India's Confused Nationalism

[bronxbull]

joe shearer wants his 60s back,the lost generation when india n indians could have gone ahead n done so much.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I expected you to refute my points But never mind

1. India also tried initially to make Hindi a pan Indian language.

2. 'thousand other errors' - What were the other 999 errors? Besides how is Hindi 'communal to the core'? Imposing it can be ridiculous but never communal.

3. As for the fear of a Moslem invasion - now it may seem ridiculous. But similar invasions did happen from the lands that ravaged this land.

4. There is enough doubt whether the educated Muslims of India really wanted for an United India, especially after the formation of the Muslim League. Right from the Nineteenth century stalwarts like Sir Syed etc propagated an exclusivist approach for the Muslims.True, there were exceptions, but just that.

5. Savarkar was no man of steel, he never claimed to be one. That was Stalin Besides, he spent years in jail, unlike the tours that Gandhi did. He got two lifetimes as a sentence. He did what he could to get out. Much better than Gandhi's refusal to seek mercy on behalf of Bhagat Singh, Sukh and Rajguru in my honest opinion.

6. No ideology is flawless. Take the Dhimmi concept for example. Is it bad? It is bad for non Muslims, good for Muslims. Every ideology has its benefactors. Savarkar was honest, his strong views bare his steely convictions


Precisely. The Indian history had completely been hijacked by the powers that be. Only in the last decade or so, with the popularization of the Internet and other means, have other alternative schools of thought been appreciated. Call me a fanatic but Sitaram Goel's books (especially Hindu Temples – What Happened to Them ) are excellent scholarly works.
Also do read Arun Shourie's 'Eminent Historians'.

Completely hijacked by the powers that be? There is a whole world full of historians, Marxist and virulently anti-Marxist, who are united only in one respect.

Guess what that is.

Sitaram Goel and Arun Shourie as historians - right, that clearly proves that you, at least, are no fanatic, but a genuine professional historian.

 

[INDIC]

@SarthakGanguly @sreekumar @scorpionx

This is Daimabad bronze Chariot found in Maharashtra (2200-2000BC), so what's about the theory that Aryans brought chariots in India in 1500BC.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Completely hijacked by the powers that be? There is a whole world full of historians, Marxist and virulently anti-Marxist, who are united only in one respect.

Guess what that is.

Sitaram Goel and Arun Shourie as historians - right, that clearly proves that you, at least, are no fanatic, but a genuine professional historian.

I guess that is not being a snob?

I would certainly count on a Syracuse and Magsaysay scholar rather than an angry Marxist drunkard nutjob anyday.
As for you proving me to be a Hero or a Nero is well, to mildly put it - not worth my consideration. It is a fortune that people like you don't rule the world. In that case neither a degree less Bill Gates nor an Einstein could have made it big.

Besides your selective blasting is against the basics of making a valid argument let alone establish a point. Also the effects of the Internet will perhaps (correct me if I am wrong) escape you. A dictated State sponsored news is no longer possible. What was possible in the 80s is not possible now. Its tough - adjusting, but can't help

If your rage crosses certain limits, with respect to your failing health and age, I would request you to take some time off from the bourgeois ongoings of the thread. Best regards.

If you intend to take potshots at me and feel better please feel free to do so, but in Whatever or some other thread. Let's keep this thread free from blind mudslinging. If you have several points to counter with respect to Thapar or Goel etc, you may contribute here. I would be most glad to learn.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yes, the internet did a great work,I was extremely surprised by the way people try to defend Aryan Invasion Theory, some even branded me as Hindu extremist when I showed them genetic studies. I had a discussion with a guy who was claiming Sapta Sindhu can be anywhere outside India but not in India and he tried the neglect the reality that Sapta Sindhu of Rigveda and Hapta Hendu of Avesta are the same geographic location because it goes against AIT bullcrap. Because of internet I came to know that Vedic culture was the continuation of IVC while Rigveda was the part of Indus valley civilization itself(Cemetery H culture of Localization era of IVC). Yes, most baffling thing is those tom, dick and Harry who think that they are more Aryan than Indian when the same word Aryan was taken from Hindu scriptures.

