Pakistan, Bharat, British India - What came first, what came after?

[Joe Shearer]

You have it, completely the other way around.

Only if there is a 'hearing', then you have the opportunity to prove something that is still a hypothesis.

There is no harm in being reluctant. But 'reluctancy' must not transform into an 'idealogical aversion', that prevents a free exchange of ideas.

Once the alternative hypothesis that is proposed is labelled as Islamophobic, Hindu-centric 'garbage' even before there is a debate on that what is chance of a fair debate ?

When there is an established system of law, with courts, practitioners, rules, conventions and binding force, and somebody says that its judgement has been impugned by a contrary judgement in a village panchayat, would it be unreasonable for the concerned court of law to dismiss such a contrary ruling? Should it allow the village panchayat jurisdiction at all? Would anyone take the panchayat seriously if it complains that its views are not heard because of ideological bias in the minds of the formal court?

The labeling is done by a participant in an Internet discussion, which discussion has no impact on the real world controversy going on. Such a labelling is not part of that controversy. Quoting this usage as grounds for doubting the open-mindedness of the professional historians' position is a bizarre transfer of arguments from one discussion to another.

 

[KS]

When there is an established system of law, with courts, practitioners, rules, conventions and binding force, and somebody says that its judgement has been impugned by a contrary judgement in a village panchayat, would it be unreasonable for the concerned court of law to dismiss such a contrary ruling? Should it allow the village panchayat jurisdiction at all? Would anyone take the panchayat seriously if it complains that its views are not heard because of ideological bias in the minds of the formal court?

The labeling is done by a participant in an Internet discussion, which discussion has no impact on the real world controversy going on. Such a labelling is not part of that controversy. Quoting this usage as grounds for doubting the open-mindedness of the professional historians' position is a bizarre transfer of arguments from one discussion to another.

Except that the historians who seek the retainment of the established 'version' are NOT constitutionally or legally mandated to do the same what the court in your analogy does or they have the people's mandate regarding faith in the particular section of historians through a public vote. What we have, instead, is a group of historians who have been brought up on one version of history, who refuse to hear,debate the other version just because that version does not agree with their own version and giving labels like 'Islamophobic', 'Hindu-centric garbage' to make their cop-outs sound more appealing to the public at large.

Rather what should happen is if the existing 'version' of history is challenged by an alternative hypothesis then it becomes imperative on the part of the old-timers to listen, hear and study the new 'hypothesis' and debunk that [if necessary] through professional means and fair,open debate. It is not in their power to "we will not hear it and hence it is false". Sorry that is not allowed. The more they run away from that, the more the credibility of what they seek to propogate comes under stake.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Except that the historians who seek the retainment of the established 'version' are NOT constitutionally or legally mandated to do the same what the court in your analogy does or they have the people's mandate regarding faith in the particular section of historians through a public vote. What we have, instead, is a group of historians who have been brought up on one version of history, who refuse to hear,debate the other version just because that version does not agree with their own version and giving labels like 'Islamophobic', 'Hindu-centric garbage' to make their cop-outs sound more appealing to the public at large.

Rather what should happen is if the existing 'version' of history is challenged by an alternative hypothesis then it becomes imperative on the part of the old-timers to listen, hear and study the new 'hypothesis' and debunk that [if necessary] through professional means and fair,open debate. It is not in their power to "we will not hear it and hence it is false". Sorry that is not allowed. The more they run away from that, the more the credibility of what they seek to propogate comes under stake.

This is merely a repeat, a paraphrasing of your earlier comment, and has virtue only insofar as that it underlines the basic errors in comprehension and in role definition. It has a major drawback, in that it calls for a further elaboration of points already made, but sought to be set aside as not convenient for the argument being presented on behalf of quasi-history. A repeat, in greater detail; a paraphrase, with more elaborate, bordering on the simplistic, explanation. Shame, really; if only you had internalized the Lqtin tag Verb. Sap.

