etc) used in constructing chariots and also the
only real-life race of Mudgala/Mudgalānī in RV 10.102. In this race the car is magically and
perversely transformed into a chariot which is pulled by a bull, not horses (Kazanas 2002,
§VII, 1). Then W gave his own “realistic” details to show the differences between ratha (i.e.
light two-spaced chariot for race or war) and anas (heavy cart/wagon for transport). Thus:
“spokes ... surrounded by wooden rim... bent by the carpenter ... made of suitable wood ...”
and so on. These descriptions are solemnly presented by W as features specific to chariots!
He went even further. He gave another “realistic” feature, namely that the “(light)
chariot has two wheels (cakra)”, as if there are no carts with two wheels. And here he refers
An Explanation 2
An Explanation 3
to RV 1.164.13 and 8.5.29 and thus betrays incredible sloppiness. Because 1.164.13 has only
ONE wheel (with five spokes!) while the previous stanza (12) mentions SEVEN wheels (with
6 spokes). 8.5.29 has indeed two wheels but these are golden and the chariot belongs to the
Aśvins! So much then for W’s realistic two-wheel chariots.
His worst sin in this matter of “realistic” chariots is his reference to RV 10.85.11. He
obviously did not read the original nor the whole hymn. This refers to the Sungod’s daughter
Sūryā and her bridal car. This car runs indeed on two wheels but has also the sky as its
covering in stanza 10 and is said to be ‘the mind’ manas! But the original sanskrit text has
here anas ‘cart, vehicle, wagon’, not ratha as per Witzel! It is really too slovenly for words.
But neither he nor his braves bothered to read my reply and recheck W’s self-damning
citations.
Now, this is how wizard Witzel “deconstructed [N.K.] in hilarious fashion”, as S.
Farmer wrote on Feb 28, 2009 (Indo-Eurasian list) vilifying the Conference on the Sarasvatī
river held at Los Angeles a little earlier. These people, Witzel and his braves, thoroughly
enwrapped in their own self-importance, live high up in their cloud-cuckoo-land and are
blithely oblivious of the contempt in which they are held by reputable indologists in the USA.
Back in 1995 W “proved” that immigration took place by translating a passage from the
very late Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra (18.44). The original passage was given by him in
footnote 27, p 321:
prāṅ āyuḥ pravavrāja; tasyaite kuru-pañcālāḥ kāśī-videhā ity;
etad āyavam. pratyaṅ amāvasus; tasyaite gāndhārayas parśavo ’rāṭṭā ity; etad
āmāvasavam.
Some time later, K. Elst produced the following translation: ‘Āyu migrated/went
eastwards; his [poeple] are the Kuru-Pañcālās and Kāśī-Videhas: this is the Āyava
[migration]. Amāvasu [migrated] westwards; his [people] are the Gāndhārī, Parśu and Arāṭṭā:
this is the Āmāvasava [migration]’. (Note in the second statement about Amāvasu the verb
pra-vavrāja is omitted, as is common in parallel statements in all languages.) This translation
was later supported by G. Cardona, probably the most accomplished sanskritist in the West,
when Witzel first denied it. Independently B.B. Lal also produced a similar translation plus
the original in devanāgarī (2004).
But Witzel had translated the second statements as – “(His other people) stayed at
home in the west. His people are... ” etc! Now is it likely he knows no Sanskrit? Not likely,
since he translated correctly the first statement as – “Āyu went eastwards...” etc. Whence did
he drag in the phrase “(His other people) stayed at home in the West” which is not in the text?
Is it likely he did not know that in parallel statements one supplies the same verb where (in
the second) it is missing? I don’t believe it because he has shown that he is quite well-
educated.
What then? He is simply using stealth to prove his pet mainstream theory that some
Indoaryans emigrated from the N-W (Afghanitan, Bactria, etc) into a south-eastern location
while others stayed behind.
When in due-course W was notified of his mistranslation, he declared his innocence and
said the editors or publishers were to blame for distorting his (correct) text!
An Explanation 2
An Explanation 3
I think therefore I am quite justified in ascribing to W ‘dishonesty’ sarvaśas ‘on all
sides’.
Lal wrote he hoped W might change his ways. Hope never dies, of course, but W can’t
change, not in this embodiment.
tá eté vā́cam abhipádya pāpáyā sirī́s tantraṃ tanvate áprajajñayaḥ
‘having gained access to Vāk by evil means, they spin out their thread in
sheer ignorance’ (RV 10.71.9).