Unfortunately for your Internet sources, there is still no valid link between Vedic literary, including oral tradition, records and the archaeologically verifiable remains of the IVC. Any more than there is between the Kurgan culture archaeology and PIE, although this happens to be the most widely accepted of the various hypotheses for dissemination of the Indo-European languages available. To quote from (what else?) the favourite intellectual resource of some revisionists out there,

The Kurgan hypothesis (also theory or model) is one of the proposals about early Indo-European origins, which postulates that the people of an archaeological "Kurgan culture" (a term grouping the Yamna, or Pit Grave, culture and its predecessors) in the Pontic steppe were the most likely speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language.

One of the proposals, not dogma. We are discussing pre-history here, not history.

When it was first proposed in 1956, in The Prehistory of Eastern Europe, Part 1, Marija Gimbutas's contribution to the search for Indo-European origins was a pioneeringinterdisciplinary synthesis of archaeology and linguistics. The Kurgan model of Indo-European origins identifies the Pontic-Caspian steppe as the Proto-Indo-European (PIE)Urheimat, and a variety of late PIE dialects are assumed to have been spoken across the region. According to this model, the Kurgan culture gradually expanded until it encompassed the entire Pontic-Caspian steppe, Kurgan IV being identified with the Pit Grave culture of around 3000 BC.



Historical spread of the chariot. Dates given in image are approximate BC years.
The mobility of the Kurgan culture facilitated its expansion over the entire Pit Grave region, and is attributed to the domestication of the horseand later the use of early chariots. The first strong archaeological evidence for the domestication of the horse comes from the Sredny Stog culture north of the Azov Sea in Ukraine, and would correspond to an early PIE or pre-PIE nucleus of the 5th millennium BC.

As hypotheses go, this is antiquated now, but it remains hypothesis because there has been proven linkage between archaeology and linguistics. A brilliant mental feat, but not a proven fact.

Regarding your Hindu extremist credentials, they are safe:

The term "kurganized" used by Gimbutas implied that the culture could have been spread by no more than small bands who imposed themselves on local people as an elite. This idea of the IE language and its daughter-languages diffusing east and west without mass movement has proved popular with archaeologists. However, geneticists have opened up the possibility that these languages spread with mass movement.



Haplogroup R1a1a distribution.
Geneticists have noted the correlation of a specific haplogroup R1a1a defined by the M17 (SNP marker) of the Y chromosome and speakers of Indo-European languages in Europe and Asia. The connection between Y-DNA R-M17 and the spread of Indo-European languages was first proposed by Zerjal and colleagues in 1999.[8] and subsequently supported by other authors.[9] Spencer Wells deduced from this correlation that R1a1a arose on the Pontic-Caspian steppe.[10]

Subsequent studies on ancient DNA tested the hypothesis. Skeletons from the Andronovo culture horizon (strongly supposed to be culturally Indo-Iranian) of south Siberia were tested for DNA. Of the 10 males, 9 carried Y-DNA R1a1a (M17). Fairly close matches were found between the ancient DNA STR haplotypes and those in living persons in both eastern Europe and Siberia. Mummies in the Tarim Basin also proved to carry R1a1a and were presumed to be ancestors of Tocharian speakers.

A study published in 2012 states that "R1a1a7-M458 was absent in Afghanistan, suggesting that R1a1a-M17 does not support, as previously thought, expansions from the Pontic Steppe, bringing the Indo-European languages to Central Asia and India." However, this study does not in any way conflict with the hypothesis of expansions from the Pontic Steppe, since the study does not take into account the early wave of the Indo-European speaking people. Even today the R1a1a7-M458 are very rare, almost absent, in the area of the proposed Indo-European origins between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea; the R1a1a7-M458 marker first started in Poland 10,000 years ago (KYA), and arrived in the western fringes of the Pontic steppe 5,000 years ago and the eastern fringes only 2,500 years ago, while the first Indo-European wave (4500–4000 BC Early PIE) began up to 4,000 years before this.