An analogy was offered. The analogy was that of an accepted and tested methodology, one whose methodology is unchallenged and is used in the practice of a particular calling. The credentials of a court of law come from its constitutional position. The credentials of an academic discipline come from its roots in academic pursuit.

A court constituted by a regular constitution, granted to a sovereign nation by its people, or by inheritance from older systems has validity and credibility. A court, or quasi-court, constituted in contradiction to this is not a valid court, not as long as the regular constitution fails to make provision for it.

An academic discipline is accepted as regular not by a constitution granted to it by society at large, but by acceptance by the evolved system of academic enquiry. Any discipline, or variation of a discipline, put up by self-recognition, by a body or an aggregation of individuals who claim equivalence to the entire practice of academic enquiry on their own certification, lacks credibility.

The credentials of an academic discipline do not depend on the precise and mechanical duplication of the constitutional backing of a law court. They depend on the equivalent backing of the academic community. They do not depend on a popular vote either, and academic enquiry is not pursued by enlisting the sympathies or prejudices of people in a political process. Politics and academics are far removed from each other, to the extent that the touchstone of academic validity is not the number of people in general society backing a particular belief, but the number of people in specialized academic society backing that belief.

What we have before us is not a schism between two groups of historians. We have an academic discipline facing a claim by a handful of individuals of no academic credibility or recognition, who demand recognition by the simple fact of their existing, not by the backing of equivalent academic discipline in their efforts. The discipline of history has merely ignored this amateur effort. There has been no use of the terms that I have used by historians in an historiographical context. My remarks in this forum cannot be used to point to the regular discipline and its professional practitioners as a sign of their seeking refuge behind pejoratives, so that charge is totally misplaced, as already pointed out.

I have used the comparison between intelligent design and evolutionary theory before and reiterate it here. Intelligent design has the backing of scripture and religious writings, rooted in the religious cosmogony of times long past, writings which carry no weight in academic practice, except for the work of specialists in salvaging of clues to contemporary conditions of society and human activity. The entire weight of mainstream academic practice and practitioners is behind the theory of evolution. It is interesting to note that believers in intelligent design, mainly religious fundamentalists and politicians seeking a constituency among them, have often resorted to the populist argument used here in defence of quasi-history: a large number of people believe in these theories, so they should be considered. Not because of scientific or academic merit, but because they have the backing of society at large. Their isolation within the world of academic enquiry is brushed aside just as the isolation of quasi-history is sought to be brushed aside.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Not at all.

Any attempt at challenging the established version of history is likely to win a hearing if conducted on the lines that have proved, over the years, effective in eliminating conjectures based on unstructured prejudice. But if people demand that they be respected on the simple grounds of being in existence, then we are inviting the same kind of mumbo-jumbo that intelligent design represents.

Establishment coteries need to be exposed to the fresh air that they are seeking to avoid.

For example, we had the Ayodhya case in which many eminent historians, under cross-questioning, were exposed as charlatans.

The Judge in a Court of Law may not belong to a eminent historians' coterie, but he is still capable of subjecting them to critical scrutiny.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Hello everybody. Sorry people for not contributing towards the discussion here. I have work, exams and then in the evenings I am too tired to get involved with serious discussions etc. I also need to read up on the subject more.

I can tell you guy's one thing though I have done some research on this Saraswati pipedream. Without a shred of doubt rivers ( Mr Williams boring fluvial dynamic lessons in geography being put to good use after so many years ) over time change course. However looking at the detailed topograhic maps of Punjab-Rajasthan region ( available on the Perry Casteneda - UT Library website )it is appears without a doubt that a Sutlej flowed south from Ludhiana in Punjab towards Hanumangarh.

From Hanumangarh it flowed south west into Fort Abbas in Pakistan and followed almost the same route as present day Sutlej near Bahawalpur. The Beas river would have followed the same path as Sutlej does today. So what are we left with? Not much, today Beas joins Sutlej about 20 odd miles north east of Firozpur then it flows into Pakistan.

