What's new

Karachi will be part of India one day,We believe in 'Akhand Bharat' : BJP

masterchief_mirza

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 29, 2019
7,827
15
16,703
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
No body welcomed those creepy barbarians with their filthy ideologies into India and levy Tax on people in the first place,

By the above quote statement indirectly , You are claiming Mughals did haram all this long by protecting and maintaining Hindu temples (in reality they didn't). And you name your missiles after them , lol what an impotent hypocrite :omghaha::haha:😜😝😝 ohhh the secular Mughals😆
Maybe your ancestors ought to be one of the millions who converted Due to heavy taxing of Jaziya Under Aurangzeb . 😁
MINE DIDNT.:dirol:8-)

It is neither permissible to visit churches and polytheistic temples, to witness disbelievers acts of worship, to attend their rituals, nor to participate in their feasts, for these are disbelievers own characteristics, and imitating them in such acts is prohibited by the hadith of the Prophet–صلَّى الله عليه

This hadith proves Mughal did haram and were greedy rather than seculars.
Several things.

1. I don't care if the mughals did haram things or not. Why is this your line of attack? Is it because you realised Marathas were far more secular and far less Hindu than you had hoped? If they're happy for Hindu temples to be pillaged, whether under their guidance or directly, and they don't mind British soldiers eating beef in their camp, and they're happy for Hindu villages to be razed in non-Maratha regions, then I can understand why you're keen on portraying the mughals as "bad Muslims". The harsh truth that you in your saffron underwear will need to acknowledge is that neither the mughals nor the marathas were there for some religious conquest or some higher purpose. They wanted to make money and be powerful. I see no problem with this, hence the behaviour of neither group offends me.

2. As for "creepy barbarians" being invited, the whole brahminist strain of the Hindu religion (which dominates today) was a foreign concept, brought in by pale skinned slave drivers from central Asia. You gleefully accepted these pale skinned overlords and gave your natives over to their eternal servitude as the "dalitised" classes. It's always ironic when hindutvas condemn mughals as invaders when the entire brahminist class is known to be derived genetically and linguistically from lands beyond akhand Bharat.
3. "This hadith proves Mughal did haram and were greedy rather than seculars."

I don't even get your gibberish here. If you think mughals were secular, then how is it a problem if they did something haram? You're deeply confused. Get some rest.
 

suyog chavan

FULL MEMBER
Jan 13, 2020
329
-11
125
Country
India
Location
India
2. As for "creepy barbarians" being invited, the whole brahminist strain of the Hindu religion (which dominates today) was a foreign concept, brought in by pale skinned slave drivers from central Asia. You gleefully accepted these pale skinned overlords and gave your natives over to their eternal servitude as the "dalitised" classes. It's always ironic when hindutvas condemn mughals as invaders when the entire brahminist class is known to be derived genetically and linguistically from lands beyond akhand Bharat.
No proof just talk on the base of false allegations , isnt it ??
Aryan invasion theory is rejected and fake made up by the Commie brains,
No mention of such notion into ancient scriptures too,
You can sell elsewhere , I ain't buying it :dirol:
 

suyog chavan

FULL MEMBER
Jan 13, 2020
329
-11
125
Country
India
Location
India
brought in by pale skinned slave drivers from central Asia. You gleefully accepted these pale skinned overlords
Again Ignorance at its best, 😁
Most of the Hindu gods are dark skinned ,
here goes your pale skin theory and aryan invasion theory to the drains again:laughcry:
Lord ram, Lord krishna, Lord shiva, Lord vishnu, Maa kali were all dark skinned,
Why-Lord-Krishna-and-Lord-Rama-are-Blue-in-Color.jpg
999ca2fb70d04963ebf0145a2a8b0bd8.jpg

1. I don't care if the mughals did haram things or not. Why is this your line of attack? Is it because you realised Marathas were far more secular and far less Hindu than you had hoped? If they're happy for Hindu temples to be pillaged, whether under their guidance or directly, and they don't mind British soldiers eating beef in their camp, and they're happy for Hindu villages to be razed in non-Maratha regions, then I can understand why you're keen on portraying the mughals as "bad Muslims". The harsh truth that you in your saffron underwear will need to acknowledge is that neither the mughals nor the marathas were there for some religious conquest or some higher purpose. They wanted to make money and be powerful. I see no problem with this, hence the behaviour of neither group offends me.
What say now, huh:dirol:
Pakistani literature emphasize a lot that Shah Waliullah wrote letters to Abdali that come to India and rescue Islam from Marathas , that Islam would have vanished from India like it vanished from Spain...... Marathas are considered champions and heroes of Hindu cause by today's Hindu extremists and anti-Muslims so it further adds to the confusions .......From whatever I have read about Marathas in primary sources of 18th century, it appears they were simply looting Muslims as well as Hindus by extracting chauth from them without providing any protection or governament......when occasions demanded, they readily formed alliances with Muslims e.g they even formed alliance with Afghans in Bihar against Alivardi Khan. In Doab , they formed alliances with Muslim Mughals and Awadh's Nawab against Rohillas.....they were not demolishing mosques or killing Muslims for cow slaughter......Holkars had Rohillas in his ranks and Pindaris of Schindia also had Muslims.......

The real ant-Muslim fanatics at that time were Sikh misls who used to violate holy places of Muslims and would kill Muslims for cow slaughter.....Abdali clashed with Marathas for political reasons but his beef with Sikhs was due to anti-Muslim attacks of Sikhs in Punjab ....He was always ready to negotiate with Marathas but he never spared Sikhs.....Pakistani text books point out Marathas but are silenced about Sikhs because Mutala-i-Pakistan was introduced by Zia ul haq who was supporting Khalistan movement at that time
 

suyog chavan

FULL MEMBER
Jan 13, 2020
329
-11
125
Country
India
Location
India
1. I don't care if the mughals did haram things or not. Why is this your line of attack? Is it because you realised Marathas were far more secular and far less Hindu than you had hoped? If they're happy for Hindu temples to be pillaged, whether under their guidance or directly, and they don't mind British soldiers eating beef in their camp, and they're happy for Hindu villages to be razed in non-Maratha regions, then I can understand why you're keen on portraying the mughals as "bad Muslims". The harsh truth that you in your saffron underwear will need to acknowledge is that neither the mughals nor the marathas were there for some religious conquest or some higher purpose. They wanted to make money and be powerful. I see no problem with this, hence the behaviour of neither group offends me.
This explains all 😁
Tactics to subdue nawab And his nawabi :dirol: :dirol:

In light of the above facts, attacks on Bengal & Odisha - which fell in the kingdom of Nawab of Bengal - were justified from Maratha point of view. The attacks were meant to enforce collection of 'chauth'. Collection was done from Zamindars and perhaps from the populace as well . The people of Nawabs province paid taxes to Nawab and it was his duty to protect them. Since he could not protect from Marathas, his credibility among people was lost.

Finally, the Nawab was forced to make peace with Marathas - he gave them the province of Odisha in 1751 and also 'chauth' of Rs 1.2 million annually for Bengal.
 