The DNA testing of remains from kurgans also indicated a high prevalence of people with characteristics such as blue (or green) eyes, fair skin and light hair, implying an origin close to Europe for this population.

Several 4,600 year-old human remains at a Corded Ware site in Eulau, Germany, were also found to belong to haplogroup R1a1a.

Your most astounding intellectual feat is, of course, the appropriation of the word "Aryan" for Hindu mythology, more correctly, Vedic and Puranic mythology, as a monopoly, when the Iranians went much further in identifying themselves as a race and their land as a homeland with the word Aryan.

In Sanskrit and related Indic languages, ārya means "one who does noble deeds; a noble one". Āryāvarta (Sanskrit: आर्यावर्त, "the abode of the āryas") is a common name for northern India in classical Sanskrit literature. Manusmṛti (2.22) gives the name to "the tract between the Himalaya and the Vindhya ranges, from the Eastern Sea to the Western Sea".[19] The title ārya was used with various modifications throughout the Indian Subcontinent. Kharavela, the Emperor of Kalinga of around 1 BCE, is referred to as an ārya in the Hatigumpha inscriptions of the Udayagiri and Khandagiri Caves in Bhubaneswar, Odisha. The Gurjara Pratihara rulers in the tenth century were titled "Maharajadhiraja of Āryāvarta". Various Indian religions, chiefly Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism, use the term ārya as an epithet of honour; a similar usage is found in the name of Arya Samaj.

In Ramayana and Mahabharata, ārya is used as an honorific for many characters including Hanuman



Indo-European language throughout Europe and the Middle East 500 BCE.
In Iranian literature[edit]
Unlike the several meanings connected with ārya- in Old Indic, the Old Iranian term has solely an ethnic meaning. That is in contrast to Indian usage, in which several secondary meanings evolved,//bold emphasis added - JS// the meaning of ar- as a self-identifier is preserved in Iranian usage, hence the words "Iran"/"Iranian" themselves. Iranian airya meant and means "Iranian", and Iranian anairya meant and means "non-Iranian". Arya may also be found as an ethnonym in Iranian languages, e.g., Alan/Persian Iran and Ossetian Ir/Iron

The name Iran, Iranian is itself equivalent to Aryan, where Iran means "land of the Aryans, and has been in use since Sassanid times

The Avesta clearly uses airya/airyan as an ethnic name (Vd. 1; Yt. 13.143-44, etc.), where it appears in expressions such as airyāfi; daiŋˊhāvō "Iranian lands, peoples", airyō.šayanəm "land inhabited by Iranians", and airyanəm vaējō vaŋhuyāfi; dāityayāfi; "Iranian stretch of the good Dāityā", the river Oxus, the modern Āmū Daryā. Old Persian sources also use this term for Iranians. Old Persian which is a testament to the antiquity of the Persian language and which is related to most of the languages/dialects spoken in Iran including modern Persian, Kurdish, Gilaki and Baluchi makes it clear that Iranians referred to themselves as Arya.

The term "Airya/Airyan" appears in the royal Old Persian inscriptions in three different contexts:

1. As the name of the language of the Old Persian version of the inscription of Darius the Great in Behistun
2. As the ethnic background of Darius in inscriptions at Naqsh-e-Rostam and Susa (Dna, Dse) and Xerxes in the inscription from Persepolis (Xph)
3. As the definition of the God of Aryan people, Ahuramazda, in the Elamite version of the Behistun inscription.

For example in the Dna and Dse Darius and Xerxes describe themselves as "An Achaemenian, A Persian son of a Persian and an Aryan, of Aryan stock".[26] Although Darius the Great called his language the Aryan language,//BOLD EMPHASIS ADDED - JS// modern scholars refer to it as Old Persian because it is the ancestor of modern Persian language.

