I don't think so. That is a subsequent derivative of the discussion that flows from the original proposition.
If you say so. Looking at the history on this forum, you will excuse me for not being completely taken in though.
If you are referring to @
faithfulguy , he is not one of my favourite posters, but he is making some pretty effective points. I think he should be heard, not abused.
Let's not waste time on him. He is not worth it.
This conflates two different bodies of thought: the first being the attempt to justify colonial domination of India per se, the second being to understand their own social structures and political and financial networks in Europe, and even in the world.
None of which was concerned with objective history. Won't you say?
The outcome can't be said to be just an academic exercise but was designed to get premediated results.
I suppose you mean those of us who are opposed to the OOI theory, and believe that the AIT itself is flawed, and have evolved it to a better, more suited narrative. Your military metaphors are noted with interest; they might return at some future date.
That is a convenient way to put it. The reality is very different.
OOI is a very recent theory and you are welcome not to "believe" it. It is just a hypothesis after all just like the AIT (however one chooses to expand it).
You may find a version of the AIT "more suited" (whatever that is supposed to mean), it doesn't make it any more than a theory that is based not on any real evidence but on linguistic arguments. Whatever I have seen of those arguments, I have not come away impressed. The alternatives could be more elegant and simpler.
Anyway the AIT is something which was created for the first time by the colonialists, for which there is no evidence in the real world, never was, no trace of memory in any people, no records, no archaeological evidence. Not even any river names and place names in North India that support the theory (you know that is a big hole, for the proponents of AIT, it is just "surprising")?
Just nada, zilch, shunya.
There is of course an argument for common origin of the Indo Aryan languages but the way it has been used to politicize the debate in India is another matter.
I note that you are now wholly in the ranks of the Hindutva crowd.
Whatever that is supposed to mean. I am proud of my country, my religion, my ancient civilization and I respect the right of everyone else to be proud of their own.
Ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti
I am proud to be from the unique Dharma that recognized what seems obvious to me that there are multiple paths to the truth.
Anyway, was this also a "subsequent derivative"?
Here we go.
Interesting to see how you practice what you preach. This seems to be a single-minded concentration on the interaction, and not on the facts of the discussion. Isn't that precisely what you complained against?
Quite a flourish, but what precisely did you add, besides a commentary on the way that the topic was discussed, rather than contributing to the discussion on the topic?
You are right. This part was about the tactics used by the brand of "historians" that I was talking of. It is important to understand their modus operandi and motives after all. It is a very repeatable and often repeated pattern and I have seen it multiple times here as well.
Anyway, the issue is also the strong political overtones this theory has even today, what the purveyors intend to achieve through it and the real damage that the country is suffering because of this spurious theory.
Also the very clear desire of some people to have the narrative of India and Hinduism continue to be defined by outsiders with their own motives. I have seen their discomfort at the very sight of an Indian and a Hindu defining that narrative. All other countries' and religious groups' narratives are primarily defined by insiders, here we have a leftist brigade that tries to make sure our narrative is outsourced to a cabal of "academics" that are patting each others' back with sham "peer reviews" that never get too uncomfortable.
If it pleases you to think that you won a famous victory, keep dreaming on. Good that you have such an excellent opinion of yourself. Someone has to, after all.
As far as the rest of the world is concerned, I believe that our respective ratings tell the tale in clear and direct terms.
Really? Ratings on an anonymous forum are supposed to tell a tale now!