Last edited:

masterchief_mirza

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 29, 2019
7,827
15
16,703
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Again Ignorance at its best, 😁
Most of the Hindu gods are dark skinned ,
here goes your pale skin theory and aryan invasion theory to the drains again:laughcry:
Lord ram, Lord krishna, Lord shiva, Lord vishnu, Maa kali were all dark skinned,
View attachment 690154 View attachment 690156

What say now, huh:dirol:
Pakistani literature emphasize a lot that Shah Waliullah wrote letters to Abdali that come to India and rescue Islam from Marathas , that Islam would have vanished from India like it vanished from Spain...... Marathas are considered champions and heroes of Hindu cause by today's Hindu extremists and anti-Muslims so it further adds to the confusions .......From whatever I have read about Marathas in primary sources of 18th century, it appears they were simply looting Muslims as well as Hindus by extracting chauth from them without providing any protection or governament......when occasions demanded, they readily formed alliances with Muslims e.g they even formed alliance with Afghans in Bihar against Alivardi Khan. In Doab , they formed alliances with Muslim Mughals and Awadh's Nawab against Rohillas.....they were not demolishing mosques or killing Muslims for cow slaughter......Holkars had Rohillas in his ranks and Pindaris of Schindia also had Muslims.......

The real ant-Muslim fanatics at that time were Sikh misls who used to violate holy places of Muslims and would kill Muslims for cow slaughter.....Abdali clashed with Marathas for political reasons but his beef with Sikhs was due to anti-Muslim attacks of Sikhs in Punjab ....He was always ready to negotiate with Marathas but he never spared Sikhs.....Pakistani text books point out Marathas but are silenced about Sikhs because Mutala-i-Pakistan was introduced by Zia ul haq who was supporting Khalistan movement at that time

Look if you wish to deny science, then I can't help you. Historical revisionism that you have engaged in hitherto is always subjective, but facts are facts. Pale skinned barbarians came into your homeland and altered your destiny. If they had not come, up to 30% of your genome would be different today. They influenced your religion, your culture and your genetic constitution. They were no different to the Mughal "barbarians" who came later. Archaeological evidence is tenuous, but linguistic and genetic evidence is compelling.

"“If the spread of people from the Steppe in this period was a conduit for the spread of South Asian Indo-European languages, then it is striking that there are so few material culture similarities between the Central Steppe and South Asia in the Middle to Late Bronze Age (i.e., after the middle of the second millennium BCE). Indeed, the material culture differences are so substantial that some archaeologists report no evidence of a connection. However, lack of material culture connections does not provide evidence against spread of genes, as has been demonstrated in the case of the Beaker Complex, which originated largely in western Europe but in Central Europe was associated with skeletons that harbored ~50% ancestry related to Yamnaya Steppe pastoralists (18). Thus, in Europe we have an unambiguous example of people with ancestry from the Steppe making profound demographic impacts on the regions into which they spread while adopting important aspects of local material culture. Our findings document a similar phenomenon in South Asia, with the locally acculturated population harboring up to ~20% Western_Steppe_EMBA–derived ancestry according to our modeling (via the up to ~30% ancestry contributed by Central_Steppe_MLBA groups)” "
 

suyog chavan

FULL MEMBER
Jan 13, 2020
329
-11
125
Country
India
Location
India
Look if you wish to deny science, then I can't help you. Historical revisionism that you have engaged in hitherto is always subjective, but facts are facts. Pale skinned barbarians came into your homeland and altered your destiny. If they had not come, up to 30% of your genome would be different today. They influenced your religion, your culture and your genetic constitution. They were no different to the Mughal "barbarians" who came later. Archaeological evidence is tenuous, but linguistic and genetic evidence is compelling.
Look who's talking about science, isn't earth flat??? :azn:
"“If the spread of people from the Steppe in this period was a conduit for the spread of South Asian Indo-European languages, then it is striking that there are so few material culture similarities between the Central Steppe and South Asia in the Middle to Late Bronze Age (i.e., after the middle of the second millennium BCE). Indeed, the material culture differences are so substantial that some archaeologists report no evidence of a connection. However, lack of material culture connections does not provide evidence against spread of genes, as has been demonstrated in the case of the Beaker Complex, which originated largely in western Europe but in Central Europe was associated with skeletons that harbored ~50% ancestry related to Yamnaya Steppe pastoralists (18). Thus, in Europe we have an unambiguous example of people with ancestry from the Steppe making profound demographic impacts on the regions into which they spread while adopting important aspects of local material culture. Our findings document a similar phenomenon in South Asia, with the locally acculturated population harboring up to ~20% Western_Steppe_EMBA–derived ancestry according to our modeling (via the up to ~30% ancestry contributed by Central_Steppe_MLBA groups)” "
.
You can shout the highest, But the first aryans who touched India were Bactrians


Indigenous Aryans, also known as the Out of India theory (OIT), is the idea that the Aryans are indigenous to the Indian subcontinent, and that the Indo-European languages radiated out from a homeland in India into their present locations.[1] Reflecting traditional Indian views[2] based on the Puranic chronology, the indigenist view proposes an older date than is generally accepted for the Vedic period, and argues that the Indus Valley Civilization was a Vedic civilization. In this view, "the Indian civilization must be viewed as an unbroken tradition that goes back to the earliest period of the Sindhu-Sarasvati (or Indus) tradition (7000 or 8000 BCE)." It is presented as an alternative to the established migration model,which proposes the Pontic steppe as the area of origin of the Indo-European languages.

The proposal is based on traditional and religious views on Indian history and identity, and plays a significant role in Hindutva politics. Support for this idea mostly exists among Indian scholars of Hindu religion and the history and archaeology of India, and has no support in mainstream scholarship.
"“If the spread of people from the Steppe in this period was a conduit for the spread of South Asian Indo-European languages, then it is striking that there are so few material culture similarities between the Central Steppe and South Asia in the Middle to Late Bronze Age
The study is titled ‘An Ancient Harappan Genome lacks DNA from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian farmers’, and confirms earlier findings that the hunter-gatherers of South Asia, who then became a settled people, have ancestry from India’s first people (ie: the Out-of-Africa migration), and west Asians, but no sign of steppe (central Asian) ancestry, ie: not Aryan. It counters some previous theories that all South Asians have Aryan ancestry.

Now is the print and the squint fake media too, 😁 :dirol:
 
Last edited:

masterchief_mirza

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 29, 2019
7,827
15
16,703
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Look who's talking about science, isn't earth flat??? :azn:
.
You can shout the highest, But the first aryans who touched India were Bactrians


Indigenous Aryans, also known as the Out of India theory (OIT), is the idea that the Aryans are indigenous to the Indian subcontinent, and that the Indo-European languages radiated out from a homeland in India into their present locations.[1] Reflecting traditional Indian views[2] based on the Puranic chronology, the indigenist view proposes an older date than is generally accepted for the Vedic period, and argues that the Indus Valley Civilization was a Vedic civilization. In this view, "the Indian civilization must be viewed as an unbroken tradition that goes back to the earliest period of the Sindhu-Sarasvati (or Indus) tradition (7000 or 8000 BCE)." It is presented as an alternative to the established migration model,which proposes the Pontic steppe as the area of origin of the Indo-European languages.

