How Much of Indian History Is Really True?

[footmarks]

Didn't see the video, but I think there are many versions of history which are not entirely fact based.

For one, there was no Aryan "invasion" and forced displacement of natives. Aryans were basically anti-Persians (read sura and asura meaning in both ancient cultures). Overtime they settled in northern areas of India, brought their own culture and traditions which was, coincidently, not very different from what natives believed in (at least in terms of basic religious traditions and theology relating to deities and gods). over time, they slowly assimilated with local tribes, adopted many of their gods, and lost many of their too in due course. It was a slow and steady assimilation with local populace.

 

[Levina]

Its a long one and has a Q&A starting from middle of it which makes it interesting instead of just lecture.

Speaker tries to impress our british imposed history is bunkum , tries to prove it by questioning the ashoka's greatness based on his historical research. Facts stated and intention of speaker might be debatable but brings home the fact our history is nothing but biased opinion rather than any having factual background with hard evidence.
.

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.

 

[VivasvatManu]

British History of India is built on the complete rejection of the local Indian History which was recorded in our books.

So pretty much most of it is rubbish. All of it is hypothesis build on flimsy circumstantial evidence and a devious agenda to wipe the slate clean.

 

[TejasMk3]

4. Ashoka: The emperor was his main topic of discussion. Ashoka, as is projected in our books, wasnt as kind.
Myths about Ashoka:
a)
Myth- He switched to Buddhism after the battle of Kalinga.
Truth- he did so much before the battle.
b) myth- he switched to Buddhism because it was a religion of peace.
Truth- He converted to Buddhism after burning alive the crown prince and massacring his immediate relatives who were Jains or Aajeevika(I hope I got the spelling right). So Buddhists were the only ones who might have supported him.
C) Myth- Ashoka stopped massacaring ppl after Kalinga happened.
Truth- He killed 18k ppl after battle of Kalinga.(forgot the name of the place Mr Sanyal mentioned)

There was an article about this on swarajya:
http://swarajyamag.com/culture/ashoka-the-not-so-great
Edit:realize the author is the speaker too.

Seems interesting, will watch it later!

 

[Indus Pakistan]

How much of Indian

I let my mate (below) answer that rather eloguently.

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,

If you deleted out Pakistani (Indus) history out this chap would have introduced himself, talked for 1 minute about Indian (Ganga) history and then he would have gone mute for next two hours. Nothing else to say.

 

[footmarks]

I let my mate (below) answer that rather eloguently.


If you deleted out Pakistani (Indus) history out this chap would have introduced himself, talked for 1 minute about Indian (Ganga) history and then he would have gone mute for next two hours. Nothing else to say.

Pakistani (indus) history was also Indian history pre 1947. much before britishers came, much before mughals came. And much before islam came into existance. The topic can very well be changed to "how much of pakistani history is really true" without changing any discussions.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Indian

Well before the Britisher Indian's (Ganga) came Pakistan (Indus) history also included Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Iraq and Greece. I bet you did not know that did you? They don't teach you that at "Hindutva school of Real History"?

Dumb posts will elicit dumb replies.

 

[footmarks]

Well before the Britisher Indian's (Ganga) came Pakistan (Indus) history also included Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Iraq and Greece. I bet you did not know that did you? They don't teach you that at "Hindutva school of Real History"?

Dumb posts will elicit dumb replies.

All I said is - pakistan was not existing, not even in british india. so whatever history you look at, be it indus, be it ganga, it is Indian history. India, which columbus tried to find, which alexander tried to conquer, which mauryans ruled, the area which lies between himalayas in north, hindukush in west, and seas around the south and east.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Pakistani (indus) history was also Indian history pre 1947. much before britishers came, much before mughals came. And much before islam came into existance. The topic can very well be changed to "how much of pakistani history is really true" without changing any discussions.

Pakistanis have an allergy with the terms - 'India', 'Bharatiya'. If you use the term 'South Asian' history, you won't face any problems.

Which is why it is best NOT to engage with Pakistanis when dealing with Indian history (including 'Pakistan' 's) history. Just focus on the topic and those researching it.

 

[footmarks]

Pakistanis have an allergy with the terms - 'India', 'Bharatiya'. If you use the term 'South Asian' history, you won't face any problems.

Which is why it is best NOT to engage with Pakistanis when dealing with Indian history (including 'Pakistan' 's) history. Just focus on the topic and those researching it.