Finally, a note on Geldner’s translation of the RV in German. It is fairly good as far as it
goes, with an excellent critical apparatus, but it can be misleading. For instance, he translates
RV 2.35.6 āmā́su pūrṣú ‘in den rohen Burgen, in raw forts/towns’; realizing that this does not
mean much, he adds in note 6c nicht wie die gewönlichen Burgen aus gebrannten
Ziegelsteinen gemacht ‘not like the usual Burgs made from baked bricks’(!) but he does not
say that the RV has not a single mention of bricks, baked or unbaked. The text has no
bricks and Geldner imports them unjustifiably. This is one of the determinative points of the
RV date. For if the RV was post-Harappan there should have been mention of iṣṭakās ‘bricks’,
just as there is frequent mention of them in post-rigvedic texts. This and similar points are
mileading.
N.Kazanas.
References :
Kazanas N : ‘Open Letter to Prof Witzel’ 4/2/2010 <
http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/en/
indology_en.asp>.
2002 ‘Indigenous Indo-Aryans and the RV’ in JIES 30, 69-128.
2003 ‘Final Reply’ in JIES 31, 187-240.
Lal B.B. 2004 ‘Should One Give up All Ethics for Promoting One’s Theory?’ in East and
West (Rome), 285-288.
Talageri S. 2000 The Ṛgveda, Delhi, Aditya Prakashan.
2001 Reply toWitzel’s critique at – <http//shrikanttalageri.voiceof
dharma.com>.
Witzel M. ‘Ṛgvedic History: Poets, Chieftains and Politics’ in G. Erdosy (ed) The Indo-
Aryans of Ancient South Asia, NY, Berlin, de Gruyter.
2003 ‘Ein Fremdling im Ṛgveda’ JIES 31, 1&2.
'
Genetics and the Aryan Debate' by Michel Danino
This paper examines the latest genetic evidence which shows that there was no invasion or immigration into N-W India in significant numbers before 600 BCE. It was published in Puratattva, Bulletin of the Indian Archaeological Society, New Delhi, No. 36, 2005-06, pp. 146-154.
(Download the PDF file - 122kB)
'Indo-Aryan indigenism and the Aryan Invasion Theory arguments' (refuted)
by N KAZANAS
This paper examines the general IndoEuropean issue and argues in favour of Indoaryan indigenism against the ait (Aryan Invasion/Immigration Theory) which has been mainstream doctrine for more than a century. The extreme positions that there was no ProtoIndoEuropean (PIE) language or that this language is as currently reconstructed are refuted: the evidence suggests there was a PIE language but this cannot be reconstructed and all efforts and confidence in this reconstruction are misplaced. Indeed, all reconstructions of Proto-languages seem futile and, since they are in no way verifiable, should not be used as evidence for historical events. Indeed all the data used as evidence by the ait are wholly conjectural and arbitrary and often consist of misrepresentations and distortions, as will be clearly demonstrated in detail. All the arguments used for the ait have been analytically presented by E. Bryant (2001) and summed up in his concluding chapter. These will be examined one by one and shown to be fallacious. We shall also refer to some material not in Bryant - e.g. genetic studies after 2001CE and mythological motifs never examined in this connection. |
'
Indigenous Indoaryans and the Rigveda', by N. Kazanas
In this paper I argue that the IndoAryans (IA hereafter) are indigenous from at least 4500 (all dates are BCE except when otherwise stated) and possibly 7000. In this effort are utilized the latest archaeological finds and data from Archaeoastronomy, Anthropology and Palaeontology. I use in addition neglected cultural and linguistic evidence. I find no evidence at all for an invasion. The new term "migration" is a misnomer since a migration could not have produced the results found in that area. The
Rigveda (=
RV) is neither post-Harappan nor contemporaneous with the ISC but much earlier, ie from the 4th millennium (with minor exceptions) and perhaps before.
The bibliography of this study is available as a separate pdf file.
This paper was published in the
Journal of IndoEuropean Studies 2002.
'
A new date for the Rgveda', by N. KAZANAS.
This was published in Philosophy and Chronology, 2000, ed G C Pande & D Krishna, special issue of Journal of Indian Coucil of Philosophical Research (June, 2001). A shorter, slightly different version with the title 'The Rgveda and Indo-Europeans' by N Kazanas was published in the Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (ABORI), vol 80, 1999 (Pune, India, 2000). It presents the thesis that the RV is far older than mainstream indologists maintain and ascribes the composition of the bulk of it to the fourth millennium BC (some hymns even earlier). It argues that the IndoAryans were natives of Saptasindhu (ie the land of the Seven Rivers in what is today north-west India and Pakistan) examining archaeological, literary, linguistic and comparative-mythological material. Some of the arguments would need reformulation in view of new and firmer (mainly archaeoastronomical) evidence, which in fact reinforce the conlusions on the early date of the RV.