In the past Sutlej would have flowed about 60 miles south of the route it follows and would have crossed into present day Pakistan some 60-70 miles south of where it does today. For those who might be interested in the past it would have been 40 miles south of Sri Ganganagar as opposed to today it flows into Pakistan 20 miles north of Sri Ganganagar.

The old route is still visible on Google Earth and today it is known as Gaggar-Hakra which is seasonal river and is dry most of the time. In the past the mighty Sutlej would probably have flowed along the same route. So gents. there is nothing significant about this, other than the fancy name appended to the boring Gaggar-Hakra with a bit of scripture thrown in as referance.

If in the past Sutlej had poured into the plains near Rupanagar ( which it still does ) and then had flowed due south ( which it does not today) towards the Thar Desert in the vicinity of Bikanar and then headed towards Gujrat and drained into Gulf of Kutch that would have been very significant.

This 'Saraswati' would have flowed entirely outside of todays Pakistan and if it was peppered with civilization, then of you would have to rename this as 'Saraswati' civilization. But this a if, a big with all the facts going against this. The Thar Desert in Rajasthan has a average elevation along the central axis about 250 feet plus with referance to the Indus River in Pakistan and it is aso higher then Indian Punjab.

So all the land east of the present day Pakistan border is tilting towards Pakistan. So any water will flow south west towards Pakistan. That is why all rivers in Indian Punjab flow into Pakistani Punjab, including the dry riverbed of Gaggar Hakra. Yes, in physical geography anything is possible, even the 20,000 feet peak might have been under the water in the past but that takes millions of years.

This is why I believe that there is concerted effort being made in India by many people to find any lump of rock and label it Harrapan or part of Indus Valley with help of 'facts' drawn from scripture. Even the 'famous' Lothal site is but a few huts with a pond nearby.The claim that it ( Lothal ) was connected to the present day Indus is laughable. Lot of the articles in Wikipedia are just pathetic and some people are busy bending facts to a set agenda.

Whilst tring to locate this Saraswati mirage I realized that the Indus Valley is quite distinct from rest of South Asia in that the to the east the Thar Desert acts as a barrier. Even today it is almost empty or sparsely populated and only as you move away from the Pakistani border deaper into India does the population density increase because the arid desert changes to semi arid region. Only in the north along the present day Punjab-Haryana border is there a 'connect' with the Ganges Valley.

For those who are interested go to Google Earth and have a look at Gaggar-Hakra and the Indus Vaey as a distinct physical geographic unit.

 

[Rig Vedic]

If in the past Sutlej had poured into the plains near Rupanagar ( which it still does ) and then had flowed due south ( which it does not today) towards the Thar Desert in the vicinity of Bikanar and then headed towards Gujrat and drained into Gulf of Kutch that would have been very significant.

If I recall correctly, the last glacial maximum was around 10,000 BCE. The ice in the Himalayan glaciers and in Tibet must have been much more at that time. Then, over a period of several thousand years, the ice gradually reduced. During this time, the flow in the Himalayan rivers must have been much higher, and the river courses could also have been significantly different.

Here is some satellite imagery of the Saraswati Basin. As per studies, the river dried up in around 1900 BCE.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Rog Vedic, thank you for those maps. I think they moreless confirm what I said. I am more partial to the Sutlej having fed into the Hakra and lowed into Pakistan towards Bahawalpur. Therre is not much here other than having a major river 60-70 miles south of the present Sutlej. This river still flows into Pakistan.

I would not agree with claim on the map that once this 'Saraswati' flowed into Pakistan then it flowed parallel to the present Indus. Besides anything else this would mean Mohenjop Daro being left high and dry at least 60 miles from the river. How in god's name did Mohenjo Daro survive without a river being in proximity to it?

Take care, must go now.

 

[Vinod2070]

The 'United Bharat' does not exist anymore, and in fact ceased existing the first time it was 'divided' - so when referring to this 'historical Bharat', we are merely referring to a 'large Kingdom/Empire' created through conquest by a ruler/rulers, which has nothing to do (as a political entity/nation-State) with the contemporary Nation-State called India, created in 1947.