The proposal is based on traditional and religious views on Indian history and identity, and plays a significant role in Hindutva politics. Support for this idea mostly exists among Indian scholars of Hindu religion and the history and archaeology of India, and has no support in mainstream scholarship.

The study is titled ‘An Ancient Harappan Genome lacks DNA from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian farmers’, and confirms earlier findings that the hunter-gatherers of South Asia, who then became a settled people, have ancestry from India’s first people (ie: the Out-of-Africa migration), and west Asians, but no sign of steppe (central Asian) ancestry, ie: not Aryan. It counters some previous theories that all South Asians have Aryan ancestry.

Now is the print and the squint fake media too, 😁 :dirol:
Moron.

Try to read what the authors of the papers you're quoting said themselves. You've predictably posted the usual litany of misrepresentations of the genetic studies. Instead of gangu media, listen to what scientists try to say.

Enjoy. Read the bit I put in capitals as that's the important bit.

"The last time a paper titled ‘The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia’ was released online, in March 2018, it created a sensation in India and around the world. Mostly because the paper, co-authored by 92 scientists, many of them doyens of different disciplines, said that between 2000 BCE and 1000 BCE, there were significant migrations from the Central Asian Steppe that most likely brought Indo-European languages into India — just as Steppe migrations into Europe a thousand years earlier, beginning around 3000 BCE, had spread Indo-European languages to that continent as well. In other words, the paper supported the long-held idea of an ‘Arya’ migration into India — or, to put it more accurately, a migration of Indo-European language speaking people who called themselves ‘Arya’...
...
“By sequencing 523 ancient humans, we show that the primary source of ancestry in modern South Asians is a prehistoric genetic gradient between people related to early hunter-gatherers of Iran and Southeast Asia. After the Indus Valley Civilization’s decline, its people mixed with individuals in the southeast [i.e, southeast of northwestern India where the Indus Valley Civilization flourished: editor] to form one of the two main ancestral populations of South Asia [called Ancestral South Indians or ASI: editor], whose direct descendants live in southern India. Simultaneously, they mixed with descendants of Steppe pastoralists who, starting around 4000 years ago, spread via Central Asia to form the other main ancestral population [or Ancestral North Indians, ANI: editor]. The Steppe ancestry in South Asia has the same profile as that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe, tracking a movement of people that affected both regions and that likely spread the distinctive features shared between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages.”
If these quotes surprise you because you thought the recent genetic studies had disproved Arya migration, then you have a bone to pick with some voices in Indian mass media for utterly misleading you. The Science study substantiated its earlier findings about Steppe migrations into India with even more evidence, but many newspapers and websites chose to go to town with headlines such as this: ‘New genetic studies dent Arya migration theory.’

ALSO READ
‘Indus Valley settlers had a distinct genetic lineage’

So how did Indian media twist a straight story into something diametrically opposite? To answer that, we have to look at a second study that was released at the same time. This study, based on the ancient DNA of a woman who lived in the Harappan site of Rakhigarhi about 4,600 years ago, was published in Cell, co-authored by 28 scientists including some co-authors of the Science report, such as Thangaraj, Reich, Narasimhan and Rai, with Shinde being the lead author. The study’s title seemed straightforward: ‘An Ancient Harappan Genome Lacks Ancestry from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian Farmers.’ BUT THIS MADE MANY JOURNALISTS JUMP TO THE CONCLUSION that it meant there was no Arya migration either...

...The journalists would not have reached this hasty conclusion had they read at least the summary of the Cell paper. Here is a direct quote from the summary: “These individuals had little if any Steppe pastoralist related ancestry, showing that it was not ubiquitous in northwest South Asia during the IVC as it is today.” Pay particular attention to the last four words: “as it is today”. The meaning is clear. Today, Steppe pastoralist ancestry is ubiquitous, but it was not so during the period of the Indus Valley Civilisation. (How ubiquitous is it today? The new studies have that figure too: it could be up to 30% in some population groups in India.)

The only possible conclusion from this, therefore, is that the Steppe migrations to India happened after the decline of the Harappan Civilisation. That is no surprise. It has always been understood that the Arya migration from the Steppe happened after 2000 BCE. So to anyone who applies their mind, the absence of Steppe ancestry in a skeleton in Rakhigarhi from 2600 BCE is clear confirmation that the earlier understanding was correct, that the Arya were not present during the Harappan Civilisation, and that they arrived later. In other words, the Harappan Civilisation was pre-Arya, and so was the language they spoke."

You're simply a tool of sanghee print media. Nothing unexpected.

You'll note I never stated Aryans invaded btw. They migrated and the elephant riding natives simply agreed willingly and peacefully to be their dalitised slave class. There was no invasion because invasion of such a primitive land was not needed. Just as ignorant dalits send their daughters willingly to temples for "spiritual treatments" these days, so they willingly handed them over millennia ago. "Invasion" wasn't needed. It was a migration.
"That is no surprise. It has always been understood that the Arya migration from the Steppe happened after 2000 BCE. So to anyone who applies their mind, the absence of Steppe ancestry in a skeleton in Rakhigarhi from 2600 BCE is clear confirmation that the earlier understanding was correct, that the Arya were not present during the Harappan Civilisation, and that they arrived later. In other words, the Harappan Civilisation was pre-Arya, and so was the language they spoke.""

Highlighting again for you. The Rakhigiri skeleton simply confirms that prior to the arrival of Aryans, IVC peoples were untainted by Aryan DNA. It's worth thinking next time before you spew garbage.
 
Last edited:

suyog chavan

FULL MEMBER
Jan 13, 2020
329
-11
125
Country
India
Location
India
Moron.

Try to read what the authors of the papers you're quoting said themselves. You've predictably posted the usual litany of misrepresentations of the genetic studies. Instead of gangu media, listen to what scientists try to say.

Enjoy. Read the bit I put in capitals as that's the important bit.

"The last time a paper titled ‘The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia’ was released online, in March 2018, it created a sensation in India and around the world. Mostly because the paper, co-authored by 92 scientists, many of them doyens of different disciplines, said that between 2000 BCE and 1000 BCE, there were significant migrations from the Central Asian Steppe that most likely brought Indo-European languages into India — just as Steppe migrations into Europe a thousand years earlier, beginning around 3000 BCE, had spread Indo-European languages to that continent as well. In other words, the paper supported the long-held idea of an ‘Arya’ migration into India — or, to put it more accurately, a migration of Indo-European language speaking people who called themselves ‘Arya’...
...
“By sequencing 523 ancient humans, we show that the primary source of ancestry in modern South Asians is a prehistoric genetic gradient between people related to early hunter-gatherers of Iran and Southeast Asia. After the Indus Valley Civilization’s decline, its people mixed with individuals in the southeast [i.e, southeast of northwestern India where the Indus Valley Civilization flourished: editor] to form one of the two main ancestral populations of South Asia [called Ancestral South Indians or ASI: editor], whose direct descendants live in southern India. Simultaneously, they mixed with descendants of Steppe pastoralists who, starting around 4000 years ago, spread via Central Asia to form the other main ancestral population [or Ancestral North Indians, ANI: editor]. The Steppe ancestry in South Asia has the same profile as that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe, tracking a movement of people that affected both regions and that likely spread the distinctive features shared between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages.”
If these quotes surprise you because you thought the recent genetic studies had disproved Arya migration, then you have a bone to pick with some voices in Indian mass media for utterly misleading you. The Science study substantiated its earlier findings about Steppe migrations into India with even more evidence, but many newspapers and websites chose to go to town with headlines such as this: ‘New genetic studies dent Arya migration theory.’

