A Brief History of The Warrior Rajputs

[Joe Shearer]

sir THis is also possible that Bin Qasim tried to make the new Caliph happy by sending her daughter of Raja Dahir and when the New Caliph came to know that Bin Qasim had already sex with her he called him back and killed him
@INDIC

When did you last get laid?

 

[Srinivas]

I do hate khaki history, as I hate any tendentious history, anything written to order, including colonial history.

The trouble is that you and people of your camp know nothing of history or historical writing other than what you have picked up for polemical purposes. So you know of nothing but your own tribal writings and what you assume is the rest, packed under one label. Sometimes that label is colonial history; sometimes it is Marxist writing of the JNU school. That itself makes two, and contradictory streams, but you never seem to understand that one is devoted to deconstructing the other.

Naturally you also don't know anything about other historians: the original revisionists, J. N. Sircar, R. C. Majumdar, Qanungo and a host of others, who wrote critical re-examinations of everything the colonial school wrote; nor do you know anything about the huge numbers of international historians writing very advanced and sophisticated examinations of the Indian past: but then, how would you? These matters are never mentioned in the web-sites and on YouTube, from which you get most of your information.

Coming to some of your remarks above, which Indologists are you referring to, when you talk of ".....false assertions and fantasies of those indologists (sic) who know absolutely nothing about what they are asserting except degrading Indians and denying their history"? And in what ways have they, according to you, degraded Indians and denied their history?

I would like some answers to these questions, because it is fascinating that you and the rest of the Sangh Parivar, the religious right wing political factions in short, are so agitated by the questions of history, when history was actually brought into our sphere of knowledge through one instance in early mediaeval times, the Rajatarangini by Kalhana, and through numerous instances in late mediaeval times. That being the case, either you should accept what native Indians wrote as history, or you should accept what the foreigners write, or a mix of the two, a rational mix prepared after critically reviewing both sets of conclusions.

Firstly History is not a topic/subject where any critique can change the views about it based on some logical assertions.

History deals with Historic evidences we find today and the excavations that are being happening and the assertions and conclusions that are being drawn based on them.

So History is a topic not related to authors but rather related to research and excavation evidence and the compilation of set of facts based on them as Michael Danini has done in his book. This kind of work cannot be written of easily unless or until one finds evidence that is contradicting his work.

So based on the evidence he suggested I believe in his work until some one comes up with another set of facts/evidences to contradict my views.

The assertion that "I do not know anything" is just over doing yourself as you some times do.

Next you assert that you are basing your views on the excavations and on the postulates proposed in AIT (the T in AIT stands for Theory, so you needn't write AIT theory, after all).

And this is what Uncle Google says:
Next you say that applying the arguments and logic of the AIT to the OOI theory (not OIT, actually) makes the OOI very persuasive, in your view.
That is good to know.
It is a very good thing to form one's views on important matters.
However, while I rejoice in your individual epiphany, it is also a regrettable duty to point out that your individual convictions do not take the place of peer review within an academic framework.
The OOI theory is still unaccepted by the academic community. Sad, but true. They still do not accept YouTube as an academically sound forum.
Let us have a separate argument over the AIT and the OOI theory.

Yes Exactly AIT is a theory, this is the main reason why people are trying you deny India's Vedic roots. This controversial propaganda is the one reason why there is a divide between North and South.

Prove this theory false, there is nothing in this world that can deny Vedic roots and Rig Veda being written here in India.

My point here is if people who are believing apply the same assertions that are there in AIT to OIT then OIT is strong and acceptable.
I.e. if one goes in the route of the colonial propagandists the OIT is acceptable. Reason why I mentioned the AIT.

You are probably aware of the uncomfortable truth that the Sangh Parivar's version of history depends on one-sided information, on the information revealed by excavations exclusively on the Indian side, and circulated and publicised on the Indian side. There is actually considerable work being done on the other side of the border, and most of it is unknown to our heroic re-write experts. But they bash on regardless. The excavations are said to prove that

Rightists do have their extreme views that is common through out the world but Indians do not study the Rightists history nor influenced by it.Most of the civilisation was on the Indian side, on the banks of the Sarasvati, hence it is wrong to call it the IVC;Most of the civilisation was on the Indian side, on the banks of the Sarasvati, hence it is wrong to call it the IVC;

1.Most of the civilisation was on the Indian side, on the banks of the Sarasvati, hence it is wrong to call it the IVC;

This point is correct, there are various sites that are being found all over North Western India, But regarding the the name of the civilization that do not make much of a difference.2.

