What's new

How Much of Indian History Is Really True?

Just watched it, Also had not heard of the battle of Bahraich, also the example of Zimbabwe city he gave was very interesting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zimbabwe


incredible how a similar stupid attitude exists in India and is paraded as a "liberal/modern/progressive" view in India. knew the example of Ashoka he used as had already read the article.

Would love to hear more about the Iron part, all I've seen till now are some news articles, and not an in depth story. Looking forward to read his book on Naval and Maritime history of India!
Glad to see that many people in the audience have been thinking about such things it's incredible how this cabal has perpetuated this nonsense for so long.
Yes Zimbabwe's example was just apt.
Haven't we often called Africa as the dark continent, assuming the British were right.
Sanyal says, not enough matter has been excavated to be used as proof for the use of iron. The digging is at a fledgling state as of now...
Archeologists have to do more excavations in order to make their discovery believable to others around the world, or it will be written off due to insufficient evidences.
But whatever has been recovered from Hyderabad is fascinating he says.
 
Last edited:
.
indian history is indeed confusing. neutrally speaking. after 100 years how will indian history teacher defends that they won the 1965 war but started to celebrate it after 40+ years. or we were not aligned with any nation but we had defence pacts with soviets and then later US. just like now i had seen indians asking questions that why nehru went to UN on kashmir. alot of such questions.
 
.
Yes Zimbabwe's example was just apt.
Haven't we often called Africa as the dark continent, assuming the British
Yeah, it is a 5 marks question in CBSE, "Why is Africa referred to as a dark continent?" I still remember learning it for exams :lol:

Sanyal says, not enough matter has been excavated to be used as proof for the use of iron. The digging is at a fledgling state as of now...
Archeologists have to do more excavations in order to make their discovery believable to others around the world, or it will be written off due to insufficient evidences.
But whatever has been recovered from Hyderabad is fascinating he says.
At 1:09 he seems to say it with some certainty, and at 1:19 he says "many of it is early stages" while referencing some neolithic structures, and then goes on to say " but one thing that is clear, is that Iron was an Indian innovation, not only was it an Indian innovation, it was a central south Indian innovation"
 
Last edited:
.
Yeah, it is a 5 marks question in CBSE, "Why is Africa referred to as a dark continent?" I still remember learning it for exams :lol:
I was still in the office when I posted my reply, ergo I sounded distracted. Infact the sentence wasn't even completed.
Glad you understood it. :)


At 1:09 he seems to say it with pretty certainty, and at 1:19 he says many of it is early stages while referencing some neolithic structures, and then goes on to say " but one thing that is clear, is that Iron was an Indian innovation, not only was it an Indian innovation, it was a central south Indian innovation"
Reminds me of how Indians were known for smelting zinc with a distillation process. Ostensibly they used an inverted furnace for the process.
There's a video doing rounds on whastapp, I'm sure you must have seen it too.
 
Last edited:
.
Indian history begins when east india company fused different states with no commonality together for their own nefarious colonial interests, thankfully our grandfathers split the artificial entity asunder into 3 pieces, with the amount of insurgencies at play in the the largest of the 3 chunks I suspect it will split into a further 21 states.

Only the NAME India was given by the British

India was earlier known as Hindustan and before that as Bharat ; and earlier
during the time of Aryans it was called Aryavrat

India has been a CONTINUOS civilisation for 5000 years

Your hatred and Ill feelings towards India will NOT do anything to India
 
.
Only the NAME India was given by the British

India was earlier known as Hindustan and before that as Bharat ; and earlier
during the time of Aryans it was called Aryavrat

India has been a CONTINUOS civilisation for 5000 years

Your hatred and Ill feelings towards India will NOT do anything to India
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, of usually absurd posts from your good self this one is in a league of its own, so as if kashmiris or punjabis say 500 years back were caling themselves bharatis or hindustanis :lol:, and what the hell has aryavat got to do with tamil nadu , bangals etc, honestly @Stephen Cohen before you embarrass your self any further why do you not delete your post as even your fellow contrymen must be:o: exactly.Kudos

@Zibago @PaklovesTurkiye @The Sandman @Moonlight
this @Stephen Cohen chap needs to try for some standup, he seems to have talent, what do you folks thing of his hilarious post.Kudos
 
.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, of usually absurd posts from your good self this one is in a league of its own, so as if kashmiris or punjabis say 500 years back were caling themselves bharatis or hindustanis :lol:, and what the hell has aryavat got to do with tamil nadu , bangals etc, honestly @Stephen Cohen before you embarrass your self any further why do you not delete your post as even your fellow contrymen must be:o: exactly.Kudos