You might as well point out that the 'Greek, Roman, Mongol, British Empires came first, and then British India, and then Pakistan and India'.

The 'historical united Bharat' you refer to is no different in nature than the Roman, Greek, Mongol, Durrani, Islamic etc. empires that existed and fell throughout history.

I don't disagree with the facts you present.

People keep mixing the Indian civilization with the nation state of India within the present boundaries.

That Indian civilization is a common heritage and India, the modern state, carries most of the legacy in the sense of continuing that civilization.

I take it then, from your response here, that you do agree with the argument that the 'Historical Bharat' is nothing more than yet another Empire/Kingdom confined to the dustbin of history, as were the Roman, Greek, Mongol and Islamic Empires.

No, Bharat was a much more benevolent empire.

And more than that, it was much more coherent from the civilization standpoint that makes it different from many of the example you give.

Probably the Roman empire can be comparable in my opinion as they shared the civilization.

Mongol and Islamic empire were, let's just say, different.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Some general questions on this issue of 'civilizational continuity':

-What constitutes 'civilizational continuity'?

- Do increasing numbers of people speaking English better than their native tongues (which are themselves evolving) constitute 'continuity'?
- Do increasing numbers of people wearing 'Western clothing' the majority of the time constitute 'continuity'?
- Do increasing numbers of people leaning towards 'agnosticism, atheism' constitute continuity?

The phrase is bandied about a lot, but what does it actually refer to?

 

[indushek]

Some general questions on this issue of 'civilizational continuity':

-What constitutes 'civilizational continuity'?

- Do increasing numbers of people speaking English better than their native tongues (which are themselves evolving) constitute 'continuity'?
- Do increasing numbers of people wearing 'Western clothing' the majority of the time constitute 'continuity'?
- Do increasing numbers of people leaning towards 'agnosticism, atheism' constitute continuity?

The phrase is bandied about a lot, but what does it actually refer to?

Though i can't be completely accurate i have given it a thought and am putting them down here for everybody's scrutiny.

Civilization will simply mean a group of people living not in tribal way like in towns or cities.

To constitute a civilization one should have evolved lot of working structural entities like governing bodies, a working legal structure and a common identity to certain extent (i say so because diversity can be expected) educational base relevant to that time place and other relevant factors. Religion would be another feature as man always has sought support of the almighty.

Continuity of this civilization means its sustainability in its form for a period to come, in layman language if the civilization can carry forward in its present state without much changes other than those needed like developments in educational base technology and other know how along with 'roll outs' or newer versions of ideas and practices in societal practices and beliefs (these should be developed within the society and not forced upon by external entities, reason the acceptance could be voluntary or forced and means break in the continuity of the idea of a continuity of the civilization) then it can be considered a continous civilization.

Now why is it that this is important is that, certain amount of knowledge related to general thinking or educational ones or technological ones would be lost due to discontinuity and will have to be rediscovered. Examples are there for this when we here that certain knowledge may be in mathematics or medicine or some other thing was present in a particular civilization some 500 year
back or so and has been brought to us again by some brilliant mind in present times.

While the above explanation deals with various facets of a country we in present times recognize as the basic structures needed for constituting a country in its legal physical sense, the civilizations of yore were different in certain other features. They couldn't be restricted by the physical boundaries existing today due to addition of culture and tradition according to me.

I mean if u think of greeks or romans or egyptians their civilizations continued for long time inspite of setbacks in their physical sense i.e. their kingdoms with physical boundaries. Religions brought even a more interesting mix to this curry of sorts.

I will continue further (as the thoughts are flowing but have to be discussed upon to see their clarity) once the above points arediscussed.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Some general questions on this issue of 'civilizational continuity':

-What constitutes 'civilizational continuity'?

- Do increasing numbers of people speaking English better than their native tongues (which are themselves evolving) constitute 'continuity'?
- Do increasing numbers of people wearing 'Western clothing' the majority of the time constitute 'continuity'?
- Do increasing numbers of people leaning towards 'agnosticism, atheism' constitute continuity?