The Old Persian and Avestan evidence is confirmed by the Greek sources". Herodotus in his Histories remarks about the Iranian Medes that: "These Medes were called anciently by all people Arians; " (7.62). In Armenian sources, the Parthians, Medes and Persians are collectively referred to as Aryans. Eudemus of Rhodes apud Damascius (Dubitationes et solutiones in Platonis Parmenidem 125 bis) refers to "the Magi and all those of Iranian (áreion) lineage"; Diodorus Siculus (1.94.2) considers Zoroaster (Zathraustēs) as one of the Arianoi.

Just for the record (although it is highly unlikely that you would be interested in something as stressful as reading a book), there is fairly good documentary foundation for most of the material cited above. Available on request (T&C apply).

 

[INDIC]

Unfortunately for your Internet sources, there is still no valid link between Vedic literary, including oral tradition, records and the archaeologically verifiable remains of the IVC. Any more than there is between the Kurgan culture archaeology and PIE, although this happens to be the most widely accepted of the various hypotheses for dissemination of the Indo-European languages available. To quote from (what else?) the favourite intellectual resource of some revisionists out there.

I know about Kurgan hypothesis and its connection with Indian civilization. Why do you think if I dispute the Aryan invasion then I am pointing to indigenous Aryans, for me both AIT and OIT are not true. Can you really tell me why Cemetery H culture of 1900-1300BC(Ochre Coloured Pottery Phase) and Sapta Sindhu are so identical in their geography and time period, if you think they are not the same. Infact Pirak IVC site in Balochistan was inhabited until the time of Alexander invaded India. About the horses and chariot, we already know that existed at the time of Indus valley civilization.

Another doubt about Aryan migration is that archaeological findings about agriculture shows very high population in India just before Aryan about to invade India that only possible if so many of them came since even the South Indians almost 40-50% of Eurasian ancestry, now this puts serious doubts since invasion of that much amount of people in India in 1500BC is almost impossible.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I guess that is not being a snob?

No, that is not being a snob, that is being a person who recognises the difference between professional history - and pre-history and proto-history - and journalism.

I would certainly count on a Syracuse and Magsaysay scholar rather than an angry Marxist drunkard nutjob anyday.

Is it your claim that either of the gentlemen got their awards for history? And which of them are you referring to, btw? I mean, a Syracuse and Magsaysay scholar?

As for you proving me to be a Hero or a Nero is well, to mildly put it - not worth my consideration.

To be perfectly honest, that would actually not be worth my consideration. Pillory somebody who argues with smileys as his arguments? C'mon.

It is a fortune that people like you don't rule the world. In that case neither a degree less Bill Gates nor an Einstein could have made it big.

Amazing how people's language skills desert them under pressure. Not to mention their grip on facts:

1. In 1895, at the age of sixteen, Einstein sat the entrance examinations for the Swiss Federal Polytechnic in Zürich (later the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule ETH). He failed to reach the required standard in the general part of the examination,[22] but obtained exceptional grades in physics and mathematics.
2. On the advice of the Principal of the Polytechnic, he attended the Aargau Cantonal School in Aarau, Switzerland, in 1895–96 to complete his secondary schooling.
3. In September 1896, he passed the Swiss Matura with mostly good grades, including a top grade of 6 in physics and mathematical subjects, on a scale of 1-6, and, though only seventeen, enrolled in the four-year mathematics and physics teaching diploma program at the Zürich Polytechnic.
4. In 1900, Einstein was awarded the Zürich Polytechnic teaching diploma,

Of course, I assume that you have an elementary knowledge of the European education system, and meant what you were saying about Einstein not having got a 'degree' exactly the way it sounded. I may quite possibly be assuming too much, in spite of the Internet, which should have told you that there was no equivalent of a 'degree' in the Anglo-Saxon sense for the young Einstein to gain.

Besides your selective blasting is against the basics of making a valid argument let alone establish a point. Also the effects of the Internet will perhaps (correct me if I am wrong) escape you. A dictated State sponsored news is no longer possible. What was possible in the 80s is not possible now. Its tough - adjusting, but can't help

Judging from what you write, the effects of the Internet seem to be escaping you entirely.

If your rage crosses certain limits, with respect to your failing health and age, I would request you to take some time off from the bourgeois ongoings of the thread. Best regards.