ALSO READ
‘Indus Valley settlers had a distinct genetic lineage’

So how did Indian media twist a straight story into something diametrically opposite? To answer that, we have to look at a second study that was released at the same time. This study, based on the ancient DNA of a woman who lived in the Harappan site of Rakhigarhi about 4,600 years ago, was published in Cell, co-authored by 28 scientists including some co-authors of the Science report, such as Thangaraj, Reich, Narasimhan and Rai, with Shinde being the lead author. The study’s title seemed straightforward: ‘An Ancient Harappan Genome Lacks Ancestry from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian Farmers.’ BUT THIS MADE MANY JOURNALISTS JUMP TO THE CONCLUSION that it meant there was no Arya migration either...

...The journalists would not have reached this hasty conclusion had they read at least the summary of the Cell paper. Here is a direct quote from the summary: “These individuals had little if any Steppe pastoralist related ancestry, showing that it was not ubiquitous in northwest South Asia during the IVC as it is today.” Pay particular attention to the last four words: “as it is today”. The meaning is clear. Today, Steppe pastoralist ancestry is ubiquitous, but it was not so during the period of the Indus Valley Civilisation. (How ubiquitous is it today? The new studies have that figure too: it could be up to 30% in some population groups in India.)

The only possible conclusion from this, therefore, is that the Steppe migrations to India happened after the decline of the Harappan Civilisation. That is no surprise. It has always been understood that the Arya migration from the Steppe happened after 2000 BCE. So to anyone who applies their mind, the absence of Steppe ancestry in a skeleton in Rakhigarhi from 2600 BCE is clear confirmation that the earlier understanding was correct, that the Arya were not present during the Harappan Civilisation, and that they arrived later. In other words, the Harappan Civilisation was pre-Arya, and so was the language they spoke."

You're simply a tool of sanghee print media. Nothing unexpected.

You'll note I never stated Aryans invaded btw. They migrated and the elephant riding natives simply agreed willingly and peacefully to be their dalitised slave class. There was no invasion because invasion of such a primitive land was not needed. Just as ignorant dalits send their daughters willingly to temples for "spiritual treatments" these days, so they willingly handed them over millennia ago. "Invasion" wasn't needed. It was a migration.
"That is no surprise. It has always been understood that the Arya migration from the Steppe happened after 2000 BCE. So to anyone who applies their mind, the absence of Steppe ancestry in a skeleton in Rakhigarhi from 2600 BCE is clear confirmation that the earlier understanding was correct, that the Arya were not present during the Harappan Civilisation, and that they arrived later. In other words, the Harappan Civilisation was pre-Arya, and so was the language they spoke.""

Highlighting again for you. The Rakhigiri skeleton simply confirms that prior to the arrival of Aryans, IVC peoples were untainted by Aryan DNA. It's worth thinking next time before you spew garbage.
One of the scientists and co-author "Razib khan" seems desperate to divide north and south Indians 😁

American geneticist and science writer Razib Khan did not agree with Shinde’s conclusions. “This research points strongly to the fact that Aryans migrated to the Indian subcontinent,” said Khan. “Steppe ancestry is found in almost every group in India. And Steppe ancestry maps to the spread of Indo-Aryan language migration”.

It would be my pleasure to expose your kinds on this matter , 8-) :dirol:

Moron.

Try to read what the authors of the papers you're quoting said themselves. You've predictably posted the usual litany of misrepresentations of the genetic studies. Instead of gangu media, listen to what scientists try to say.

Enjoy. Read the bit I put in capitals as that's the important bit.

"The last time a paper titled ‘The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia’ was released online, in March 2018, it created a sensation in India and around the world. Mostly because the paper, co-authored by 92 scientists, many of them doyens of different disciplines, said that between 2000 BCE and 1000 BCE, there were significant migrations from the Central Asian Steppe that most likely brought Indo-European languages into India — just as Steppe migrations into Europe a thousand years earlier, beginning around 3000 BCE, had spread Indo-European languages to that continent as well. In other words, the paper supported the long-held idea of an ‘Arya’ migration into India — or, to put it more accurately, a migration of Indo-European language speaking people who called themselves ‘Arya’...
...
“By sequencing 523 ancient humans, we show that the primary source of ancestry in modern South Asians is a prehistoric genetic gradient between people related to early hunter-gatherers of Iran and Southeast Asia. After the Indus Valley Civilization’s decline, its people mixed with individuals in the southeast [i.e, southeast of northwestern India where the Indus Valley Civilization flourished: editor] to form one of the two main ancestral populations of South Asia [called Ancestral South Indians or ASI: editor], whose direct descendants live in southern India. Simultaneously, they mixed with descendants of Steppe pastoralists who, starting around 4000 years ago, spread via Central Asia to form the other main ancestral population [or Ancestral North Indians, ANI: editor]. The Steppe ancestry in South Asia has the same profile as that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe, tracking a movement of people that affected both regions and that likely spread the distinctive features shared between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages.”
If these quotes surprise you because you thought the recent genetic studies had disproved Arya migration, then you have a bone to pick with some voices in Indian mass media for utterly misleading you. The Science study substantiated its earlier findings about Steppe migrations into India with even more evidence, but many newspapers and websites chose to go to town with headlines such as this: ‘New genetic studies dent Arya migration theory.’

ALSO READ
‘Indus Valley settlers had a distinct genetic lineage’

So how did Indian media twist a straight story into something diametrically opposite? To answer that, we have to look at a second study that was released at the same time. This study, based on the ancient DNA of a woman who lived in the Harappan site of Rakhigarhi about 4,600 years ago, was published in Cell, co-authored by 28 scientists including some co-authors of the Science report, such as Thangaraj, Reich, Narasimhan and Rai, with Shinde being the lead author. The study’s title seemed straightforward: ‘An Ancient Harappan Genome Lacks Ancestry from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian Farmers.’ BUT THIS MADE MANY JOURNALISTS JUMP TO THE CONCLUSION that it meant there was no Arya migration either...

...The journalists would not have reached this hasty conclusion had they read at least the summary of the Cell paper. Here is a direct quote from the summary: “These individuals had little if any Steppe pastoralist related ancestry, showing that it was not ubiquitous in northwest South Asia during the IVC as it is today.” Pay particular attention to the last four words: “as it is today”. The meaning is clear. Today, Steppe pastoralist ancestry is ubiquitous, but it was not so during the period of the Indus Valley Civilisation. (How ubiquitous is it today? The new studies have that figure too: it could be up to 30% in some population groups in India.)