The phrase is bandied about a lot, but what does it actually refer to?

While I personally subscribe to your vision of a wider set of issues beyond those that we started with, it is necessary to point out, to be absolutely fair, that taking up these issues in detail are subtly beyond the scope of the present discussion. It might be appropriate - please consider this a MOST tentative suggestion - to start a separate thread to consider these wider vistas.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Establishment coteries need to be exposed to the fresh air that they are seeking to avoid.

For example, we had the Ayodhya case in which many eminent historians, under cross-questioning, were exposed as charlatans.

The Judge in a Court of Law may not belong to a eminent historians' coterie, but he is still capable of subjecting them to critical scrutiny.

This is hardly an argument. There is no 'establishment coterie' here beyond the label. There is a way of doing history, which has been tried over centuries. There is also an attempt at seeking legitimacy for views generated outside these ways, and in order to ensure that legitimacy, it becomes necessary to attack the tested methodology, not on the grounds of the weakness of that methodology, but on the grounds that its evolution through protracted discussion is itself a reason for suspicion.

In other words, the methodology is suspect merely because it refuses space for populist views.

The point is quite simple. Either adhere to the discipline of the subject, to the methodology, or position non-conforming views as articles of faith, neither subject to the academic discipline, nor eligible for inclusion under it.

The political orientation of the last two sentences should be evident to even a casual reader.

Has the academic world been entirely fair to these New School scholars? Judge for yourselves; this extract is from Wikipedia, and is cited not for its own views - citing Wikipedia views is a suspect procedure - but for the quoted extract contained therein.

An Indian Urheimat has been promoted more recently by Elst (1999) and Talageri (2000), which led to an exchange of criticisms with Michael Witzel.[14]
In what its editor J. P. Mallory (2002) described as a "sense of fair play," the Journal of Indo-European Studies waived peer review in order to publish Kazanas' (2002, 2003) defence of the "Indigenous Indo-Aryan" viewpoint*— which cited Elst (1999) and Talageri (2000). Mallory's reasoning for this exceptional omission of peer-review was as follows:
“ The reasons for the acrimony between the two camps is not purely academic but may involve agendas that are variously associated with Hindu nationalism, western cultural imperialism, communalism, post-colonialism, and just about any other form of -ism that reflects current political frictions. [...] For the editor of a Western peer-reviewed journal, the publication of an article in support of the Indigenous Indo-Aryan camp poses obvious problems. Many regard the scholarship of the Indigenous Indo-Aryan camp so seriously flawed that it should not be given an airing. They view the Indigenous Aryan camp as more a religion than an academic position and no amount of scholarly refutation is likely to have the least impact on its adherents. On the other hand, we might also invoke some sense of fair play [...] I indicated that I thought it would be unlikely that any referee would agree with [Kazanas'] conclusions but that I would consider publication if one of the referees believed that the article had made a case to answer; I requested the referees to view the article in that light. This is indeed what happened and the authors agreed with my suggestion that we might treat the article in a review format where I would invite a series of relevant scholars to comment upon the article and then provide the author with space to make his final reply to his critics.[15] ”
The debate consisted of an article by Kazanas (2002), nine highly critical reviews by referees,[16] Kazanas' (2003) response to those criticisms, and a few further responses available online.[17][18]
Witzel (2003) warned:
“ It is certain that Kazanas, now that he is published in JIES, will be quoted endlessly by Indian fundamentalists and nationalists as "a respected scholar published in major peer-reviewed journals like JIES" -- no matter how absurd his claims are known to be by specialist readers of those journals. It was through means like these that the misperception has taken root in Indian lay sectors that the historical absurdities of Kak, Frawley, and even Rajaram are taken seriously by academic scholars.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Indushek:

Your reply is simlar to what most Indian's give. It is unconvincing and contrived. 'Civilizational continuity' means nothing and forms part of the manufactured narrative by Indian's to grab everything that has happened in South Asia as exclusive or first priority right of the Indian Republic.