Ah!

More arguments!!

Five smileys!!! Now that's real heavy research, and sound argument for you.

If you intend to take potshots at me and feel better please feel free to do so, but in Whatever or some other thread. Let's keep this thread free from blind mudslinging. If you have several points to counter with respect to Thapar or Goel etc, you may contribute here. I would be most glad to learn.

But it's so nice to sling mud blindly. Like looking at somebody who doesn't agree with you and concluding

1. That he is angry;
2. That he is Marxist;
3. That he is given to drinking to excess;
4. That he is mentally unstable.

Incidentally, as a highly-amused liberal who is currently managing a school in a university as well as teaching history in another school, none of the above is correct.

Better luck next sling.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I know about Kurgan hypothesis and its connection with Indian civilization. Why do you think if I dispute the Aryan invasion then I am pointing to indigenous Aryans, for me both AIT and OIT are not true.

Bewildering.

You do not dispute the Aryan invasion theory, because you are not pointing to indigenous Aryans.

Let me understand this in small, baby steps; your leaps of the intellect are beginning to wear down my brain.

Are you possibly saying that you do not believe in the OOI, and that you do not believe in the AIT, but think that there was some Aryan infiltration?

What exactly are you saying, or do you believe is the position? At least my position is clear: I believe that there was no 'invasion', no concerted surge into the sub-continent; instead,

Gimbutas believed that the expansions of the Kurgan culture were a series of essentially hostile, military incursions where a new warrior culture imposed itself on the peaceful,matriarchal cultures of "Old Europe", replacing it with a patriarchal warrior society,[17] a process visible in the appearance of fortified settlements and hillforts and the graves of warrior-chieftains:

"The process of Indo-Europeanization was a cultural, not a physical, transformation. It must be understood as a military victory in terms of successfully imposing a new administrative system, language, and religion upon the indigenous groups."[18]
In her later life, Gimbutas increasingly emphasized the violent nature of this transition from the Mediterranean cult of the Mother Goddess to a patriarchal society and the worship of the warlike Thunderer (Zeus, Dyaus), to a point of essentially formulating feminist archaeology. Many scholars who accept the general scenario of Indo-European migrations proposed, maintain that the transition was likely much more gradual and peaceful than suggested by Gimbutas. The migrations were certainly not a sudden, concerted military operation, but the expansion of disconnected tribes and cultures, spanning many generations. To what degree the indigenous cultures were peacefully amalgamated or violently displaced remains a matter of controversy among supporters of the Kurgan hypothesis.//Italicised to isolate my views approximately - JS//

In this connection, it will help you and others with pretensions to historical, proto-historican and pre-historical views to read Subbarayalu and Kesavan Veluthat (the latter with defensive filters on) on the history of south India to understand what may have happened in north India.

Can you really tell me why Cemetery H culture of 1900-1300BC(Ochre Coloured Pottery Phase) and Sapta Sindhu are so identical in their geography and time period, if you think they are not the same.

No, I cannot, because I honestly cannot understand what you are trying to say. Could you try again? What do you mean by the Sapta Sindhu?

Infact Pirak IVC site in Balochistan was inhabited until the time of Alexander invaded India.

Und So? What is the point? Again, I fail to understand the connection or how your conclusions are identified.

About the horses and chariot, we already know that existed at the time of Indus valley civilization.

Not accepted professionally anywhere, but please don't let that stop you from imbibing this view along with the rest of the stuff available on the 'Net.

Another doubt about Aryan migration is that archaeological findings about agriculture shows very high population in India just before Aryan about to invade India that only possible if so many of them came since even the South Indians almost 50% of Eurasian ancestry, now this puts serious doubts since invasion of that much amount of people in India in 1500BC is almost impossible.