The only possible conclusion from this, therefore, is that the Steppe migrations to India happened after the decline of the Harappan Civilisation. That is no surprise. It has always been understood that the Arya migration from the Steppe happened after 2000 BCE. So to anyone who applies their mind, the absence of Steppe ancestry in a skeleton in Rakhigarhi from 2600 BCE is clear confirmation that the earlier understanding was correct, that the Arya were not present during the Harappan Civilisation, and that they arrived later. In other words, the Harappan Civilisation was pre-Arya, and so was the language they spoke."

You're simply a tool of sanghee print media. Nothing unexpected.

You'll note I never stated Aryans invaded btw. They migrated and the elephant riding natives simply agreed willingly and peacefully to be their dalitised slave class. There was no invasion because invasion of such a primitive land was not needed. Just as ignorant dalits send their daughters willingly to temples for "spiritual treatments" these days, so they willingly handed them over millennia ago. "Invasion" wasn't needed. It was a migration.
"That is no surprise. It has always been understood that the Arya migration from the Steppe happened after 2000 BCE. So to anyone who applies their mind, the absence of Steppe ancestry in a skeleton in Rakhigarhi from 2600 BCE is clear confirmation that the earlier understanding was correct, that the Arya were not present during the Harappan Civilisation, and that they arrived later. In other words, the Harappan Civilisation was pre-Arya, and so was the language they spoke.""

Highlighting again for you. The Rakhigiri skeleton simply confirms that prior to the arrival of Aryans, IVC peoples were untainted by Aryan DNA. It's worth thinking next time before you spew garbage.
Whole of the hardwork you spent on gathering information more of sharply contradicts your claims rather than supporting,
Harrapan civilization followed Vedic dharm, You claiming aryans arrving later than Harrapan civilization is the proof that brahmins were present before the so called aryans arrived in ancient India :azn:
Moron.

Try to read what the authors of the papers you're quoting said themselves. You've predictably posted the usual litany of misrepresentations of the genetic studies. Instead of gangu media, listen to what scientists try to say.

Enjoy. Read the bit I put in capitals as that's the important bit.

"The last time a paper titled ‘The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia’ was released online, in March 2018, it created a sensation in India and around the world. Mostly because the paper, co-authored by 92 scientists, many of them doyens of different disciplines, said that between 2000 BCE and 1000 BCE, there were significant migrations from the Central Asian Steppe that most likely brought Indo-European languages into India — just as Steppe migrations into Europe a thousand years earlier, beginning around 3000 BCE, had spread Indo-European languages to that continent as well. In other words, the paper supported the long-held idea of an ‘Arya’ migration into India — or, to put it more accurately, a migration of Indo-European language speaking people who called themselves ‘Arya’...
...
“By sequencing 523 ancient humans, we show that the primary source of ancestry in modern South Asians is a prehistoric genetic gradient between people related to early hunter-gatherers of Iran and Southeast Asia. After the Indus Valley Civilization’s decline, its people mixed with individuals in the southeast [i.e, southeast of northwestern India where the Indus Valley Civilization flourished: editor] to form one of the two main ancestral populations of South Asia [called Ancestral South Indians or ASI: editor], whose direct descendants live in southern India. Simultaneously, they mixed with descendants of Steppe pastoralists who, starting around 4000 years ago, spread via Central Asia to form the other main ancestral population [or Ancestral North Indians, ANI: editor]. The Steppe ancestry in South Asia has the same profile as that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe, tracking a movement of people that affected both regions and that likely spread the distinctive features shared between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages.”
If these quotes surprise you because you thought the recent genetic studies had disproved Arya migration, then you have a bone to pick with some voices in Indian mass media for utterly misleading you. The Science study substantiated its earlier findings about Steppe migrations into India with even more evidence, but many newspapers and websites chose to go to town with headlines such as this: ‘New genetic studies dent Arya migration theory.’

ALSO READ
‘Indus Valley settlers had a distinct genetic lineage’

So how did Indian media twist a straight story into something diametrically opposite? To answer that, we have to look at a second study that was released at the same time. This study, based on the ancient DNA of a woman who lived in the Harappan site of Rakhigarhi about 4,600 years ago, was published in Cell, co-authored by 28 scientists including some co-authors of the Science report, such as Thangaraj, Reich, Narasimhan and Rai, with Shinde being the lead author. The study’s title seemed straightforward: ‘An Ancient Harappan Genome Lacks Ancestry from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian Farmers.’ BUT THIS MADE MANY JOURNALISTS JUMP TO THE CONCLUSION that it meant there was no Arya migration either...

...The journalists would not have reached this hasty conclusion had they read at least the summary of the Cell paper. Here is a direct quote from the summary: “These individuals had little if any Steppe pastoralist related ancestry, showing that it was not ubiquitous in northwest South Asia during the IVC as it is today.” Pay particular attention to the last four words: “as it is today”. The meaning is clear. Today, Steppe pastoralist ancestry is ubiquitous, but it was not so during the period of the Indus Valley Civilisation. (How ubiquitous is it today? The new studies have that figure too: it could be up to 30% in some population groups in India.)

The only possible conclusion from this, therefore, is that the Steppe migrations to India happened after the decline of the Harappan Civilisation. That is no surprise. It has always been understood that the Arya migration from the Steppe happened after 2000 BCE. So to anyone who applies their mind, the absence of Steppe ancestry in a skeleton in Rakhigarhi from 2600 BCE is clear confirmation that the earlier understanding was correct, that the Arya were not present during the Harappan Civilisation, and that they arrived later. In other words, the Harappan Civilisation was pre-Arya, and so was the language they spoke."

You're simply a tool of sanghee print media. Nothing unexpected.

You'll note I never stated Aryans invaded btw. They migrated and the elephant riding natives simply agreed willingly and peacefully to be their dalitised slave class. There was no invasion because invasion of such a primitive land was not needed. Just as ignorant dalits send their daughters willingly to temples for "spiritual treatments" these days, so they willingly handed them over millennia ago. "Invasion" wasn't needed. It was a migration.
"That is no surprise. It has always been understood that the Arya migration from the Steppe happened after 2000 BCE. So to anyone who applies their mind, the absence of Steppe ancestry in a skeleton in Rakhigarhi from 2600 BCE is clear confirmation that the earlier understanding was correct, that the Arya were not present during the Harappan Civilisation, and that they arrived later. In other words, the Harappan Civilisation was pre-Arya, and so was the language they spoke.""

Highlighting again for you. The Rakhigiri skeleton simply confirms that prior to the arrival of Aryans, IVC peoples were untainted by Aryan DNA. It's worth thinking next time before you spew garbage.
Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization covered more area than Mesopotamia and Egypt combined. It was 20 times larger than ancient Egypt, making it the largest civilization of ancient world in terms of area.
EkrWFBaVMAA0bqt.png
Sounds more like theory of Indian invasion into Europe :laughcry:
 
Last edited:

masterchief_mirza

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 29, 2019
7,827
15
16,703
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Harrapan civilization followed Vedic dharm, You claiming aryans arrving later than Harrapan civilization is the proof that brahmins were present before the so called aryans arrived in ancient India :azn:
Horseshit.

IVC didn't have caste system.

Hinduism today is unrecognisable from its ancient precursor because of what Aryans did to it. Indeed, the very slur you use (mlecha) against us relates directly to the rivalry between north gangetics post-Aryan infiltration and the original IVC populations. They were rivals, further articulated and defined in Vedic scripts.