'Edmund Leach on Racism & Indology', by S Kak
Sept 1999, with Prof. Kak's permission ([email protected]). |
'What is the Aryan Migration Theory?', by V. Agarwal
May 2001, with author's permission ([email protected]) |
'The RV Date - a Postscript', : N. Kazanas
This examines some of Prof M Witzel's (erroneous) notions which perpetuate the ait(=Aryan Invasion Theory) and which had not been discussed in 'The RV and IndoEuropeans'. It presents some new evidence and new ideas for a pre-3100 BC date of the RV and the indigenous origin of the IndoAryans and criticizes Prof Witzel's vicious attacks on some Indian and non-Indian scholars, who promote the indigenist point of view. |
'Ait
and Scholarship', :
N. KAZANAS
N Kazanas wrote 'ait and Scholarship' in May-June 2001. This was first posted here. It deals with some additional (erroneous) notions of Prof M Witzel and the major (but not all) aspects of his 'Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts' (EJVS 7-3, pp 1-93, 2001). Apart from the ait, this study examines other cases of corruption in academic disciplines like Egyptology, Anthropology etc, where evidence against maistream views is discarded, as well as the etymology of the terms 'academia' and 'academic' and the development from Plato's Academy in Athens to modern notions.
'
Reply to prof. Witzel', by
N KAZANAS
Prof Witzel wrote a very superficial critique of 'aitand Scholarship' ignoring the title, lampooning the presentation of the development of modern academia and making all kinds of irrelevant remarks (5/7/01). So N Kazanas wrote a reply selecting some of the mosts salient points in 'Addendum to "ait and Scholarship"': reply to Prof Witzel and incorporating some (lengthy) remarks of V Agarwal. All this was completed and posted in sept 2001
here. The most significant point, apart from Prof Witzel's irrelevances, is N Achar's firm discovery that some astronomical dates in the Mahabharata indicate the date of 3067 BC for the Great War.
'
Final Reply', by
N. KAZANAS
Reply to nine critics in the debate on Indoaryan Οrigins initiated by and published in the
Journal of Indo-european Studies, 2002-2003.
'
A Reply to Michael Witzel's 'Ein Fremdling im Rgveda'' :
VISHAL AGARWAL
11 August 2003.
(Journal of Indo-European Studies, Vol. 31, No.1-2: pp.107-185, 2003).
The " A Reply to Michael Witzel's 'Ein Fremdling im Rgveda' " was sent to us by V.Agarwal (Minesotta, USA). It was written in July 2003 as a reply to Prof M. Witzel's 'Ein Fremdling im Rgveda', 2003, Journal of Indo-European Studies, and was posted on the Journal's website. It provides supplementary material to N. Kazanas' 'Final Reply' covering various aspects not dealt with by, or unknown to the latter. One should note that when Kazanas mentions "black copper" (kRshNa-/karshaNa-ayas or Syama- 'swarthy metal') he nowhere means bronze as Witzel takes it (p 175) and Agarwal need not have elaborated the bronze-aspect.
http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/en/indology_en.asp#
The Rigvedic People: 'Invaders'?/'Immigrants? or Indigenous? Evidence of archaeology and literature
2 February 2015
B.B. Lal : Most cited author of BHARAT and world.
1,800.00Hardcover
Delhi : Aryan Books International
"Author Overview:
For several decades it has been orchestrated that there was an ‘Aryan Invasion’ of India which destroyed the Harappan Civilization. However, as shown in this book (pp. 10 ff.), there is no evidence whatsoever of any invasion or of the presence of an alien culture at any of the hundreds of Harappan sites. While one is glad to note that the ‘Invasion’ theory is dead, it is a pity that it is being resurrected in a new avatar, namely that of ‘Immigration’, of people from the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex of Central Asia, who, the proponents think, were nomadic Aryans. This book advances cogent arguments to demonstrate that this new theory too is totally wrong (pp. 19 ff.).
For all this mess, the dating of the Rigveda to 1,200 BCE by Max Muller is squarely responsible. The combined evidence of hydrology, archaeology and C-14 method of dating shows that the Rigveda is assignable to the 3rd-4th millennium BCE (pp. 118 ff.). The Rigveda (X. 75. 5-6) also tells us that the Vedic people occupied the entire territory from the Indus on the west to the upper reaches of the Ganga-Yamuna on the east. Archaeologically, during the aforesaid period and within the above-noted territory, there existed one and only one civilization, namely the Harappan. Hence, the Harappan Civilization and the Vedas are but two faces of the same coin (pp. 122-23). Further, the evidence from Kunal and Bhirrana (pp. 54-55) establishes that the roots of this civilization go back to the 6th-5th millennia BCE, indicating thereby that the Harappans were the ‘sons of the soil’ and not aliens. Thus, the Vedic people, who were themselves the Harappans, were Indigenous and neither ‘Invaders’ nor ‘Immigrants’. "
Intemperate, unethical comments of Michael Witzel on BB Lal's new book (2015) without even reading it.
