Indus Valley Civilization may have been created by Japanese

[Bharat Muslim]

Relationship between Japanese and Dravidian (Tamil)

Over the last year I developed an avid interest in Japanese, having watched such fascinating anime as Maison Ikkoku (めぞん一刻) and Code Geass (コードギアス). So, around mid-2008, I started learning the language, first by myself, and then at the amazing East Asian languages department at Stanford University.

The first thing that struck me about Japanese was its similarity with my native language, Tamil, a South Indian (Dravidian) language. I could translate almost word for word, particle for particle, and sometimes even idom for idiom between the two languages! Having studied a few other languages in school and college, including Sanskrit, Hindi, English, and ein bischen Deutsch, I have been hard pressed to find such striking grammatical resemblances even amongst these four languages even though it is well-established that they are all part of the same Indo-Aryan language family.

The more I learn, and investigate, the more I feel convinced that not just the Japanese and Tamil languages, but the cultures as well share striking similarities. Now, if you, like me, were barely awake during geography lessons in high school, you may be interested to know that Japan and South India are separated by well over 5000 miles of land and sea. So how could these similarities have come about? And when?

With these questions begins this exciting journey into the parallel worlds of Japan and South India, one that is far from complete. In this research notebook, I will document my first impressions on this voyage of discovery into the commonalities between Japanese and Dravidian: the languages, the cultures, the people and their customs.

Disclaimer: None of the ideas presented here has had the benefit of expert scrutiny. As I am not a linguist, sociologist or anthropologist by training, some of the theories I discuss are likely controversial. Although, being a scientist by training, I will try to avoid needlessly warped logic. Comments, corrections and suggestions are always welcome.

Background

The relationship of Japanese to other major language groups is controversial, and highly disputed [1]. Many scholars group Japanese with Korean, and this is not surprising given the geographical proximity of the two regions.

An alternate, prominent hypothesis is that Japanese is related to the Altaic language family (Turkic, Mongolic etc) based on vocabulary correspondences, and the fact the both Japanese and Altaic languages are agglutinative [1a]. A much less widely accepted, and even more controversial hypothesis is the relationship between Japanese and Dravidian, another agglutinative language [1b].

Akira Fujiwara called Japanese and Tamil "as alike as two peas in a pod" [2,3]. Unfortunately, such over-enthusiasm to embrace the Dravidian hypothesis has led to (eminently remediable) oversights and hasty research conclusions, drawing withering criticism. Notably, the late Susumu Ohno's extensive list of vocabulary correspondences between Japanese and Tamil [4] have been dubbed "careless and capricious" by Roy A Miller, a principal proponent of the Altaic hypothesis [3]. Rebuttals have been made to these criticisms as well [5].

http://japanese-dravidian.blogspot.in/

 

[Bharat Muslim]

What do I bring to this debate?

While an active topic of research until a decade ago, the Japanese-Dravidian hypothesis appears to be losing ground, largely because of the inability to sustain interest in this debate among the scholarly community. With the exception of select scholars, such as Prof.Ohno, few engaged in this debate has traveled to South India to observe Tamil culture and study the Tamil people’s ways and customs first hand. In fact, just a year ago, Prof.Ohno, published a volume titled 日本語の源流を求めて(Seeking the origins of the Japanese language), reaffirming his faith in the Dravidian hypothesis. With Prof.Ohno's recent demise, there is an even greater danger of the Japanese-Dravidian hypothesis being ignored, or completely forgotten.

It is actually fairly surprising to me that Tamil scholars who learn Japanese, or even Tamil people who have emigrated into Japan, have not made more of the striking similarities between the two languages and cultures. Having had a keen interest in the origins of the Dravidian people (as well as in a related question, namely the Indo-Aryan homeland controversy), I would like to keep the debate alive by proposing the following hypothesis:

Japanese and an early form of Tamil (maybe before it parted ways with Malayalam, another closely related Dravidian language) were sister languages. That there must have been some kind of significant linguistic and cultural exchange between Japan and Southern India at some point in history (it could have also been a unidirectional, although the direction remains to be shown).