"The Sanskrit word mleccha does not have a standard Indo-European etymology and has no counterpart in Iranian languages.[8] However, it has cognates in Middle Indo-Aryan languages: Pali milakkha, and Prakrit mliccha, from the latter of which originate Sindhi milis, Punjabi milech, Kashmiri brichun (weep or lament), Western Pahari melech (dirty).[9] The Sanskrit word occurs as a verb mlecchati for the first time in the latic Vedic text Śathapatha‐Brāhmana dated to around 700 BCE. It is taken to mean "to speak indistinctly or barbarously".[9] Brahmins are prohibited from speaking in this fashion.[10]

As mleccha does not have an Indo-European etymology, scholars infer that it must have been a self-designation of a non-Aryan people within India. Based on the geographic references to the Mleccha deśa (Mleccha country) to the west, the term is identified with the Indus people, whose land is known from the Sumerian texts as Meluḫḫa.[11] Asko Parpola has proposed a Dravidian derivation for "Meluḫḫa", as mel-akam ("high country", a possible reference to the Balochistan high lands).[12]"
One of the scientists and co-author "Razib khan" seems desperate to divide north and south Indians 😁

American geneticist and science writer Razib Khan did not agree with Shinde’s conclusions. “This research points strongly to the fact that Aryans migrated to the Indian subcontinent,” said Khan. “Steppe ancestry is found in almost every group in India. And Steppe ancestry maps to the spread of Indo-Aryan language migration”.

It would be my pleasure to expose your kinds on this matter , 8-) :dirol:


Whole of the hardwork you spent on gathering information more of sharply contradicts your claims rather than supporting,
Harrapan civilization followed Vedic dharm, You claiming aryans arrving later than Harrapan civilization is the proof that brahmins were present before the so called aryans arrived in ancient India :azn:


Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization covered more area than Mesopotamia and Egypt combined. It was 20 times larger than ancient Egypt, making it the largest civilization of ancient world in terms of area.
View attachment 690191
Sounds more like theory of Indian invasion into Europe :laughcry:
As I've said to your kind before, do not lay claim to the Harappan civilisation, the IVC or any associated peoples. They were ancient Pakistani peoples, not Hindustani or gangetic. Do not confuse this already heavily derailed thread by falsely equating modern India with the IVC, or modern brahminism with original Hindu and animist groups. What Pakistan had in the IVC is nothing to do with you and your secular republic .of deranged and raped brahminists. Aryans messed up your religion and you chose to keep their corruptions. That's your business. The IVC has nothing to do with you, apart from the fact that it fathered your nation together with Aryan migrants. Without the IVC and the Aryans, you would still be riding elephants.
 
Last edited:

suyog chavan

FULL MEMBER
Jan 13, 2020
329
-11
125
Country
India
Location
India
"The Sanskrit word mleccha does not have a standard Indo-European etymology and has no counterpart in Iranian languages.[8] However, it has cognates in Middle Indo-Aryan languages: Pali milakkha, and Prakrit mliccha, from the latter of which originate Sindhi milis, Punjabi milech, Kashmiri brichun (weep or lament), Western Pahari melech (dirty).[9] The Sanskrit word occurs as a verb mlecchati for the first time in the latic Vedic text Śathapatha‐Brāhmana dated to around 700 BCE. It is taken to mean "to speak indistinctly or barbarously".[9] Brahmins are prohibited from speaking in this fashion.[10]
Here again contradicted yourself, 😁
Because the word mleccha itself means - The ancient Indians referred to all alien cultures and races that were less civilized in ancient times as 'Mleccha' or barbarians.
The Sanskrit word occurs as a verb mlecchati for the first time in the latic Vedic text Śathapatha‐Brāhmana dated to around 700 BCE.
Is the testimony to first contact of indeginous people to outsiders mainly Indo-greeks or bactrians,
The Indians referred to all alien cultures and races that were less civilized in ancient times as 'Mleccha' or barbarians. Among the tribes termed Mleccha were Sakas, Hunas, Yavanas, Kambojas, Pahlavas, Bahlikas and Rishikas. The Amarakosha described the Kiratas, Khasas and Pulindas as the Mleccha-jatis. Indo-Greeks, Scythians, and Kushanas were also mlecchas.

Mleccha itself is a Sanskrit word stating brahmins were already present in ancient bharat, before the first contact with the outsiders or the so called aryans was established. :dirol: :azn:
IVC didn't have caste system.
certain earlier Sarasvati-Sindhu sites like Tarkhanwala Dera also have evidences of cremation [4] and it became popular by the time of Cemetery H culture starting around ~1900 BCE, still earlier than the time when Andronovo-Fedorovo culture expanded further south from steppes.

Thus, it can said with confidence that the steppe cultures have no traces of Vedic ritualism.
 
Last edited:

masterchief_mirza

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 29, 2019
7,827
15
16,703
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Here again contradicted yourself, 😁
Because the word mleccha itself means - The ancient Indians referred to all alien cultures and races that were less civilized in ancient times as 'Mleccha' or barbarians.
The Sanskrit word occurs as a verb mlecchati for the first time in the latic Vedic text Śathapatha‐Brāhmana dated to around 700 BCE.
Is the testimony to first contact of indeginous people to outsiders mainly Indo-greeks or bactrians,
The Indians referred to all alien cultures and races that were less civilized in ancient times as 'Mleccha' or barbarians. Among the tribes termed Mleccha were Sakas, Hunas, Yavanas, Kambojas, Pahlavas, Bahlikas and Rishikas. The Amarakosha described the Kiratas, Khasas and Pulindas as the Mleccha-jatis. Indo-Greeks, Scythians, and Kushanas were also mlecchas.

Mleccha itself is a Sanskrit word stating brahmins were already present in ancient bharat, before the first contact with the outsiders or the so called aryans was established. :dirol: :azn:
Fkin Idiot. Can't you read??

700bc was the first recorded use of the word. Most analysts put the Aryan arrival at a thousand years before that.

You need English lessons first and foremost.
 

suyog chavan

FULL MEMBER
Jan 13, 2020
329
-11
125
Country
India
Location
India
Hinduism today is unrecognisable from its ancient precursor because of what Aryans did to it. Indeed, the very slur you use (mlecha) against us relates directly to the rivalry between north gangetics post-Aryan infiltration and the original IVC populations. They were rivals, further articulated and defined in Vedic scripts.
What??? lol:omghaha: ,Don't manipulate our dharm for your propaganda , :dirol:
They ain't sanghi sources assured. 8-)

Now since none of the steppe cultures have any traces of Vedic ritualism, let us take our focus to the historic seat of Vedic Aryans, i.e northern India, and see if ancient cultures of this region have any traces of Vedic ritualism.