2.The Sarasvati being mentioned in the Rg Veda clearly indicates that the IVC was extant at the time of the Rg Veda, since much of it was on the banks of the Sarasvati, or even in the river bed, meaning that since the Rg Veda was actually quite some time before the drying up of the river, it was therefore contemporaneous with the IVC;

No where in Rig Veda it was mentioned that IVC is extinct, in fact the biggest dilemma is how to interrelate IVC and Vedic texts.

On one side there are numerous sites which are pointing to a sophisticated civilization with out any literature .i.e IVC. On the other side there is a sophisticated literature which is explaining every thing and the way of life existed thousands of years ago i.e Rig Veda but with out any backing from archaeological evidence.

3.The IVC merged gradually and conclusively with that layer of pottery that is supposed to represent the Aryan speakers in India, so the IVC may be held to have been part of the unbroken Indic tradition, not a one-off as had been thought before.

The assertion that IVC belongs to Aryan speakers is not yet proven, the script used in the tablets and seals found during excavations is not Aryan but some thing else and it is primitive at best.

Presumably these are what emerges from the excavations for you. What do we get from these data?

1. The settlements on the Ghaggar/Hakra are, almost wholly, smaller and less developed than the mega-cities of the main IVC; they are hardly the representative locations;

Cities develop on the river banks, The gradual migration of people from Saraswati river banks after river dried up to Indus to the west, Yamuna and Ganga to the East and Kerala to the South is one assertion.

With the migrations and time the civilization might have developed in to city based civilization.

2.It is argued that the weakness of the AIT is that there is no mention of any other homeland from which the mythical Aryans might have travelled, but simultaneously, there is an adamant refusal to acknowledge that the Sarasvati could have been the Iranian river Haraote. So the mention of the Sarasvati in the Rg Veda is not at all conclusive. It certainly doesn't lead to the conclusions that the revisionists have got to.

If Saraswati is in Iran, they why would the people there compose texts in Sanskrit??

They would have chosen Avestan. This is where the OIT theory gains on AIT, based on the linguistic similarities between Avestan and Sanskrit, OIT theory explains that a group of people might have migrated towards Iran after the drying up of the River in India and might have named the river in Iran as Haraxvaiti in memory of the mighty river.

In fact Avestan texts praise the river Haraxvaiti similar to Rig Veda.

"The Avesta extols the Helmand in similar terms to those used in the Rigveda with respect to the Sarasvati: "the bountiful, glorious Haetumant swelling its white waves rolling down its copious flood"

3.There is in fact no conclusive archaeological evidence about the merger of the later stages of the IVC with the early stage of north Indian pottery. It is wrong to say on the basis of archaeological evidence that the descendants of the IVC were in fact the Aryan speakers who composed the Rg Veda.

This is conclusion is wrong and I have explained that there is no evidence suggestion that IVC and Rig Veda are related and There is no exact evidence which proves Rig Veda time line.

Michel Danino is one more revisionist mushroom with no academic credentials. Neither his book nor his theories have any professional support. He is, like all the other revisionist historians, except for Elst, a self-taught expert with no acceptance.

Coming to the new sites that are found in India, I hope that you realise that many of them are in what would have been the bed of the supposed river.

One cannot deny the work of a Proto - Historian unless there is evidence and concrete argument to contradict.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Firstly History is not a topic/subject where any critique can change the views about it based on some logical assertions.

It is noteworthy that you manage to get things wrong from the first line itself, of your gallant attempt at reasoned rebuttal. That shows the depth of your attempt, and its soundness.

History is precisely a subject where a critique can change views on a particular topic (not necessarily, or always, the whole of it, as few historians take on the task of historiographical critiques, or of building historical systems – the number of the latter can be counted on the fingers of one’s hands). History is never an abstract and wholly discoverable subject, unlike the natural sciences; it is natural that those with no background in historical study or analysis should make this elementary mistake. History is determined as much by the mind-set, the mental landscape of the historian, as by the evidence; this is well-known, and good historians therefore strive to ensure that the facts that they have selected are displayed along with information regarding the facts that they have not selected – a full display naturally defeats the purpose of a selection.
History deals with Historic evidences we find today and the excavations that are being happening and the assertions and conclusions that are being drawn based on them.