I have annexed a posting by Michael Witzel in a yahoo e-group as an example of the sad commentary on 'indological' studies. A serious book brought out by BB Lal is introduced but as Sunday amusement. In my humble opinion, this comment of Michael Witzel is not merely unethical but disrespectful, disdainful of the contributions made by BB Lal to 'indological' studies.
It is also unfortunate that flippant comments are made without even reading the book of BB Lal referenced. The motivations are obvious. Any book which claims to question the received wisdom of Aryan invasion or migration is branded upfront as coming from 'nationalistic/chauvinistic Hindutva exploits.' With such a preconceived view, how is a debate possible with the 'specialists'?
Any book by any Indian author is generally viewed as 'amusement' on the anti-hindu hate group and is not dealt with the seriousness to get at a fair reconstruction of the mists of the past to unravel proto-history, expected from an 'specialists' which the group claims itself to be.
The group description reads: "This group is mainly intended for premodern specialists. All can join, but professionals get priority in posting: amateurish posts won't be sent on to the List...The List was specifically designed to encourage critical discussion of major unresolved issues in premodern studies."
I have read through the exquisitely produced book by BB Lal with colorful illustrations and rendered in mellifluent prose with evidences collated from archaeology and referencing a number of studies which were intended to promote the theme of Aryan invasion/migration into ancient India.
Let me start with some excerpts from the book;
"Preface. Isn't it an occasion to congratulate the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), a Government of India organization which is entrusted with the task of preparing textbooks for school-going children, to have finally come out of its shell and admit that the theory of 'Aryan Invasion' of India is untenable (Textbook in History for Class XII, Themes in Indian History, Part 1, New Delhi, Janury 2010, p.18)? But the engrained mindset for resisting the whole truth persists, as reflected by the following statement on p. 28 of the same book: 'There were sevral developments in different parts of the subcontinent during the long span of 1500 years folowing the end of the Harappan Civilization. This was also the time during which the Rigveda was composed by people living along the Indus and its tributaries.' The Rigveda refers to the river Sarasvati a number of times, which means that it was an active river during that period. Combined evidence of archaeology, radiocarbon method of dating, hydrology and other allied sciences has established that the Sarasvati dried up around 2000 BCE (see p. 122). Thus, the Rigveda has got to be earlier than 2000 BCE. How much earlier? It is anybody's guess. However, at least a 3rd millennium BCE horizon is indicated...There is yet another aspect which needs to be highlighted. The Rigveda also gives a very good idea of the territory occupied by the Rigvedic peope. Verses 5 and 6 of Sukta 75 of Mandala X refer to the entire area lying between the Ganga-Yamuna on the east and the Indus and its western tributaries on the west. It was the very area that was occupied by the Harappan Civilization during the 3rd millennium BCE, viz. the time of the Rigveda. Clearly therefore, the Harappans are none other than the Vedic people themselves. Furthr, C-14 dates for Bhirrana, a site in the upper Sarasvati valley, show that the roots of the Harappan Civilization go back to 6th-5th millennium BCE (p.55), which implies that the Harappans/Vedic people were deeply rooted in the Indian soil. To call them aliens is a sheer travesty of truth. How long shall we continue to blindfold ourselves? (Emphasis in the original)" (pp.vii-viii).
BB Lal proceeds to marshall his evidences and in Chapter 3 discusses the 'Aryan immigration' alternative with the following remarks: Even though vanquished, he would argue still -- Oliver Goldsmith's Village School Master. Argue they must, because it is their sacred duty to fight for their committed 'cause', namely that the Aryans must have come from outside. Thus, failing to sustain the 'Aryan Invasion' theory, two eminent scholars from India go in for an alternative. They postulate an 'Aryan Immigration'. Thus, Professor Roila Thapar, a well-known historian, came out with the alternative theory by avowing (1989-91:259-60): 'If invasion is discarded then the mechanism of migrtion and occasional contacts come into sharper focus. The migrations appear to have been of pastoral cattle breeders who are prominent in the Avesta and the Rigveda.' Faithfully following her, in fact elaborating her new thesis, Professor RS Sharma, another noted historian, asserted (1999:77): 'The pastoralists who moved to the Indian borderland came from the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex of BMAC which saw the genesis of the culture of the Rigveda.' (pp.29-30).
BB Lal then presents his evaluation of the BMAC on topics such as town-planning and other architectural remains, sculptural art, metal objects, BMAC vis-a-vis the Aryans, Parpola's Bactria sword compared with Fatehgarh sword which is simply a part of the Gangetic Copper Hoards and provides his emphatic conclusion: "Even a beginner in archaeology would straightaway say that the single BMAC specimen cannot be the parent of the Gangetic Copper Hoard Culture. On the other hand, it is the BMAC specimen which must have been taken there from the Gangtic region. Enough of BMAC immigrants, please!" (pp.32-33).