The most important evidence that we have to trace roots of Vedic rituals in SSVC is the discovery of fire altars from various sites like Kalibangan, Banawali, Lothal etc. The most crucial findings are from Kalibangan where we find parallels with Vedic ritualism as described in Vedic scriptures. As veteran Indian archaeologist B. B. Lal remarks [5]:

“ In one of the platforms there were contiguous ‘fire-altars’, running from north to south . Although a subsequent drain had destroyed some of the altars, it would appear that originally these were seven in number — whatever be the significance of that number. (It may, incidentally, be recalled that a seal from Mohenjo-daro shows seven devotees marching in a row, in the lower register, the upper one depicting a deity within a peepal-leaf enclosure.) Although because of subsequent disturbances, the contents of these altars had been depleted, one could nevertheless find in some of them the remains of stele, ‘cakes’ and charcoal, signifying that these served the same purpose as did the ‘fire-altars’ in the Lower Town, discussed earlier . On the west of these altars there lay the lower half of a jar in a pit, containing ash and charcoal. It would appear that in it fire was kept ready to be used in the altars. “

In another platform there was also a ‘pit’ altar (cf. Agni ‘kuṇḍa’) lined with bricks, just like Vedic altars [6].

Fig. 1 : Fire ‘pit’ altar from Kalibangan along with bricks

Fig. 1 : Fire ‘pit’ altar from Kalibangan along with bricks
“On another platform in the southern part of the Citadel there was a pit lined with kiln-fired bricks. It measured 1.5 x 1 m and contained bovine bones and antlers, indicative of animal sacrifice. How the animal was carried to the sacrificial altar is indicated by engravings found on a terracotta ‘cake’ at Kalibangan itself.”

Also at Kalibangan there was a bathing area nearby the altars which indicates practice of purificatory ritual bathing which is also part of Vedic rituals [7].

“Close by on the north-west of the fire-altars, there were a well and a bathing platform, further suggesting that a ceremonial bath prior to the performing of the ritual may have been a part of the ceremony.”

For instance in Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 12.9.2.1 describes about ritualistic bathing [8].

Having performed the sacrifice they betake themselves to the purificatory bath; for after a Soma-sacrifice they do betake themselves to the purificatory bath, and the Sautrâmanî is the same as the Soma (sacrifice).

Another thing is that the altars were positioned eastward direction. [9]

“Another interesting feature was that of a north-south wall running behind the row of the fire-altars. This would show that the person(s) using these altars had to face east while carrying out the ritual.”

So too, in various places of Rig Veda we find that the ritual oblations were made in eastward direction. For example Rig Veda 3.1.2, 5.28.1, 3.6.1 etc [10].

Agni inflamed hath sent to heaven his lustre: he shines forth widely turning unto Morning. Eastward the ladle goes that brings all blessing, praising the Gods with homage and oblation.

Rig Veda 5.28,1
East have we turned the rite; may the hymn aid it. With wood and worship shall they honour Agni. From heaven the synods of the wise have learnt it: e’en for the quick and strong they seek advancement.

Rig Veda 3.1.2
Urged on by deep devotion, O ye singers, bring, pious ones, the God-approaching ladle. Borne onward to the right it travels eastward, and, filled with oil, to Agni bears oblation.

Rig Veda 3.6.1
Also a terracotta cake discovered from Kalibangan same site depicts a man holding an animal with a noose tied in it’s neck.

Fig 2: Ritualistic terracotta cake from Kalibangan

Fig 2: Ritualistic terracotta cake from Kalibangan
In Vedic rituals, the animals were sacrificed by suffocated them with noose, as cited in Vedic ritual texts like Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 3.7.4.1 [11].

Having made a noose, he throws it over (the victim) with (Vâg. S. VI, 8), ‘With the noose of sacred order I bind thee, O oblation to the gods!’ for that rope, forsooth, is Varuna’s: therefore he thus binds it with the noose of sacred order, and thus that rope of Varuna does not injure it.”

One side of the cake also depicts the Harappan horned divinity. This indicates that the animal must’ve been sacrificed to the horned divinity. Same horned divinity can be seen in the famous Harappan ‘Pashupati’ seal [12].

Fig.3 : The famous Harappan ‘Pashupati’ seal

Fig.3 : The famous Harappan ‘Pashupati’ seal
All these indicates practice of Vedic rituals in this Harappan city. Mainstream Indologists have been skeptical about these structures being Vedic altars, they say these are just cooking hearths. But if this is true, why animal bones are inside the altar?

Obviously, no one will cook animal by directly throwing the flesh with bones inside the hearth since it would be mixed with charcoal, they would cook it in a vessel which is kept above the hearth.

Archaeologist J. P. Joshi remarks [13]

“Bones recovered from the altars include those of bovines, zebu, goat or sheep, and deer.”

The fact that animal bones are found inside confirms that these were indeed ritualistic fire altars with animal offerings. Further the depiction of horned divinity in the terracotta cake found from the site further confirms it’s ritualistic nature, rather than it being mere cooking hearth. Even western Indologists like Asko Parpola who prefer non-Aryan Dravidian authorship of SSVC finds parallels in Vedic tradition and Kalibangan altars [14].

“The seven ‘fire-altars’ at Kalibangan are closely paralleled by the dhiṣnya hearths of the Vedic Soma sacrifice. Six of these hearths are in a north-south row inside the ‘sitting-hall’ (the priests sit to the west of them, facing east, as at Kalibangan). They belong to six priests, while one more priest (the ‘fire-kindler’) has a fireplace of his own to the north of the others, on the border of the sacrificial area. The seven officiating priests who have a special dhiṣnya are also known as ‘the seven sacrificers’ (sapta hotrāh).”

British archaeologists Raymond and Bridget Allchin also states that the entire complex from Kalibangan was ritualistic in nature. [15]

“The brick platforms are separated from each other by narrow brick-paved passages. Their surfaces had been damaged, but on one there was a row of seven of the distinctive ‘fire altars’, found also in the houses of the lower town, as well as a brick-lined pit containing animal bones and antlers, a well head and a dram. There seems to be little doubt that this complex marked a ritual centre where animal sacrifice, ritual bathing and perhaps also the cult of sacred fire took place”

They also doesn’t rule out presence of Vedic Aryans in mature Harappan urban phase based on Kalibangan finds [16].

“At Kalibangan the curious ritual hearths (if they indeed are so) reported in domestic, public and civic situations are suggestive of a practice ancestral to the Indo-Aryan fire sacrifices, and it is tempting to see this as an indication of the presence of Indo-Aryan speakers already during the Harappan urban phase.”

It is also important to note that we also find ‘pit’ altars built during early historic period. For instance there is a recent find of fire altar from Malhar dated to Satavahana era. This fire altar has close parallels with early Harappan altar from Kalibangan, though it is shaped differently like a Tantric Yantra inside [17].

Fig.4 : Remains of altar from Malhar

Fig.4 : Remains of altar from Malhar
A Harappan apsidal ‘fire temple’ and it’s connection with later apsidal temples.

Also there is an interesting find of the remains of an apsidal ‘fire temple’ from SSVC site of Banawali. This structure was also made of bricks and inside this structure we also see a semi-circular altar reminding us of Vedic Dakṣiṇāgni altar along with ashes, which would’ve been used to conduct fire rituals just like in Kalibangan [18] [19].

Fig.5 : Remains of ‘fire temple’ from Banawali.

Fig.5 : Remains of ‘fire temple’ from Banawali.
Fig.6: Plan of Banawali ‘fire temple’.