I would have replied to your post had it made ANY SENSE

And By the way MANY MANY Thanks to your Grandfather for Partition

We will always be grateful to them
 
. . . .
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, of usually absurd posts from your good self this one is in a league of its own, so as if kashmiris or punjabis say 500 years back were caling themselves bharatis or hindustanis :lol:, and what the hell has aryavat got to do with tamil nadu , bangals etc, honestly @Stephen Cohen before you embarrass your self any further why do you not delete your post as even your fellow contrymen must be:o: exactly.Kudos

@Zibago @PaklovesTurkiye @The Sandman @Moonlight
this @Stephen Cohen chap needs to try for some standup, he seems to have talent, what do you folks thing of his hilarious post.Kudos

Their version of history is just not understandable for me....I don't know where are they going and bringing terms like ashoka or other stuff....No clue I have and I also suspect their version of history is highly influenced by Hindutuva RSS ideology....

His posts are flying above my heads....:-)

I believe this following is the right one and close to reality.....A comment I saw on different forum....

Pakistan and India came into being in 1947. Before partition, there was no INDIA but SUBCONTINENT. So, Pakistan and India are both in Sub Continent, just a line was drawn in 1947.
Remember there was no such nation called India before the British came but semi autonomous to autonomous regions and kingdoms. The region West of the Indus has always been separate by virtue of ethnicity culture language and faith from East of the Indus. Even with the nations along the Ganges there are a variety of cultures, ethnicities, languages and even within the Vedic faiths there are vast differences but one common theme polytheism hence why the British classified all the different vedic faiths with their thousands of ways as Hinduism.

Now going back to the Muslims, the West of Indus referred as Mughal Empire at one stage had one third of the sub continent which is East of the Indus. Jehanghir the Mughal King right the way to Aurangzaib were among the richest men in the world for their time. The British East India company sought to capitalize on the ailing aging Mughal empire which was pretty much on its knees and Crumbling.

So thus the campaign of divide and conquer began and the British colony in the sub continent was referred to as India. Remember Dutch India was Ceylon and the Pacific and Portugese India was Goa and Spain found its Indies in the Americas. By this I am inferring there was no monolithic entity known as India.

The history of subcontinent shows you it was never monolithic the two most dominant empires which controlled the vast majority were the Mughals and The British the rest is unverified history.

Pakistan is liberated lands belonging to Muslims. Punjab was Muslim way before the dawn of Sikhism....

 
.
Pakistan and India came into being in 1947. Before partition, there was no INDIA but SUBCONTINENT. So, Pakistan and India are both in Sub Continent, just a line was drawn in 1947.
Remember there was no such nation called India before the British came but semi autonomous to autonomous regions and kingdoms. The region West of the Indus has always been separate by virtue of ethnicity culture language and faith from East of the Indus. Even with the nations along the Ganges there are a variety of cultures, ethnicities, languages and even within the Vedic faiths there are vast differences but one common theme polytheism hence why the British classified all the different vedic faiths with their thousands of ways as Hinduism.


The history of subcontinent shows you it was never monolithic the two most dominant empires which controlled the vast majority were the Mughals and The British the rest is unverified history.

Pakistan is liberated lands belonging to Muslims. Punjab was Muslim way before the dawn of Sikhism....


Tell me was there any land before British or mughals arrived?

If so any chance human beings existed on this side?

Or is it on 1947, large mass of land collided with Asian sub continent , countries magically appeared
 
.
I have edited my 1st post on this thread, added summary of the video for those who don't Hv time to watch it.
Are you someone from historum?

@Star Wars - Post #9.
"Are you someone from historum?"
Nope, thx for the brief points of the video. Any thing interesting that catches my attention, I do try to make sense of history from literature of the period. It is indeed interesting that when we studied parts of Mudrarakhsasa , never did understood context wrt history but only as another story. Reading dickens throws more light about french revolution than from history books or official accounts.
 
.
Only the NAME India was given by the British

India was earlier known as Hindustan and before that as Bharat ; and earlier
during the time of Aryans it was called Aryavrat

India has been a CONTINUOS civilisation for 5000 years

Your hatred and Ill feelings towards India will NOT do anything to India
You mean all the history as per Indian claims true then why you people got annoyed when we talk about Vedic Tech claims.
 
.
Tell me was there any land before British or mughals arrived?

If so any chance human beings existed on this side?

Or is it on 1947, large mass of land collided with Asian sub continent , countries magically appeared

Who's is denying all these? All I m saying that there were no homogeneous nations in sub continent ever....
 
.
Back
Top Bottom