BB Lal reviews the evidence of flora supposedly supporting the 'Aryan immigration' thesis and concludes: "...there is no case to hold that the authors of the Rigveda belonged to a cold climate." (p.40) and identifies the River Sarasvati during the Rigvedic times with the now-dry river which goes by the names of the Sarasvati-Ghaggar in Haryana and Ghaggar in Rajasthan (both in India) and by the names of Hakra in Cholistan and the Nara in Sindh (both in Pakistan) and not with the Helmand of Afghanistan. (p.48).
BB Lal continues with archaeological evidences of fortified cities and pit-dwellings attested in Banawali and other sites, Bhirrana, Kalibangan presenting a chronological horizon, with the roots of the civilization going back to the 6th-5th millennnia BCE. (Chapters 6 and 7).
BB Lal summarizes his findings:
1. The Aryan Invasion of the Indian sub-continent is a total myth (Chapter 2).
2. Equally mythical is the postulate that the Aryans were 'immigrants', if not 'invaders' (Chapters 3 and 4).
3. The Rigvedic river Sarasvati is not the Helmand of Afghanistan but is to be identified with a now-dry river, which is known as the Sarasvti-Ghaggar combine (Chapter 5)
4. In the basin of this Sarasvati there evolved a remarkable civilization. To begin with, the people dwelt in pits, in the 5th millennium BCE, and progressed through various stages to reach a high level of civilization when they built fortified cities in the 3rd millennium BCE (Chapter 6)...
...
7. Rigvedic people are neither 'invaders' nor 'immigrants' but indigenous. (pp.124-125)
I would like to ask of Michael Witzel and other members of his yahoo e-group to first read BB Lal's evidences and logical conclusions derived and present contra viewpoints; hopefully, such a scholarly, unmotivated academic approach will help arrive at the truth of the roots of Sarasvati-Sindhu (Hindu) civilization.
Sottovoce: I have deliberately called the civilization as Sarasvati-Sindhu as against the mainstream designation of 'Harappan Culture' used by archaeologists. This designation can also be debated in the context of the language the Vedic people spoke as brought out in my works on Indus script decipherment, reading the inscriptions rebus as Meluhha (Mleccha) metalwork catalogs. Just as BB Lal concludes that Vedic and Harappan were two sides of the same coin, I have concluded that Chandas and Meluhha (Mleccha) are two sides of the same Indian sprachbund coin.
Sure, Michael Witzel is entitled to his opinions in Aryan migration into ancient India and the roots of Proto-Indo-European in the Steppes. I would only request, in the interest of progressing the 'indological' studies, not to prejudge contrary opinions as Hindutva zealotry. After all, any hypothesis to be tenable in academic discourse, should also be falsifiable (pace Karl Popper). Michael Witzel may also like to counter the views -- on the same topic of identity of ancient Hindus -- of Nicholas Kazanas and BS Hari Shankar mentioned at:
The Rigvedic People: 'Invaders'?/'Immigrants? -- New book by BB Lal. Kazanas' links refuting Witzel and 'mass migrationists'. Author : NICHOLAS KAZANAS.
And...
Unmasking the motives of Aryan immigrationists -- BS Hari Shankar. To attack Indian traditions and cultural unity.
Unmasking the Motives
Published in Organiser weekly
February 15, 2015Vol 66, No 33
AUTHOR - BS HARI SHANKAR
There are striking similarities between eurocolonialism and euromarxism. Western Marxism is a body of various marxshiti theoreticians based in
Western and Central Europe. While György Lukács's
History and Class Consciousness and
Karl Korsch's
Marxism and Philosophy, first published in 1923, are often seen as the works that inaugurated this current, the phrase itself was coined much later by
Maurice Merleau-Ponty, well known left ideologue and
French phenomenological philosopher. Both eurocolonialism and euromarxism are united in the propogation of the Aryan invasion theory. Both are unanimous in targeting the scientific heritage of India . They exhibit strong unanimity in attacking Indian traditions and culture . Both eurocolonialism and euromarxism exhibit tremendous solidarity to oppose the idea of India’s cultural unity. According to J.M.Blaut, Professor of anthropology and geography at the
University of Illinois at Chicago who has discussed issues of Marxism and Eurocentric diffusion, to most Marxist thinkers such as Bernstein, Bauer, Hilferding, and Kautsky, the European world was the edifice of historical changes, past and future, and non-Europe was the recipient of this diffusion. In 2005,
Eric Sheppard, Professor of Economic Geography argued that contemporary
Marxism has Eurocentric traits when it supposes that the third world must go through a stage of capitalism before "progressive social formations can be envisioned".