Partially, not wholly; historical evidence, under normal circumstances, is conducted on the basis of written and documentary evidence, either primary evidence, in the shape of archived administrative data, personal records of individuals, court accounts and narrations, and materials of that nature. Dalrymple’s coup’d’etat in using the known but largely ignored records of the times, both Indian records and British colonial records. Other excellent works are Surendranath Sen’s 1857, or Jadunath Sarkar’s magisterial works, a library shelf full of them, all based on his sound knowledge of Persian and Urdu.

The use of excavations and epigraphy to support history is not unknown in other geographies, but it is peculiarly predominant in India, due to the sheer lack of written records of historical value prior to the narrations of the late mediaeval period. We have been talking about one of them, the Chachnama, in another thread (or is it right here?). However, this was the exception, not the rule, and we have had to depend on archaeology and epigraphic evidence for most of our reconstruction of historical India in ancient times.

Your reference to excavations, however, seems to be limited to the extent of your own interests in Indian history, namely, to matters pertaining to the controversy between AIT and OOI, so possibly all that has gone before is a total waste. So be it.

So History is a topic not related to authors but rather related to research and excavation evidence and the compilation of set of facts based on them as Michael Danini has done in his book. This kind of work cannot be written of easily unless or until one finds evidence that is contradicting his work.

No, it is not, it is related to the historiography of the historian. There is no ‘pure’ history unaffected by human interpretation and dependent exclusively on transcendent fact. This is not physics. This is, on the other hand, the typical mistake made by outsiders who have no foundations, no roots for their slightly aimless expeditions, usually in support of some political standpoint or the other.

Two personal (and friendly, believe it or not) words of advice.

When writing about history and historical matters, it is important to be accurate; immaculately accurate, in fact. The historical author Michael Danini does not exist. Michel Danino does. Do be careful.

Secondly, writing off his work is quite possible after one examines his assumptions and his extrapolations. I did not go into detail because I am dealing here with an amateur audience, and one that is not likely to want to know. Do not think, please, that a detailed refutation is not possible, but do also bear in mind that it is almost a book-length refutation, and difficult to present in such a forum.

So based on the evidence he suggested I believe in his work until some one comes up with another set of facts/evidences to contradict my views.

Yes, that is the correct thing to do, and I shall therefore present the evidence against him, and the genre that he represents. Would you like to hear it here, or in a separate thread, or in a separate communication? Bear in mind that we are conducting our end-semester examinations, welcoming on board a new VC and searching for jobs for the MBA class, besides helping out with the attached school, so time is at a premium.

The assertion that "I do not know anything" is just over doing yourself as you some times do.

Ipsa scientia potestas est

Next you assert that you are basing your views on the excavations and on the postulates proposed in AIT (the T in AIT stands for Theory, so you needn't write AIT theory, after all).

And this is what Uncle Google says:
Next you say that applying the arguments and logic of the AIT to the OOI theory (not OIT, actually) makes the OOI very persuasive, in your view.
That is good to know.
It is a very good thing to form one's views on important matters.
However, while I rejoice in your individual epiphany, it is also a regrettable duty to point out that your individual convictions do not take the place of peer review within an academic framework.
The OOI theory is still unaccepted by the academic community. Sad, but true. They still do not accept YouTube as an academically sound forum.
Let us have a separate argument over the AIT and the OOI theory.

Yes Exactly AIT is a theory, this is the main reason why people are trying you deny India's Vedic roots. This controversial propaganda is the one reason why there is a divide between North and South.

I do not understand this. Apparently you are fighting some not well understood political campaign, of your own imagining or an obscure one of not much prevalence.

Prove this theory false, there is nothing in this world that can deny Vedic roots and Rig Veda being written here in India.

No, nothing. Who denied it? It has nothing to do with either the AIT or the OOI. So why are you getting your knickers in a twist?
My point here is if people who are believing apply the same assertions that are there in AIT to OIT then OIT is strong and acceptable.

This statement is nothing to do with history, only the typical Indian harping on my logic is better than yours. So what? What is the evidence? What is it, specifically, that you are referring to? Instead of flights of fancy, why don’t you get down to brass tacks?


I.e. ifone goes in the route of the colonial propagandists the OIT is acceptable. Reason why I mentioned the AIT.

Do you yourself think that this sentence makes sense? What does it mean? And are you even aware of the huge volume of non-colonial historical research , both Indian and international, that exists?