Fig.6: Plan of Banawali ‘fire temple’.
We see an exactly similar apsidal brick temple like the one from Banawali later in Atranjikhera site dating to Mauryan-Shunga era [20].

Fig.7: Plan of apsidal temple from Atranjikhera

Fig.7: Plan of apsidal temple from Atranjikhera
Both of these have clear resemblance and are made of bricks like the Vedic and Kalibangan altars. Other early temples also had apsidal plan. For instance the Naga temple made from bricks discovered at Mathura is also in apsidal plan [21].

Fig.8: Remains of apsidal Naga temple from Mathura

Fig.8: Remains of apsidal Naga temple from Mathura
It is not unreasonable to think that the tradition of building apsidal structures of early historic India has it’s roots in earlier Harappan tradition. While the Harappan one was used for fire worship, the later ones were dedicated to different deities. It could be possible that such early shrines evolved directly out of Vedic altars since the very term Caitya, referring to early shrines or temples, is derived from the term Citi or fire altar. The Banawali fire temple would represent this evolution of fire altars into shrines where rituals are conducted.

Conclusion

To conclude, it is an irrefutable fact that the Harappans had fire worship. We do not know which exact Vedic rite was practiced in SSVC sites, but undoubtedly there are obvious parallels between Vedic ritual setup and entire theme of finds from sites like Kaibangan. Along with Banawali find, this is a clear evidence for the undeniable fact that the Harappans practiced fire rituals.

Perhaps the fire rituals performed here may even have been Indo-Iranian in nature, ancestral tradition to later Vedic rituals which were evolved out of it. This is far better evidence for practice of Indo-Iranian fire rituals than imaginations of Kurgan theorists who see Vedic Aśvamedha in horse burials of the steppes and Vedic altars in hearths with stone slabs.

We should trace the roots of Vedic rituals in SSVC rather than in steppe cultures which shows no trace of Vedic ritualism based on sacred fire.

With these parallels between Vedic rites and Harappan rites, we can push back the date of Vedic era and roots of Vedic ritualism prior to 1700-1500 BCE, the traditional date for the early Rig Vedic era as given by most Indologists and historians as per AIT chronology, to the mature Harappan phase of SSVC going beyond 1900 BCE, starting around 2600 BCE.

Thus the Vedic rituals represents the oldest surviving ritual of mankind, with continuity right from the bronze age to modern times. After all, even the simple Homa fire rituals done daily in various temples and homes ultimately derive from Vedic fire rituals! It is a living tradition practiced right from the bronze age during 3rd millennium BCE at least.

Bibliography

  1. Anthony, David W. (2007), The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, Princeton University Press, Kuz’mina
  2. Elena Efimovna (2007), J. P. Mallory (ed.), The Origin of the Indo-Iranians, Brill
  3. Anthony, David W.; Brown, Dorcas R.; Khokhlov, Aleksandr A.; Kuznetsov, Pavel F.; Mochalov, Oleg D. (2016). A Bronze Age Landscape in the Russian Steppes: The Samara Valley Project. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press
  4. Gregory L. Possehl (11 November 2002). The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective. Rowman Altamira
  5. Braj Basi Lal (2015). The Rigvedic People: ‘Invaders’?/’Immigrants’? or Indigenous?. Aryan Books International.
  6. Ibid
  7. Ibid
  8. Eggeling, Julius (1882–1900). The Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa, according to the text of the Madhyandina school. Princeton Theological Seminary Library. Oxford, The Clarendon Press.
  9. Braj Basi Lal, Op. cit.
  10. Griffith, Ralph Thomas Hotchkin (11 April 1896). The Hymns of the Rig Veda. Kotagiri Nilgiri.
  11. Eggeling, Julius (1882–1900). The Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa, according to the text of the Madhyandina school. Princeton Theological Seminary Library. Oxford, The Clarendon Press.
  12. Wikimedia commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shiva_Pashupati.jpg
  13. Joshi, Jagat Pati (2008), Harappan Architecture and Civil Engineering. New Delhi : Rupa & Company, Infinity Foundation series.
  14. Parpola, Asko (1994), Deciphering the Indus script Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  15. Allchin, Bridget, and F. Raymond Allchin 1982. The Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Ibid
  17. Indian Archaeology 2010-2011 – A Review, Chief editor Rakesh Tewari, Editors D.N. Dimri & Indu Prakash
  18. Danino, Michel (2010), The Lost River – On the trail of the Sarasvati, Penguin Books India
  19. Joshi, Jagat Pati, Op. cit.
  20. Gaur, R. C. (1983) : Excavations at Atranjikhera. Early civilization of the Upper Ganga Basin. Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass
Fkin Idiot. Can't you read??

700bc was the first recorded use of the word. Most analysts put the Aryan arrival at a thousand years before that.

You need English lessons first and foremost.
Don't you have freakin brains,:laughcry:
Harrapan civilization was present before the so called aryans came,
That was my justification for brahmins already present in India before Aryans first contact with indigenous people.
Isn't your Aryan invasion theory state , aryans replacing the harrapan population .
Because Harrapans already practiced Vedic dharma or Sanatan dharm before the aryans arrived. :dirol:
 
Last edited:

masterchief_mirza

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 29, 2019
7,827
15
16,703
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
“Bones recovered from the altars include those of bovines, zebu, goat or sheep, and deer.”
What an idiot.

Yes, IVC killed and ate cows. Again, they weren't like you brahminist filth.


TOP NEWS
"ADVERTISEMENT
HomeExplained
Fact Check: What did the Harappan people really eat?
The menu at 'Historical Gastronomica' suggests that the food of the Indus Valley people would be familiar to many Indians today, even as it challenges the idea of an essentially “Indian” culinary culture.
Written By Pooja Pillai , Edited By Explained Desk | New Delhi |
Updated: February 21, 2020 1:14:33 pm

A promotional image for Historical Gastronomica.
The National Museum in New Delhi has decided to keep meat out of the ‘Historical Gastronomica’ event that it is hosting on its premises until February 25, allegedly after “a couple of MPs” reacted to the menu posted online by the Ministry of Culture (The Indian Express, February 20).
The last-minute diktat has resulted in dishes such as fish in turmeric stew, quail/fowl/country chicken roasted in saal leaf, offal’s pot, bati with dry fish, meat fat soup, lamb liver with chickpea, and dried fish and mahua oil chutney being knocked off the table.
ADVERTISEMENT
Food of Harappans
The event, presented by the Museum along with One Station Million Stories (OSMS), claims to treat visitors to “The Indus dining experience” through a “specially crafted menu that strictly includes ingredients that were identified by archaeologists & researchers from sites of the Indus-Saraswati Civilisation”.
However, archaeological evidence from Indus Valley sites (c. 3300 BC to 1300 BC) in present-day India and Pakistan suggests that a purely vegetarian meal will not provide a complete picture of what the Harappan people ate.
ADVERTISEMENT
“To judge from the quantity of bones left behind, animal foods were consumed in abundance: beef, buffalo, mutton, turtles, tortoises, gharials, and river and sea fish,” food historian K T Achaya recorded in his magisterial history of Indian food, Indian Food: A Historical Companion (Oxford University Press, 1994)."

BEEF was on the menu of your supposed ancestors.

Lolz.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom