Children of the Indus

[Max]

- it had a distinct people and culture that was geographically confined by the Indus River Valley.

So the used to live in jail, and no one else was allowed to breath there... keep ur theories to yourself..

i never talked about distinct race or culture.. i just talked about term India and Indonesia..

 

[Tiger7]

Indus is mother of all south, southeast Asian civilization..

Yeah agree you have more to do with Indonesia bcoz of close proximity but what they (gangaland dynesties exported through those writing? Hinduism? Buddhism?

who wrote vedas which led to Hinduism and which further led to birth of Buddhism? it was people of Indus.. who civilized wanna be Indians aka gangalanders? people of Indus..

anyways thats what written in Wikipedia about name Indonesia..

The name Indonesia derives from the Greek translation of the Indus River and the word nèsos, meaning "Indian island".[12]

India means

Historically the name India may referred to either the region of Greater India and the Indian subcontinent. Today it refers to to the contemporary Republic of India located therein.The name is derived from the name of the Sindhu (Indus River) and has been in use in Greek since Herodotus (4th century BC).[1] The term appeared in Old English as early the 9th century and reemerged in Modern English in the 17th century.

So Indian subcontinent, Indian ocean is named after Indus not after republic of india which never existed before 1947..

No you are wrong. The greatest Dynasties of ancient and medieval India like the Maurya, Gupta, Chalukya, Rashtrakuta and Chola Dynasties were all founded in India while the Indus region was not able to even produce 1 great Dynasty in the past. These Dynasties influenced whole Southeast Asia and even whole South Asia.

 

[Max]

No you are wrong. The greatest Dynasties of ancient and medieval India like the Maurya, Gupta, Chalukya, Rashtrakuta and Chola Dynasties were all founded in India while the Indus region was not able to even produce 1 great Dynasty in the past. These Dynasties influenced whole Southeast Asia and even whole South Asia.

These kingdoms were not older then IVC, Even if i accept your point, then tell us who was the one who civilized gangalanders? Which civilization they used to follow?

you followers spread ideology, way of life of Indus hence this whole subcontinent is named after land of Indus, not gangaland.

 

[Tiger7]

These kingdoms were not older then IVC, Even if i accept your point, then tell us who was the one who civilized gangalanders? Which civilization they used to follow?

you followers spread ideology, way of life of Indus hence this whole subcontinent is named after land of Indus, not gangaland.

Again wrong. We do know almost nothing about the Indus civilization as historians can not decipher the Indus script.
Perhaps it was never a real script. On the other hand the earliest written language and literature emerged in India as the oldest literature of South Asia are the Prakrit and Sanskrit literature of eastern India and the Sangam literature of south India. The Indus region never had its own literature or identity.

 

[Max]

Again wrong. We do know almost nothing about the Indus civilization as historians can not decipher the Indus script.
Perhaps it was never a real script. On the other hand the earliest written language and literature emerged in India as the oldest literature of South Asia are the Prakrit and Sanskrit literature of eastern India and the Sangam literature of south India. The Indus region never had its own literature or identity.

@Tergon18 @Kaptaan

 

[Tergon18]

Again wrong. We do know almost nothing about the Indus civilization as historians can not decipher the Indus script.
Perhaps it was never a real script. On the other hand the earliest written language and literature emerged in India as the oldest literature of South Asia are the Prakrit and Sanskrit literature of eastern India and the Sangam literature of south India. The Indus region never had its own literature or identity.

We do not need to decipher the script of the Indus Valley Civilization to know that the civilization actually existed and it was one of the oldest in the world, Mehrgarh included (sometimes counted as seperate as IVC, but anyway) and most advanced. Ofcourse, in all probability, the IVC script was a legitimate one. If they had advanced pottery, homes, art and sewerage etc., all quite well ahead for their time, what makes you think that they would not have literature as well? That is a very absurd notion.

And secondly, you seem to be conviniently forgetting Rig Vedic Civilization and literature, which too is one of the oldest in the world and the most advanced for its age. It was formed mainly around 1500 BC at the Indus Region, Pakistan. This was a time when both those Eastern India and South India regions that you have mentioned were forested regions and had no culture or civilization. These people were still dancing around naked in trees when great works of literature and civilization were being formed at the Indus.

 

[Tiger7]

We do not need to decipher the script of the Indus Valley Civilization to know that the civilization actually existed and it was one of the oldest in the world, Mehrgarh included (sometimes counted as seperate as IVC, but anyway) and most advanced. Ofcourse, in all probability, the IVC script was a legitimate one. If they had advanced pottery, homes, art and sewerage etc., all quite well ahead for their time, what makes you think that they would not have literature as well? That is a very absurd notion.