You are probably aware of the uncomfortable truth that the Sangh Parivar's version of history depends on one-sided information, on the information revealed by excavations exclusively on the Indian side, and circulated and publicised on the Indian side. There is actually considerable work being done on the other side of the border, and most of it is unknown to our heroic re-write experts. But they bash on regardless. The excavations are said to prove that

Rightists do have their extreme views that is common through out the world but Indians do not study the Rightists history nor influenced by it.Most of the civilisation was on the Indian side, on the banks of the Sarasvati, hence it is wrong to call it the IVC;Most of the civilisation was on the Indian side, on the banks of the Sarasvati, hence it is wrong to call it the IVC;

Why don’t you read, or rather, try to read and understand what I wrote immediately before, rather than going off at a tangent? My post precisely answers your question, but you were obviously so busy polemicising that you didn’t notice.

1.Most of the civilisation was on the Indian side, on the banks of the Sarasvati, hence it is wrong to call it the IVC;

This point is correct, there are various sites that are being found all over North Western India, But regarding the the name of the civilization that do not make much of a difference.2

It sounds suspiciously as if you are in agreement. That would count as a sensational development, so I must regretfully conclude that your syntax has led you up the garden path.

2.The Sarasvati being mentioned in the Rg Veda clearly indicates that the IVC was extant at the time of the Rg Veda, since much of it was on the banks of the Sarasvati, or even in the river bed, meaning that since the Rg Veda was actually quite some time before the drying up of the river, it was therefore contemporaneous with the IVC;

No where in Rig Veda it was mentioned that IVC is extinct, in fact the biggest dilemma is how to interrelate IVC and Vedic texts.

Just curiousity, nothing important: do you at all know the difference between ‘extinct’ and ‘extant’? And do you realise that I am paraphrasing the revisionist argument?

On one side there are numerous sites which are pointing to a sophisticated civilization with out any literature .i.e IVC. On the other side there is a sophisticated literature which is explaining every thing and the way of life existed thousands of years ago i.e Rig Veda but with out any backing from archaeological evidence.

Not thousands of years. There is nothing in the Vedas to indicate the passage of time of thousands of years. For that, you have to go to the Puranas. But perhaps to your school of history, the two are more or less the same.

Do try to be accurate.

3.The IVC merged gradually and conclusively with that layer of pottery that is supposed to represent the Aryan speakers in India, so the IVC may be held to have been part of the unbroken Indic tradition, not a one-off as had been thought before.

The assertion that IVC belongs to Aryan speakers is not yet proven, the script used in the tablets and seals found during excavations is not Aryan but some thing else and it is primitive at best.

Again, you seem to be agreeing. Do be careful.

Presumably these are what emerges from the excavations for you. What do we get from these data?

1. The settlements on the Ghaggar/Hakra are, almost wholly, smaller and less developed than the mega-cities of the main IVC; they are hardly the representative locations;

Cities develop on the river banks, The gradual migration of people from Saraswati river banks after river dried up to Indus to the west, Yamuna and Ganga to the East and Kerala to the South is one assertion.

There is no proof, none whatsoever, of either migration from the ‘Saraswati’ river banks after the river dried up to the Yamuna or Ganga, or to Kerala. In fact, there is evidence that a certain kind of Sanskritisation proceeded along the Konkan coast, first, to Tulunadu, then to Palghat and its environments. You need to look up Kesavan Veluthat, and authors of histories of south India, to understand the dates.

With the migrations and time the civilization might have developed in to city based civilization.

That is a clear possibility. It has no connection with either AIT or OOI.

2.It is argued that the weakness of the AIT is that there is no mention of any other homeland from which the mythical Aryans might have travelled, but simultaneously, there is an adamant refusal to acknowledge that the Sarasvati could have been the Iranian river Haraote. So the mention of the Sarasvati in the Rg Veda is not at all conclusive. It certainly doesn't lead to the conclusions that the revisionists have got to.

If Saraswati is in Iran, they why would the people there compose texts in Sanskrit??

Why should they compose texts in Sanskrit? You are confused; it was a memory of the Haraote/Haraxvaiti that caused the river in India to be named Saraswati. It is not that the same river was being addressed.

They would have chosen Avestan. This is where the OIT theory gains on AIT, based on the linguistic similarities between Avestan and Sanskrit, OIT theory explains that a group of people might have migrated towards Iran after the drying up of the River in India and might have named the river in Iran

as Haraxvaiti in memory of the mighty river.

Think; please think.

Faced with a mountain range and inhospitable desert on one side, and with plains, not then as desiccated and desert-land as today, which way would you head?

And try not to be schoolboyish and suggest that the same dilemma should have prevented the ingress of Indo-Aryan speaking people from west to east. We already have the symmetric opposition of the religious concepts to give us a hint – Daiva vs. Deva, Ahura vs. Asura – so on and on.


What you really need to do is to give up blinkers and think about this with an open mind.

In fact Avestan texts praise the river Haraxvaiti similar to Rig Veda.

"The Avesta extols the Helmand in similar terms to those used in the Rigveda with respect to the Sarasvati: "the bountiful, glorious Haetumant swelling its white waves rolling down its copious flood"


And how does that disprove the alternative, that the knowledge of the Haraxvaiti, or Haraote, preceded the knowledge of the Saraswati? It actually strengthens the case.


3.There is in fact no conclusive archaeological evidence about the merger of the later stages of the IVC with the early stage of north Indian pottery. It is wrong to say on the basis of archaeological evidence that the descendants of the IVC were in fact the Aryan speakers who composed the Rg Veda.

This is conclusion is wrong and I have explained that there is no evidence suggestion that IVC and Rig Veda are related and There is no exact evidence which proves Rig Veda time line.

That is just what I said.

It sounds, once again, as if you are agreeing with me.

Michel Danino is one more revisionist mushroom with no academic credentials. Neither his book nor his theories have any professional support. He is, like all the other revisionist historians, except for Elst, a self-taught expert with no acceptance.

Hebed of the supposed river.

One cannot deny the work of a Proto - Historian unless there is evidence and concrete argument to contradict.

Please.

Try not to give the entire profession a bad name. Except for Koenraad Elst, who is regarded as a dangerous eccentric by his own people, and Kazanas, who was the protagonist of your first clip, there are no historians in this melee on the side of the revisionists.

To be precise, Michel Danino was the hagiographer of The Mother at Pondicherry. Not very good training for historical research.

@INDIC
@Srinivas

I want to suggest these to you:

HINDU MYTH, HINDU HISTORY: Religion, Art and Politics - Heinrich von Stietencron
Ch. 8: The Preconditions of Western Research into Hinduism and Their Consequences
Ch. 9: Hinduism: On the Proper Use of a Deceptive Term
Ch 10: Religious Configurations in Pre-Muslim India and the Modern Concept of Hinduism

These are, contrary to what you might think, sympathetic accounts, and you may well enjoy reading them. This is real history, not the garbage with which you tax your mind.

 

[INDIC]

@Joe Shearer I have already made it clear, I am no taker of OIT and I don't follow it but I don't blindly follow everything Marxist version of the history as I feel many narrative under it is to malign ancient Indian culture and to prove colonial version of white man's supremacy.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Joe Shearer I have already made it clear, I am no taker of OIT and I don't follow it but I don't blindly follow everything Marxist version of the history as I feel many narrative under it is to malign ancient Indian culture and to prove colonial version of white man's supremacy.

I am perplexed.

Whom do you see following a Marxist version of history? And in any case, Marxist historiography is hostile to colonial historiography. How do you get that Marxist version is there to prove the colonial version, when they hate each other?

This is the kind of position which makes me keep insisting that you and Srinivas and others like you should not comment on history. Ever.

 

[Srinivas]

I am perplexed.

Whom do you see following a Marxist version of history? And in any case, Marxist historiography is hostile to colonial historiography. How do you get that Marxist version is there to prove the colonial version, when they hate each other?

This is the kind of position which makes me keep insisting that you and Srinivas and others like you should not comment on history. Ever.

Debating with Joe Shearer needs some extra energy and time ..... for people like me who come to troll here on PDF!

 

[Srinivas]

It is noteworthy that you manage to get things wrong from the first line itself, of your gallant attempt at reasoned rebuttal. That shows the depth of your attempt, and its soundness.
History is precisely a subject where a critique can change views on a particular topic (not necessarily, or always, the whole of it, as few historians take on the task of historiographical critiques, or of building historical systems – the number of the latter can be counted on the fingers of one’s hands). History is never an abstract and wholly discoverable subject, unlike the natural sciences; it is natural that those with no background in historical study or analysis should make this elementary mistake. History is determined as much by the mind-set, the mental landscape of the historian, as by the evidence; this is well-known, and good historians therefore strive to ensure that the facts that they have selected are displayed along with information regarding the facts that they have not selected – a full display naturally defeats the purpose of a selection.

There lies the propaganda part of the history, it is like selective journalism where a journalist picks only certain facts to portray what he wants to show to the people and there by influencing the viewers.

But Historians apart from their views and mainly base their analysis on excavations or evidences that exist. But in case of Saraswathi river one do not find the evidence to point that Saraswathi river is actually a foreign river to India.

Partially, not wholly; historical evidence, under normal circumstances, is conducted on the basis of written and documentary evidence, either primary evidence, in the shape of archived administrative data, personal records of individuals, court accounts and narrations, and materials of that nature. Dalrymple’s coup’d’etat in using the known but largely ignored records of the times, both Indian records and British colonial records. Other excellent works are Surendranath Sen’s 1857, or Jadunath Sarkar’s magisterial works, a library shelf full of them, all based on his sound knowledge of Persian and Urdu.
The use of excavations and epigraphy to support history is not unknown in other geographies, but it is peculiarly predominant in India, due to the sheer lack of written records of historical value prior to the narrations of the late mediaeval period. We have been talking about one of them, the Chachnama, in another thread (or is it right here?). However, this was the exception, not the rule, and we have had to depend on archaeology and epigraphic evidence for most of our reconstruction of historical India in ancient times.

Your reference to excavations, however, seems to be limited to the extent of your own interests in Indian history, namely, to matters pertaining to the controversy between AIT and OOI, so possibly all that has gone before is a total waste. So be it.

Yes I also mentioned written and documented evidence along with excavation evidence.

No, it is not, it is related to the historiography of the historian. There is no ‘pure’ history unaffected by human interpretation and dependent exclusively on transcendent fact. This is not physics. This is, on the other hand, the typical mistake made by outsiders who have no foundations, no roots for their slightly aimless expeditions, usually in support of some political standpoint or the other.

Two personal (and friendly, believe it or not) words of advice.

When writing about history and historical matters, it is important to be accurate; immaculately accurate, in fact. The historical author Michael Danini does not exist. Michel Danino does. Do be careful.

Secondly, writing off his work is quite possible after one examines his assumptions and his extrapolations. I did not go into detail because I am dealing here with an amateur audience, and one that is not likely to want to know. Do not think, please, that a detailed refutation is not possible, but do also bear in mind that it is almost a book-length refutation, and difficult to present in such a forum.

Histogarphy of the historian is valid only if backed by certain facts which are validated by either excavations or historians who lived during his era or written records which are acceptable to most of the people.

No, nothing. Who denied it? It has nothing to do with either the AIT or the OOI. So why are you getting your knickers in a twist?

It is every thing to do with AIT prior to AIT there is no assertion or argument to deny the Vedic roots of India, To prove the AIT wrong, the authors are using the same assertions which AIT used, and are proposing OIT. This is a dilemma for AIT believers.

Do you yourself think that this sentence makes sense? What does it mean? And are you even aware of the huge volume of non-colonial historical research , both Indian and international, that exists?

That research is not denying any Vedic roots of India.

It sounds suspiciously as if you are in agreement. That would count as a sensational development, so I must regretfully conclude that your syntax has led you up the garden path.

I am agreeing to the part that Name do not make any difference since the civilization is of Sub continent related.

Not thousands of years. There is nothing in the Vedas to indicate the passage of time of thousands of years. For that, you have to go to the Puranas. But perhaps to your school of history, the two are more or less the same.
Do try to be accurate.

I am not mentioning passage of time in my post, please go through the post again I am mentioning that Vedas are thousands of years old.

Again, you seem to be agreeing. Do be careful.

I am stressing this part because there is no such thing as invasions nor there is an out side influence.

There is no proof, none whatsoever, of either migration from the ‘Saraswati’ river banks after the river dried up to the Yamuna or Ganga, or to Kerala. In fact, there is evidence that a certain kind of Sanskritisation proceeded along the Konkan coast, first, to Tulunadu, then to Palghat and its environments. You need to look up Kesavan Veluthat, and authors of histories of south India, to understand the dates.

There was a brief mention of a mighty river in Mahabharata situated where Michael Danino is asserting his claims. And Mahabharata is a text written with exact geographical mentions.

Why should they compose texts in Sanskrit? You are confused; it was a memory of the Haraote/Haraxvaiti that caused the river in India to be named Saraswati. It is not that the same river was being addressed.

It is the other way around based on the linguistic evidence and migration theories the foreign author in one of the videos asserts his claim that people migrated from India to Iran.

Think; please think.

Faced with a mountain range and inhospitable desert on one side, and with plains, not then as desiccated and desert-land as today, which way would you head?

And try not to be schoolboyish and suggest that the same dilemma should have prevented the ingress of Indo-Aryan speaking people from west to east. We already have the symmetric opposition of the religious concepts to give us a hint – Daiva vs. Deva, Ahura vs. Asura – so on and on.

My point is based on the Romani people migration to Europe, if they have done it in the medeival times why not those Vedic people??

And how does that disprove the alternative, that the knowledge of the Haraxvaiti, or Haraote, preceded the knowledge of the Saraswati? It actually strengthens the case.

Vedic sanskrit is the oldest Language than Avesta!

 

[Joe Shearer]

It is noteworthy that you manage to get things wrong from the first line itself, of your gallant attempt at reasoned rebuttal. That shows the depth of your attempt, and its soundness.History is precisely a subject where a critique can change views on a particular topic (not necessarily, or always, the whole of it, as few historians take on the task of historiographical critiques, or of building historical systems – the number of the latter can be counted on the fingers of one’s hands). History is never an abstract and wholly discoverable subject, unlike the natural sciences; it is natural that those with no background in historical study or analysis should make this elementary mistake. History is determined as much by the mind-set, the mental landscape of the historian, as by the evidence; this is well-known, and good historians thereforestrive to ensure that the facts that they have selected are displayed along with informationregarding the facts that they have not selected – a full display naturally defeats the purpose of a selection.

There lies the propaganda part of the history, it is like selective journalism where a journalist picks only certain facts to portray what he wants to show to the people and there by influencing the viewers.

But Historians apart from their views and mainly base their analysis on excavations or evidences that exist. But in case of Saraswathi river one do not find the evidence to point that Saraswathi river is actually a foreign river to India.

LOL.

Don’t you read anything?

Do you know the difference between an historian and an archaeologist?

Historians base their work mainly on documentary evidence, supplemented by epigraphy, numismatics and archaeology. In India, the dependence on epigraphy and on numismatics, and on archaeology is relatively more than elsewhere, but it is never based simply on archaeology.

It would be nice if you read what is written for your edification.

Regarding the Saraswati, you might have noticed that there is no evidence that the Saraswati referred to is an Indian river. That is, the references can be read both ways, and there is no positive identification of the Saraswati as an Indian river, no Indian landmarks and references, nothing to indicate that the naming of the Ghaggar-Hakra channel as the Saraswati is not a later afterthought.

 

[Joe Shearer]

No, it is not, it is related to the historiography of the historian. There is no ‘pure’ history unaffected by human interpretation and dependent exclusively on transcendent fact. This is not physics. This is, on the other hand, the typical mistake made by outsiders who have no foundations, no roots for their slightly aimless expeditions, usually in support of some political standpoint or the other.

Two personal (and friendly, believe it or not) words of advice.

When writing about history and historical matters, it is important to be accurate; immaculately accurate, in fact. The historical author Michael Danini does not exist. Michel Danino does. Do be careful.

Secondly, writing off his work is quite possible after one examines his assumptions and his extrapolations. I did not go into detail because I am dealing here with an amateur audience, and one that is not likely to want to know. Do not think, please, that a detailed refutation is not possible, but do also bear in mind that it is almost a book-length refutation, and difficult to present in such a forum.

Histogarphy of the historian is valid only if backed by certain facts which are validated by either excavations or historians who lived during his era or written records which are acceptable to most of the people.

Then you haven’t understood what historiography is. It is not synonymous with history, as you seem to think.

Look it up.

Historiography is the study of the history and methodology of the discipline of history.

The facts are important for the history itself, they are not directly related to historiography, nor is validation by excavation or the notices of historians who record live history or reliable written records directly related to historiography.

You are out of your depth, @Srinivas

 

[Joe Shearer]

No, nothing. Who denied it? It has nothing to do with either the AIT or the OOI. So why are you getting your knickers in a twist?

It is every thing to do with AIT prior to AIT there is no assertion or argument to deny the Vedic roots of India, To prove the AIT wrong, the authors are using the same assertions which AIT used, and are proposing OIT. This is a dilemma for AIT believers.

I’m bewildered. After the AIT, what, according to you, were the roots of India other than Vedic?

Second, which assertions are the authors (?) using? What are these assertions?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Deleted for being rude, offensive, and dismissive of a stoutly- contested position defended with courtesy and dignity.

 

[ghilzai]

please present proof that Mughal families of Punjab are fake

No one is saying they are fake but they can hardly be called the genuine article too, however no one is denying they may carry the Central Asian blood.

 

[Multani]

No one is saying they are fake but they can hardly be called the genuine article too, however no one is denying they may carry the Central Asian blood.

Yes, that is true. It is a fact that Chughtai Mughals in Kashmir and Northern Punjab are of Turkic ancestry.