In India, any trend unyielding to such conventional guidelines of Euromarxist historiography, and questions left historians who dominate established historical research is condemned as saffronisation. This is evident from the resolution of the Indian History Congress recently passed at JNU , New Delhi .The resolution claimed that it meant to oppose efforts to project Indian science as fact and establish myths as history .India did not witness any isolated or mass protests condemning science as anti religious, equivalent with Papal inquisition . No scientific institution was dissolved or premier research terminated for questioning orthodox religious norms and beliefs. Nor did we read any reports of science censured in educational institutions.
But the resolution passed by Indian History Congress at JNU was questioned. Noted Indologist Michel Danino in an article published in ‘The Hindu,’ January 4, 2015 titled ‘Neglect of Knowledge Traditions’ accused that the kind of historiography that the authors of the Indian History Congress resolution represent is responsible for this situation. Danino further argued that mainstream historical books on classical India such as Professors D.N.Jha’s ‘Ancient India’, or Romila Thapars ‘Penguin History of Early India’ are totally silent on Indian scientific achievements. Danino pointed out that Jha briefly mention Aryabhata and Varahamihira. Simultaneously, Jha give wrong statements about Arya bhata and is virtually silent on Brahmagupta and Bhaskaracharya and their line of prestigious successors who survived till the 14th century. Romila Thapar limits her discussion on Indian science with few sentences on Aryabhata and Varahamihira. Danino wrote as an indologist . He has nothing to do with saffronisation.
But, Danino’s write up provoked the orthodox Euromarxist establishment. In his letters to editor column in ‘The Hindu’, Professor D.N.Jha, former Head of the Department of History, Delhi University accused Danino of being ignorant in ancient Indian science and technology and that his works lacked scientific vigour. Professor Jha claimed that his own work extended only upto 6thcentury AD which could not include later events .He also charged Danino of being ignorant in chronology of ancient India.
A rejoinder was written by Danino in letters to editor column in ‘The Hindu’, countering Jha’s assertions. Danino questioned Jha’ s claims that his work was limited to 600AD. If Jha can include various aspects of Post 600AD such as Hsuan Tsang of 7th century, Sankaracharya of 8th century, Kailasanath temple of 8th century and Al-Biruni of 11th century why not Brahmagupta who is considered the father of Algebra and who substantially influenced Arabic Mathematics. Danino charged that it was a clear attempt of circumventing Brahmagupta and Bhaskaracharya and their successors. There are no hard and fast rules that even the names of these towering scientists of ancient India should hardly be mentioned by Jha in his work. There were personalities from mathematics to medicine after 600AD such as Vateswara, Manjula, Aryabhata II, Sripati, Satananda, Mahavira, Sridhara, Narayana Pandita, Madhava and Chakrapani Datta.
Marxist historians who sideline India’s history of science and traditional knowledge systems should look back how science was mutilated by their forefathers under Communist regimes. Professor Ethan Pollock has pointed out in 2006 that the most valuable repository for understanding Communism and science is the Central Party Archive which contains the Central Committee papers There are numerous events in erstwhile Communist Russia of imposing Marxist line on science from the institutes and universities to the presidium of the colossal Academy of Sciences, to deliberations in the Secretariat of the Central Committee, and finally to Stalin’s table which passed the final judgments .. Reputed Soviet physiologists such as
L.A. Orbeli,
P.K. Anokhin,
A.D. Speransky and
I.S. Beritashvily were assaulted for deviating from Marxist guidelines.
Consequently, Soviet physiology self-excluded itself from the international scientific community for many years. The Chinese Academy of Sciences was also explicitly modeled on the
Soviet Academy of Sciences. Scientists in china were subjected to communist party compulsions .The terminology of the period distinguished between "red" and "expert". The scientific establishments were attacked during the Cultural Revolution, causing major damage to China's science and technology. Most scientific research ceased. In extreme cases, individual scientists were singled out as "counter-revolutionaries" and were subject to public criticism and persecution, and the research work of prestigious institutes were frozen. The entire staffs of research institutes commonly were dispatched to distant regions for political training under Communist comrades.
Instead of getting provoked by Michel Danino, the Marxist historians in India should have gone through the encyclopedic work on History of Indian Science published in 1971 by the Indian National Science Academy .The Indian National Science Academy, through its History of Science Board of 1958 and the National Commission for the Compilation of History of Sciences in India formed in 1967 which was renamed in 1989 as the Indian National Commission for History of Science, has published meticulous works on India’s scientific heritage. Professors B.V.Subbarayappa, D.M.Bose, S.N.Sen, S.P.Raychaudhari, R.C.Majumdar, K.A.Chowdhury, J.L.Bhaduri are few of the eminent scholars associated with this work since more than four decades..There are also encyclopedic works on Indian medicine especially Charaka, Susruta and Vagbhata by Professor M.S.Valiathan, currently, National Research Professor at Manipal University. These eminent personalities in science and medicine are not saffron idealogues. . As a means to challenge the
hegemony of Eurocentric knowledge, indigenous universities have been founded in various Latin American countries. They demand that multiple ways of knowing be recognized as valid, and suggest that indigenous knowledge can inspire new methodologies.
The Marxist historians should be aware of two events that invited global attention in 2004 and 2008. On June 18, 2004, an unusual event took place at CERN, the European Center for Research in Particle Physics in Geneva . A 2m tall statue of Shiva -Nataraja, the Lord of Cosmic Dance was unveiled at CERN. The statue, symbolizing Shiva's cosmic dance of evolution and dissolution , was given to CERN by the Indian government to celebrate the research center's long association with India. On the pedestal are etched two quotes. One is from physicist Capra: "In our time, physicists have used the most advanced technology to portray the patterns of the cosmic dance. The metaphor of the cosmic dance thus unifies ancient mythology, religious art and modern physics." The other is from the distinguished India-born art historian Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, who called the Nataraja "the clearest image of the activity of God which any art or religion can boast of." It was an appropriate metaphor of East-West symbiosis . Speaking at the unveiling ceremony, Dr Anil Kakodkar, Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission and Secretary to the Government of India, expressed his satisfaction that “the Indian scientific community is part of the quest for understanding the Universe”. Can we separate myth and science in this context ? Dr.Kakodkar does not belong to the saffron brigade.
The other incident occurred in 2008. Professor George Gheeverghese Joseph of Manchester University delivered a lecture on the ‘Transmission to Europe of Non-European Mathematics’ on September, 2008 at the Mathematical Association of America(MAA) . He focused on Indian School of Mathematics of the 14th century, in Kerala. It was founded by Madhava of Sangamagrama, which included personalities such as
Parameshvara,
Neelakanta Somayaji,
Jyeshtadeva,
Achyuta Pisharati,
Melpathur Narayana Bhattathiri and
Achyuta Panikkar . Melpathur Narayana Bhattathiri authored the famous ‘Narayaneeyam’ the abridged form of Srimad Bhagavatha in one thousand Sanskit verses. At the MAA's Carriage House Conference Center, he spoke about "The Politics of Writing Histories of Non-Western Mathematics." In a provocative address, this Indian Professor cited the example of the discovery of infinite series as one instance in which possible Indian and other Asian influences on European mathematics have been neglected in the past. Professor Joseph questioned on the trend of non-Western contributions generally neglected in histories of science and the difficulty for new evidence on non-Western contributions to become accepted and then percolate into standard histories of science and technology. Among Professor Joseph’s major works, the most acclaimed is ‘Crest of the Peacock:Non European Roots of Mathematics’ published in 1992 by Penguin . Even, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, has contemplated Indian science, especially Mathematics , in his work “The Discovery of India”.Nehru elucidates quite unambiguously:
“Highly intellectual and given to abstract thinking as they were, one would expect the ancient Indians to excel in mathematics.Europe got its early arithmetic and algebra from the Arabs—hence the Arabic numerals—but the Arabs themselves had previously taken them from India.The astonishing progress that the Indians had made in mathematics is now well known and it is recognized that the foundations of modern arithmetic and algebra were laid long ago in India.”
On January 2010, the Department of Sociology of Delhi University formally inaugurated a new European Study Centre at its premises funded by the European Union and aimed at restructuring the curriculum of the existing postgraduate and M. Phil programmes in consultation with European scholars. What was the need for Delhi University to teach European sociology since the days it was first set up? As Professor Kapil Kapoor former pro-Vice Chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru University rightly remarked :
“All this knowledge has been marginalized by and excluded from the mainstream education system.Efforts to incorporate it or teach it have been politically opposed and condemned as revivalism.Europe’s thirteenth century onwards successful venture of relocating the European mind in its classical Greek roots is lauded and expounded in the Indian universities as ‘revival of learning’ and as ‘renaissance’.But when it comes to India, the political intellectuals dismiss exactly the same venture as ‘revivalism’ and ‘obscurantism’….It is these people wearing various garbs—liberal ,left, secular modern—who oppose, more often than not from sheer ignorance, any attempt to introduce Indian traditions of thought in the mainstream education system—a classic case of self-hate taking the form of mother hate.”
The other face of Marxist historians should be understood by our civil society. Talking high on secular and scientific history during daylight, the Marxist historians, especially at Jawaharlal Nehru University , New Delhi has entered into a flagrant pact with churches in India and abroad for excavating the site at Pattanam in Kerala and proving it as the holy place where Apostle Thomas landed in India for conversions in the first century AD. The excavations are conducted by Marxist historians who specialized in Modern India under Kerala Council for Historical Research (KCHR) dominated by leftared shitstoryans
.