Take the examples of Mohenjo Daro or Harrapa. The former is in Sindh and the latter is in Punjab. There are people here who will have us believe that a Malayalam speaker from South India has more claim on Mohenjo Daro than a native Sindhi.

Or that a Assamese has more of a claim on Harrapa then a Punjabi. All because they happen to be citizens of the Indian Republic. Even this is based on the generic term India. A word that was used by outsiders to refer to South Asia. The locals did not know or go about feeling or being part of this 'India'.

This term India really gained currency with the arrival of the British and their conquest of various kingdoms into a united colony under the British flag called British India. Are people aware that Burma was also part of this British India?

I have mentioned before that there appears to be a organized attempt to build up a alternate reality by Indian's. In this scheme everything in the past has to be re-fashioned. A reconstruction of the pasty to fit into modern Indian nationalism and add a halo to the brand 'India'.

This reconstruction knows no bounds, even physical geography has to be modified to help out with this revisionist project. Even scripture is marshalled to give depth to the claims made. I find it this 'Saraswati' amusing. There is so much literature on this myth that to the novice it would appear as a fact that there was a Saraswati and that it's path is known.

A example of this would be the map given above by Rig Vedic in post #321. It is possible that Gaggar- Hakra was a periennial river in the past and that it flowed into the Sutlej just past Bahawalpur in Pakistan. However there is absolutly nothing to suggest that the river flowed south parallel to the present Indus.

If that were the case then how did Mohenjo Daro have access to water? The route shown on the map provided by Rig Vedic has this supposed Saraswati almost 50 miles east of Mohenjo Daro. Such a large town would have needed ample supplies of water and farmers would also require water. Sindh is a dry land and there is nothing to suggest that it was any differant in the past.

The map shows lots of dots. What are these? Are these the odd fragments of pottery? There are 3 or 4 sites of value on the map. These would be Mohenjo Daro, Harrapa, Mehr Garh in Pakistan and Lothal. The rest of the dots are part of the contrived effort to beef up the Indian claim on Mohenjo Daro/Harrapa.

What's next? A twig found in Madhya Pradesh and it will be just a twig until you add the prefix Harrapan. Get hold of a unemployed third rate European archealogist to do some digs around the twig discovery, write few books. Next the internet will be full of 'IVC in Madhya Pradesh' all using the same dodgy referance.

Reminds me of the weeks before Iraq war. Some lowly Iraqi conscript had done a runner from Saddam Hussein's army. British MI5 had questioned him and a routine report was filed. It was one amongst 1,000s gathering dust until somebody at No.10 Downing Street read the report.. The conscript had said that Saddam had nukes that could be armed and ready to fire on London within hours of orders being given.

That report was leaked to the media. The tabloids went into overdrive. Headlines read 'Saddam could hit London within hours'. This snowballed and even BBC carried reports until there was such a momentum that Blair felt he now had the support for war. In all this frenzy nobody dared to ask where was the source of all this? A bloody conscript?

 

[indushek]

Indushek:

Your reply is simlar to what most Indian's give. It is unconvincing and contrived. 'Civilizational continuity' means nothing and forms part of the manufactured narrative by Indian's to grab everything that has happened in South Asia as exclusive or first priority right of the Indian Republic.

Take the examples of Mohenjo Daro or Harrapa. The former is in Sindh and the latter is in Punjab. There are people here who will have us believe that a Malayalam speaker from South India has more claim on Mohenjo Daro than a native Sindhi.

Or that a Assamese has more of a claim on Harrapa then a Punjabi. All because they happen to be citizens of the Indian Republic. Even this is based on the generic term India. A word that was used by outsiders to refer to South Asia. The locals did not know or go about feeling or being part of this 'India'.

This term India really gained currency with the arrival of the British and their conquest of various kingdoms into a united colony under the British flag called British India. Are people aware that Burma was also part of this British India?