Let me remind you:

1. 40,000 years ago to 30,000 years ago: possible exit of significant numbers from south Asia; their genetic tracers are found to the north-west;
2. Since then, ancestral Indian population was fairly stable; this is the situation you may be referring to, as very high population in India, just before Aryan about to 'invade';
3. Your reference to 1500 BC is confusing;
4. We do believe, however, that there was infiltration of war-bands, families, and the occasional small tribe, between 3,000 years BCE and 1,500 years BCE; this was the origin of the ANI vs ASI division.
5. The reference, O poor, confused soul, to Europeans, when talking about south Indians, is a reference to the supposed Mediterranean origin of the Dravida ethnic type identified with south India.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

No, that is not being a snob, that is being a person who recognises the difference between professional history - and pre-history and proto-history - and journalism.
Is it your claim that either of the gentlemen got their awards for history? And which of them are you referring to, btw? I mean, a Syracuse and Magsaysay scholar?

To be perfectly honest, that would actually not be worth my consideration. Pillory somebody who argues with smileys as his arguments? C'mon.

Amazing how people's language skills desert them under pressure. Not to mention their grip on facts:

Of course, I assume that you have an elementary knowledge of the European education system, and meant what you were saying about Einstein not having got a 'degree' exactly the way it sounded. I may quite possibly be assuming too much, in spite of the Internet, which should have told you that there was no equivalent of a 'degree' in the Anglo-Saxon sense for the young Einstein to gain.

Judging from what you write, the effects of the Internet seem to be escaping you entirely.

Ah!
More arguments!!

Five smileys!!! Now that's real heavy research, and sound argument for you.

But it's so nice to sling mud blindly. Like looking at somebody who doesn't agree with you and concluding

1. That he is angry;
2. That he is Marxist;
3. That he is given to drinking to excess;
4. That he is mentally unstable.

Incidentally, as a highly-amused liberal who is currently managing a school in a university as well as teaching history in another school, none of the above is correct.

Better luck next sling.

No of course not. I am obviously wrong and almost juvenile when compared to the intellectual superiority of yours. If that makes you sleep better at night, so be it.

Oh btw hope you did not think your almost personal rant would make me give up using my style of writing. I usually don't take much lessons from old school bullies.

You took shots against the 'gentlemen', instead of quoting their flaws in argument. Try to do that next time, otherwise no point discussing the academic credentials of people.

If it is not worth consideration, you can very well press the ignore button and bid adieu. I could care less. (Actually in this post you have come closer to the topic at hand, good job, I give you a pat on the back )

Under pressure? From you? Yeah sure, whatever makes you feel good.
A forum post is not a published paper - there's a hint in there. Dig it.

I hope your comprehensions skills did not desert you. I did not mention Einstein not having degrees. What I meant was Gates not having a college degree. Anyway that's besides the point. I real feel sorry for your students. Most of them will awaken to the lies too late in their life to make a difference.

Smileys as arguments? No, sir, the Internet is still not your forte. I can appreciate the good old days of golf, followed by coffee in a Lutyen's bungalow (pardon me for any language issues, I am illiterate) etc and beating the same dead horse everyday. But the Internet is the era of Snowdens and Assanges, information is everywhere. As for smileys allow me to teach you (provided that does not get blocked by ego) Smileys are used not for making an argument, but more showing one's feelings, that can't be adequately expressed with prose. Some experts can even reinforce their arguments with them, but that's another matter. Nice thing this Internet, isn't it? (I like this smiley)

You are just making things up now to hit me (instead of making a solid point), I never called you Marxist, drunkard or anything for that matter. A few posts can not be a good judge of character, besides that is not really my cup of tea.

Also request you not to use the word liberal to describe yourself. Sure, if you keep the thought to yourself, fine, but otherwise it is an insult to the word. I would consider @Ravi Nair or @scorpionx as liberals. You are closer to being an intellectual bully.

Try to understand that your views may not match with mine, but the beauty of a forum is that it allows you to discuss that freely. I can respect your views even if I don't accept them, but I would expect a similar act in return. Courtesy is a two way street. Give it a try, it's never too late.

As for slings - ah well forget it.

@Manvantaratruti - Focus on history lessons

 

[Chronos]

@SarthakGanguly

Please don't put me in the same league as @scorpionx

It's insulting to scorpionx. There are many instances I can point out where I have acted holier than thou or idiotic