Agreed, but the thing is, India retained the name of the bigger region existing before partition. And incidently, the history don't stop at modern borders.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

And incidently, the history don't stop at modern borders.

May be it stops for Pakistanis. No other country faces this identity issue. Hence, it is best to consciously avoid them in this matter. It is a reflex action for most/many Pakistanis. Their country, their rules.

But we need not 'convince' Pakistanis about the legitimacy of our history.

 

[Levina]

There was an article about this on swarajya:
http://swarajyamag.com/culture/ashoka-the-not-so-great
Edit:realize the author is the speaker too.

Seems interesting, will watch it later!

Thanks for the article, he has presented the evidences well.

 

[scionoftheindus]

I let my mate (below) answer that rather eloguently.


If you deleted out Pakistani (Indus) history out this chap would have introducedworelf, talked for 1 minute about Indian (Ganga) history and then he would have gone mute for next two hours. Nothing else to say.

Mr.genius..you just made fool out of yourself..why are you blabbering nonsense without even going through the video?He didn't talk anything about pakistan..he just talked a few words about Aryans that too in the middle .He mentioned it only when one of the audience put a question to him regarding something.
By looking at the title of the video ,you thought it might be a lecture on Indian history chronologically..hahaha

 

[TejasMk3]

Thanks for the article, he has presented the evidences well.

Just watched it, 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

When white colonialists like Cecil Rhodes first saw the ruins, they saw them as a sign of the great riches that the area would yield to its new masters.[38] Gertrude Caton-Thompson recognised that the builders were indigenous Africans, but she characterised the site as the "product of an infantile mind" built by a subjugated society.[85][86][87] Pikirayi and Kaarsholm suggest that this presentation of Great Zimbabwe was partly intended to encourage settlement and investment in the area.[38][88] The official line in Rhodesia during the 1960s and 1970s was that the structures were built by non-blacks and the government censored archaeologists who disputed this.[89] According to Paul Sinclair, interviewed for None But Ourselves:[7]

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.

 

[django]

This is my personal opinion and i think that it doesn't matter from where you start the history, but today India is a large country and it has tremendous influence in the global scheme of things and the reason it has this influence is because of the size of the country. If people spilt the country into many smaller countries then they will loose this influence that they hold collectively.

As long as all the people in the union are treated equally and provided the same opportunities, then they will grow faster. If everyone starts thinking about just their tribes or ethnicity, they they will collectively fall.

They have 21 insurgencies which are not going to go away anytime soon, I hope we have our own Kulbudashan Yadavs in place to add fuel to the fire.Kudos

your granfathers did not split, british did..

They did and we are proud of it, if their was no demand for separation Brits would have done jack....we fought for our rights and got our rights and God willing other states in hindia will follow suit.kudos

I am really thankful to your grandfather that they made a call to move away. World is witnessing how good was the decision of your forefather due to which we are at better situation today. I hope that your grandfather would have taken all of their grandkids along with you rather than leaving them as orphan in this land...

My grandfather did not move away, we live in the land of our ancestors, do not tell us about leaving our lands, we got independence from artificial British entity, and we are thankful for it, ask the Muslims of Gujrat when they had to watch their daughters ,mothers, sisters, wives get raped and burned alive in front of their eyes by RSS raam laals, if they are in a good situation......exactly.

India has a large history which no other country has. So obviously newly formed countries and entities with brain-washed false history will definitely be jealous and mock it. Who gave a damn ?

So India is one natural homogeneous State with a common history?

I let my mate (below) answer that rather eloguently.


If you deleted out Pakistani (Indus) history out this chap would have introduced himself, talked for 1 minute about Indian (Ganga) history and then he would have gone mute for next two hours. Nothing else to say.

Too be honest I did not even watch the video, and your comments are very accurate.Kudos bhai.

Pakistani (indus) history was also Indian history pre 1947. much before britishers came, much before mughals came. And much before islam came into existance. The topic can very well be changed to "how much of pakistani history is really true" without changing any discussions.

Are you truly delusional man, historically speaking their is no such thing as your so called mighty India.

All I said is - pakistan was not existing,

Who cares what you say, their was no such concept of nationhood for India prior to the British arrival, from Pakistan to Bangladesh their are many diverse nations which have zilch in common which have been part of different empires over the millennia yet somehow you are trying to project them as one homogeneous nation, man you are truly and utterly delusional like that fool Tarek Fatah who makes the most bizarre historical claims ie Afghanistan is also Indian nation lol.