I have mentioned before that there appears to be a organized attempt to build up a alternate reality by Indian's. In this scheme everything in the past has to be re-fashioned. A reconstruction of the pasty to fit into modern Indian nationalism and add a halo to the brand 'India'.

This reconstruction knows no bounds, even physical geography has to be modified to help out with this revisionist project. Even scripture is marshalled to give depth to the claims made. I find it this 'Saraswati' amusing. There is so much literature on this myth that to the novice it would appear as a fact that there was a Saraswati and that it's path is known.

A example of this would be the map given above by Rig Vedic in post #321. It is possible that Gaggar- Hakra was a periennial river in the past and that it flowed into the Sutlej just past Bahawalpur in Pakistan. However there is absolutly nothing to suggest that the river flowed south parallel to the present Indus.

If that were the case then how did Mohenjo Daro have access to water? The route shown on the map provided by Rig Vedic has this supposed Saraswati almost 50 miles east of Mohenjo Daro. Such a large town would have needed ample supplies of water and farmers would also require water. Sindh is a dry land and there is nothing to suggest that it was any differant in the past.

The map shows lots of dots. What are these? Are these the odd fragments of pottery? There are 3 or 4 sites of value on the map. These would be Mohenjo Daro, Harrapa, Mehr Garh in Pakistan and Lothal. The rest of the dots are part of the contrived effort to beef up the Indian claim on Mohenjo Daro/Harrapa.

What's next? A twig found in Madhya Pradesh and it will be just a twig until you add the prefix Harrapan. Get hold of a unemployed third rate European archealogist to do some digs around the twig discovery, write few books. Next the internet will be full of 'IVC in Madhya Pradesh' all using the same dodgy referance.

Reminds me of the weeks before Iraq war. Some lowly Iraqi conscript had done a runner from Saddam Hussein's army. British MI5 had questioned him and a routine report was filed. It was one amongst 1,000s gathering dust until somebody at No.10 Downing Street read the report.. The conscript had said that Saddam had nukes that could be armed and ready to fire on London within hours of orders being given.

That report was leaked to the media. The tabloids went into overdrive. Headlines read 'Saddam could hit London within hours'. This snowballed and even BBC carried reports until there was such a momentum that Blair felt he now had the support for war. In all this frenzy nobody dared to ask where was the source of all this? A bloody conscript?

Dear Atanz

Please let me know if u have gone through my entire post? i would like to bring to your notice this part of my post

"I will continue further (as the thoughts are flowing but have to be discussed upon to see their clarity) once the above points are discussed."

Firstly if u concentrate upon my post nowhere have i talked of Indian or IVC or Harappa topics. The reason i talked of Egyptian or Roman or Greek civilizations was because they were largely homogeneous in nature and our (plz mind i say "ours" as u say u want to claim the ancient Indian traditions and culture and i am fine with that) civi is heterogeneous with lot of mixes thrown in.

The topic of Civilizational continuity is a seperate topic to our present thread. It seems that you are bent on only one thing to keep harping on how Indians are robbing you of this identity. Please read before replying.

 

[Rig Vedic]

If that were the case then how did Mohenjo Daro have access to water? The route shown on the map provided by Rig Vedic has this supposed Saraswati almost 50 miles east of Mohenjo Daro. Such a large town would have needed ample supplies of water and farmers would also require water. Sindh is a dry land and there is nothing to suggest that it was any differant in the past.

Why do you assume that the Indus was not flowing also.

Remember the glaciers of the glacial maximum were melting off, there was a lot more water flowing than there is today.

At the same time sea levels were also rising. There are many ruins under the sea that have recently been discovered - near Dwaraka in Gujarat, and also off the coast of Tamil Nadu. These may have been contemporaneous with Mohenjodaro etc.

Some general questions on this issue of 'civilizational continuity':

-What constitutes 'civilizational continuity'?

If the values and thoughts of the ancient Greeks, as described in the Iliad etc continue to influence the thoughts of Europeans today, that is civilizational continuity.

Similarly, if the thoughts in the Vedas and Upanishads continue to influence Indians today, that is also civilizational continuity.