And secondly, you seem to be conviniently forgetting Rig Vedic Civilization and literature, which too is one of the oldest in the world and the most advanced for its age. It was formed mainly around 1500 BC at the Indus Region, Pakistan. This was a time when both Eastern India and South India were forested regions and had no culture or civilization. These people were still dancing around naked in trees when great works of literature and civilization were being forged at the Indus.

You seem to forget that even the Vedic society did not have any writing systems. The Vedic hyms were not written down until the 3rd century BC. Before the 3rd century BC the Vedic hyms were orally passed down so it is quite possible that the Indus Valley people did not have a real writing system. The oldest literature of South Asia are the Prakrit literature of eastern India and the Sangam literature of south India and both literature emerged in the 3rd century BC. On the other hand the Indus region was not able to produce its own literature which is the main reason why we know more about ancient eastern India and ancient south India than the Indus region.

 

[Tergon18]

You seem to forget that even the Vedic society did not have any writing systems. The Vedic hyms were not written down until the 3rd century BC. Before the 3rd century BC the Vedic hyms were orally passed down so it is quite possible that the Indus Valley people did not have a real writing system. The oldest literature of South Asia are the Prakrit literature of eastern India and the Sangam literature of south India and both literature emerged in the 3rd century BC. On the other hand the Indus region was not able to produce its own literature which is the main reason why we know more about ancient eastern India and ancient south India than the Indus region.

Well, the Rig Veda and Vedic literature was mostly carried on by oral tradition, yes, however the earliest evidence of it being written down comes from 11th century Nepal. And anyway, the literature still is Rig Vedic and is of the Indus, its only written in a seperate place. It is wholly possible that Rig Vedic literature was written down earlier on at the Indus but got lost since it is actually more than 3000 years old, which is what most scholars speculate as well.

And about the Indus Valley Civilization, it is pretty much obvious that they do have a script, the only problem with it is that it is yet to be deciphered, which was the same case with Egyptian hieroglyphs. And just like the hieroglyphs, I'm sure that it will eventually be deciphered as well.

About the Indus Region and literature, I'm sure you have heard of Taxila and Taxila University which was one of the oldest and most advanced centre of learning of it's era and people from all over Asia and even Greece, Rome etc. came here to study. Indus has existed and thrived for thousands of years before Ganges-Dravida even learned to be civilized. That is fact.

 

[Tiger7]

Well, the Rig Veda and Vedic literature was mostly carried on by oral tradition, yes, however the earliest evidence of it being written down comes from 11th century Nepal. And anyway, the literature still is Rig Vedic and is of the Indus, its only written in a seperate place. It is wholly possible that Rig Vedic literature was written down earlier on at the Indus but got lost since it is actually more than 3000 years old, which is what most scholars speculate as well.

And about the Indus Valley Civilization, it is pretty much obvious that they do have a script, the only problem with it is that it is yet to be deciphered, which was the same case with Egyptian hieroglyphs. And just like the hieroglyphs, I'm sure that it will eventually be deciphered as well.

About the Indus Region and literature, I'm sure you have heard of Taxila and Taxila University which was one of the oldest and most advanced centre of learning of it's era and people from all over Asia and even Greece, Rome etc. came here to study. Indus has existed and thrived for thousands of years before Ganges-Dravida even learned to be civilized. That is fact.

Not really. We barely have any ancient written records from the Indus region. The earliest literature is the Prakrit literature from eastern India and the Sangam literature from south India. We know from foreign records that there existed some kind of institution in Taxila but not any texts from Taxila were preserved. The earliest inscriptions of South Asia were made during the Maurya period in eastern India and it was this script which spread to the Indus region. Which confirms that the Indus people did not have their own literature. The first great historical Dynasties in South Asian history were also established in eastern India and southern India which were the Maurya Dynasty and the Satavahana Dynasty. On the other hand the Indus region was after the fall of the Indus Valley civilization mostly dominated by tribal communities which is the main reason why the Indus region was mostly ruled by foreign invaders

 

[Tergon18]

Not really. We barely have any ancient written records from the Indus region. The earliest literature is the Prakrit literature from eastern India and the Sangam literature from south India. We know from foreign records that there existed some kind of institution in Taxila but not any texts from Taxila were preserved. The earliest inscriptions of South Asia were made during the Maurya period in eastern India and it was this script which spread to the Indus region. Which confirms that the Indus people did not have their own literature. The first great historical Dynasties in South Asian history were also established in eastern India and southern India which were the Maurya Dynasty and the Satavahana Dynasty. On the other hand the Indus region was after the fall of the Indus Valley civilization mostly dominated by tribal communities which is the main reason why the Indus region was mostly ruled by foreign invaders