However, honestly, can even the Jatts, Rajputs, and all other "pure bloods" be really called the genuine article?

Ghilzais themselves have turk/Tajik/Persian/greek/mongol/pakhtoon/indian blood mixed into them

The Hindus and Budhist pakhtoons in Kandaahar, Laghman, Ghaur, intermarried with hindu high castes in india [ even though they were pakhtoons ], before their conversion to Islam

jatts and rajputs are themselves mixed bloods.

No blood is pure, it is all mixed. In Pakistan today, 2% of each community is intermarrying with others. There is no such thing as pure blood. This is essentially hidden racism of the most ugly kind.

Even the jews are not pure blood, as they intermarry with gentile males, as their " blood " passes only through the mother being jewish. That is the reason why you see blond jews, or even Turkic jews.

@Nuri Natt @shan

@Pak-one

No one is saying they are fake but they can hardly be called the genuine article too, however no one is denying they may carry the Central Asian blood.

You also called the people of Pakhtoon descent in india [ and there are millions of them ] as cursed people, just because they do not look like pakhtoons living in KPK or Afghanistan or FATA or Balochistan

This is the most evil thing to say. Utterly evil. I have been quiet about it, but now I have to say to you brother, that what you said is the most evil thing, pure racism.

Pakhtoons in KPK / FATA are not pure either. Just because some of the pakhtoons went over to india and intermarried there and settled in india, DOES NOT make them cursed.

Allah knows who is cursed. And it is He who curses.

Pakistanis will be destroyed if they practice this evil of racism. Iblees said to Allah Subhanahu, that he will not bow down to Adam. Iblees said he was superior made out of fire and not clay. He was a racist. And look how iblees is cursed forever.

 

[Multani]

It is racists who are cursed.

Our Prophet said that all tribes should intermarry with each other [ yet maintain their tribal identity ]. Tribes in Hijaz intermarried with each other, yet maintained their tribal identities. Don't pakhtoon tribes intermarry within each other?

This intermarrying within one's own biradari for "pure blood" is pure racism. This is hindu paganism.

One can marry within one's biradari for cultural, religious, and social reasons, that's a different thing. But all these biradaris in Pakistan, rajputs, jatts, gujjars, buTTs, Mughals, blah blah, all have the same culture, same religious composition, and same social circumstances.

If they practice endogamy for "pure blood" reasons, it is nothing but hindu pagan racism.

 

[Marwat Khan Lodhi]

Yes, that is true. It is a fact that Chughtai Mughals in Kashmir and Northern Punjab are of Turkic ancestry.

However, honestly, can even the Jatts, Rajputs, and all other "pure bloods" be really called the genuine article?

Ghilzais themselves have turk/Tajik/Persian/greek/mongol/pakhtoon/indian blood mixed into them

The Hindus and Budhist pakhtoons in Kandaahar, Laghman, Ghaur, intermarried with hindu high castes in india [ even though they were pakhtoons ], before their conversion to Islam

jatts and rajputs are themselves mixed bloods.

No blood is pure, it is all mixed. In Pakistan today, 2% of each community is intermarrying with others. There is no such thing as pure blood. This is essentially hidden racism of the most ugly kind.

Even the jews are not pure blood, as they intermarry with gentile males, as their " blood " passes only through the mother being jewish. That is the reason why you see blond jews, or even Turkic jews.

@Nuri Natt @shan

@Pak-one




You also called the people of Pakhtoon descent in india [ and there are millions of them ] as cursed people, just because they do not look like pakhtoons living in KPK or Afghanistan or FATA or Balochistan

This is the most evil thing to say. Utterly evil. I have been quiet about it, but now I have to say to you brother, that what you said is the most evil thing, pure racism.

Pakhtoons in KPK / FATA are not pure either. Just because some of the pakhtoons went over to india and intermarried there and settled in india, DOES NOT make them cursed.

Allah knows who is cursed. And it is He who curses.

Pakistanis will be destroyed if they practice this evil of racism. Iblees said to Allah Subhanahu, that he will not bow down to Adam. Iblees said he was superior made out of fire and not clay. He was a racist. And look how iblees is cursed forever.

Pakhtun is the person who speaks pashto, who identified himself with pashto and who do pashto. If your ancestors were pakhtuns long time ago but now speak sindhi then you are simply sindhi. Quran says that tribes and qaum are for identity. Claiming arab or turkic identity while speaking different langauge with different culture, is non-sense....thats what we call racism