The KCHR director, Dr. P.J.Cherian a modern historian who specialized his research on Communist agitations of Central Kerala is directing Pattanam excavations.. Professor D.N.Jha has unambiguously stated in his two works Ancient India --In Historical Outline (Reprint 2007) and Early India –A Concise History(2004) about the arrival of Apostle Thomas in India. The only difference is that instead of Muziris, Jha articulates the court of Gondophornes at Parthia as the place where the apostle arrived , from where he moved to Kerala and was finally assassinated at Mylapore in Tamil Nadu. In 2011 March, The British Museum organized a seminar on Ancient Afghanistan in which Pattanam excavations director P.J.Cherian and Dr.Roberta Tomber a Research Associate of the Museum jointly presented a paper lending credibility to travel of Apostle Thomas at the court of Gondophornes, ruler of Parthia. The paper indirectly vindicated the position of Pope Benedict XVI that Apostle Thomas reached India through Parthia. Simultaneously it also corroborated Professor Jha’s stand of Apostle Thomas entry in Pathia. . In other words , Jha was supporting the Catholic church in Vatican which vehemently upheld its stand that Apostle Thomas reached India exclusively through Parthia .
But there was another issue to be settled. The Syro-Malabar Church in Kerala has for a long time upheld and propogated the view that Apostle Thomas landed exclusively in Kerala, converted the natives to Christianity and was finally assassinated by Shaivaite saints at Mylapore.The very existence of the Syro-Malabar church depended on this belief of Apostle Thomas landing in Kerala. Finally, Vatican officials agreed to acknowledge the stand of Syro-Malabar church .It send a letter on 2006, November 25, to Cardinal Mar Varkey Vithayathil of the Syro-Malabar church (N47.367) accepting their belief and acknowledging their stand that Apostle Thomas landed in Kerala. This acknowledgement was in par with the progress of excavations at Pattanam. Simultaneously Dr. Roberta Tomber who has been associated with Pattanam excavations from the beginning presented another paper on 2006 October titled "bishops and Traders-the Role of Christianity in the Indian Ocean during the Roman Period" at British Museum .She pointed out that only recently the landing spot of Apostle Thomas has been identified by P.J.Cherian the director of Pattanam excavations. Dr.Tomber argued that it was here that Apostle Thomas established seven churches.Once the path was cleared, on March 2011, P.J.Cherian declared in the official bulletin of the Assyrian Church of the East, that Pattanam has been identified as ancient Muziris, where Apostle Thomas landed in Kerala 2000 years back, for propogating Christianity. Romila Thapar, Professor Emeritus Professor of JNU had already articulated the myth of Apostle Thomas as an outcome of Mediterranean trade with India in her work --The Penguin History of Early India-- published in 2002.
The real face of Marxist history constructs is much more shocking. Dr.C.I.Issac, a former Professor of History has put forward documents on how the archaeological value of Pattanam has been enhanced. The site of Pattanam was subjected to trial trenching in 1998 by Shajan K.Paul a Ph.D student in Faculty of Marine Sciences, of Cochin University .He transferred unknown antiquities from the site to Union Christian College in Aluva where P.J.Cherian was in teaching faculty. What antiquities have been transferred from Pattanam is still unknown. The Centre for Heritage Studies in Kochi was granted license by ASI in 2004 (File No—1/ 36/ 97 E.E ) This license was allegedly hijacked from them by the Kerala Council for Historical Research to excavate Pattanam. It is also alleged that select antiquities might have been removed and required antiquities deposited at the site before beginning the excavations. Although these allegations came up in 2012, the former KCHR chairman who is a JNU luminary and Marxist historian, Professor K.N.Panikkar is virtually silent. He has not countered these allegations. The reason is that it was under the inspiration of K.N.Panikkar that in 2002, left historians such as
Prof. R.S. Sharma Prof. Irfan Habib Prof. Satish Chandra, Prof. K.M. Shrimali, Prof. D.N. Jha, Prof. Sumit Sarkar, Prof. Tanika Sarkar, Prof. Mushirul Hasan, Prof. Arjun Dev, Prof. Shireen Moosvi, Prof. R.L. Shukla, Prof. B.P. Sahu, Prof. R.C. Thakran, Prof. G.P. Sharma, Prof. Iqtidar Alam Khan, Dr. Neeladri Bhattacharya, Dr. D.N. Gupta, Dr. V.M. Jha, Dr. Biswamoy Pati, Dr. Amar Farooqui and Dr. Lata Singh under SAHMAT argued for retaining KCHR for implementing the Pattanam excavations. Myths are thus conveniently transformed into history by Euromarxists as part of a global agenda in association with international religious denominations . The constant allegation of saffronisation on anything and everything in India is nothing beyond a ceaseless strategy to divert academic contemplation and public awareness from this global game plan which is diabolic for euromarxists and eurocolonialists in India .