Nope, technically the oldest written records are those of the Indus Valley Civilization, which however are yet to be deciphered, but that does not mean that they dont exist (same used to be the case with Egyptian hieroglyphs). And all modern scholars believe that the Rig Vedic texts were actually written down much before, however they didnt survive into the present day, but thats a different matter. And there are numerous records both foreign and native about Taxila, which many speculate to be as old as the 8th century BC, a time when the Ganges-Dravida land knew not of language or civilization, and apart from that there are actual ruins and remains of its site.
Anyway, most of these 'foreign' kingdoms actually got absorbed into the local sphere and had local variants of them. It was geographic positioning more than anything which caused this, being right next to or at the crossroads of Central, South and West Asia.
However, the fact remains that the Indus Region has been inhabited for several thousand years before Ganges-Dravida even got civilized. Those regions only got civilized in the Middle Iron Age (800-500 BC) when proper axes were invented to cut down it's forests, which is relatively recent. The Indus, however has had advanced civilizations like Mehrgarh which existed more than 8000 years ago. That makes the region quite unique in the history and fabric of the world. All this while Ganges-Dravida was inhabited with primitive forest tribes with no culture, language or civilization. This was while IVC and Rig Vedic Civilization, with one of the oldest and advanced cultures for its age, flourished at the Indus Region.
It is pretty much obvious who civilized whom and who owes it's history to whom.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

@Tergon18 You deserve a positive rating for that. It's still case of neighbour claming everything under the next door's neighbours property as his.

And Indus Region gave everything, civilization, culture, history and even the damned name !

 

[Tergon18]

I think it was Adi Shankara, an 8th century Hindu saint, more than any of us or Aitzaz Ahsan really, that had the strongest case for the seperation of the Indus Basin from Ganges-Dravida land.
He was the one who formed 'Shankaracharya' or the heads of monasteries in four corners (in addition to a central one) of what he considered his land.

Shankaracharya (IAST: Śaṅkarācārya, Shankara acharya) is a commonly used title of heads of monasteries called mathas in the Advaita Vedanta tradition. The title derives from Adi Shankara, an 8th-century CE reformer of Hinduism. He is honored as Jagadguru, a title that was used earlier only to Krishna.


●The Dakshiānmnāya Sri Sharada Peetham(main matha) at Sringeri Sharada Peetham in Shringeri, Karnataka.

●The Uttarāmnāya matha (northern matha) at Jyotir Math in the city of Jyotirmath also known as Joshimath, Uttarakhand.

●The Pūrvāmnāya matha (eastern matha), or the Govardhana matha at Puri, Odisha.

●The Paśchimāmnāya matha (western matha), or the Shāradā Pitha at Dwarka, Gujarat.

●Finally Sarvagna Peetham Kanchi Moolāmnāya Sri kanchi Kamakoti Peetham(Sarvjna Peetham), or the Kamakoti at Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu.

The four points or mathas of Adi Shankara:

None of his four points of India are in the Pakistan Region or Indus Basin, which pretty much proves that the region was considered distinct, even 1500 years ago.
Adi Shankara could be called the proginetor of the Indus theory or Indus Saga of Aitzaz Ahsan and as the one who really made the basis for it.

 

[Bharat Muslim]

View attachment 318499 I think it was Adi Shankara, an 8th century Hindu saint, more than any of us or Aitzaz Ahsan really, that had the strongest case for the seperation of the Indus Basin from Ganges-Dravida land.
He was the one who formed 'Shankaracharya' or the heads of monasteries in four corners (in addition to a central one) of what he considered his land.

Shankaracharya (IAST: Śaṅkarācārya, Shankara acharya) is a commonly used title of heads of monasteries called mathas in the Advaita Vedanta tradition. The title derives from Adi Shankara, an 8th-century CE reformer of Hinduism. He is honored as Jagadguru, a title that was used earlier only to Krishna.


●The Dakshiānmnāya Sri Sharada Peetham(main matha) at Sringeri Sharada Peetham in Shringeri, Karnataka.

●The Uttarāmnāya matha (northern matha) at Jyotir Math in the city of Jyotirmath also known as Joshimath, Uttarakhand.

●The Pūrvāmnāya matha (eastern matha), or the Govardhana matha at Puri, Odisha.

●The Paśchimāmnāya matha (western matha), or the Shāradā Pitha at Dwarka, Gujarat.

●Finally Sarvagna Peetham Kanchi Moolāmnāya Sri kanchi Kamakoti Peetham(Sarvjna Peetham), or the Kamakoti at Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu.

The four points or mathas of Adi Shankara:

None of his four points of India are in the Pakistan Region or Indus Basin, which pretty much proves that the region was considered distinct, even 1500 years ago.
Adi Shankara could be called the proginetor of the Indus theory or Indus Saga of Aitzaz Ahsan and as the one who really made the basis for it.

How did you dig out this info? Did Aitzaz Ahsan tell you?

 

[Tergon18]

How did you dig out this info? Did Aitzaz Ahsan tell you?

What do you mean?

 

[Bharat Muslim]

What do you mean?

How do you find the relevant info in the spur of moment?