What led me to this hypothesis? I had almost no knowledge of the academic debate going on about this when I started to mull about the similarities between Tamil and Japanese.

1) When I started learning Japanese, I found it much easier/faster to translate a Japanese sentence into Tamil to understand its meaning, even though English has been my medium of learning all through school and college. This is because Japanese and Tamil share surprisingly similar basic grammar and syntax (which is incidentally, very different from English). There are strong correspondences even between the particles (see subsequent sections) such that one can translate a sentence word for word including particles between Japanese and Tamil.

2) While watching anime in Japanese, I noticed that colloquial aizuchi (responses indicating acknowledgement etc in a conversation) in Japanese such as "O~/oho"(acknowledgment), "E~" (mild surprise), "Un" (for yes) and "Unun" (for no), "Ara, ara" (for expressing surprise/dismay), "Yei/Oi" (for casual/familiar beckoning or exclamation) are very similar to their Tamil counterparts (e.g. Tamil speakers colloquially say "O~/oho" (acknowledgement), "E~" when mildly surpised, "um" for yes and "um(h)um" for no, "ada, ada" for surprise/dismay, and "yei, oi" for casual beckoning). Any other languages share similar expressions?

3) Many of the onomatoepic expressions are similar in the two languages. For example:"gaba gaba" [suru] means to gulp down (drink), both in Japanese/Tamil, similarly "koso koso"[suru] means to talk secretively in both languages. However, being sound-derived expressions, I wouldn't stretch this claim. What is surprising though, is that, repetitive, but not necessarily onomatoepic, expressions sound similar e.g. "guru guru" [mawaru] means to spin around and around, "giru giru" means the same in Tamil. I don't know of other languages that share these expressions.

4) When I hear Japanese in anime, the prosody of the language (the pattern of rising and falling intonations that carries affect/emotion content) sounds very close to Tamil. In fact, I believe this is what Prof.Ohno calls the "remarkably similar rhythm" of the two languages [citation sought]. Which is perhaps why I (and other anime-fans) dislike watching English-dubbed anime (vs. English-subbed anime) -- even though the information content is similar, the emotional/affective feel is entirely different.

I hail from a mixed Dravidian-speaking household, my father's side of the family speaks a Tamil dialect strongly mixed with Malayalam, whereas my mother's side speaks fairly "pure" Tamil. When I hear Japanese, translated word for word into Tamil, it sounds a lot like a dialect: not identical with "pure" Tamil but sounds vaguely "familiar" to the Malayalam/Tamil admixture I'm used to hearing at home.

On a related note, when hearing Japanese popular music (J-pop), I have this nagging feeling of familiarity. Perhaps J-pop uses the same minor scales/modes as does Tamil popular music (especially composers like Ilayaraja or A R Rahman). Any musicians/musicologists? Try this link for a popular Japanese group (does this remind you of Tamil light music?).

While the previous points of comparison may sound subjective and somewhat frivolous, I lay down the parallels in greater detail in subsequent sections.

http://japanese-dravidian.blogspot.in/p/what-do-i-bring-to-this-debate_15.html

 

[Bharat Muslim]

My theory is...

a) That Japanese and Tamil are sister languages, even though they do not share close vocabulary correspondences in their current forms [I.].

b) That there was once a Proto-Japonic-Dravidian language (PJD), that later diverged into Proto-Japonic (or Proto-Japonic-Ryukyuan), and Proto-Dravidian. Proto-Dravidian later diverged into the languages of southern India (including Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu and Kannada). Proto-Japonic (or Japonic-Ryukyuan) diverged into the modern day Japanese (and perhaps other Ryukyuan languages) [II].

c) That over the centuries, Japanese was strongly influenced in turn by other language groups: Old Korean, Austronesian, Altaic and Chinese and ended up absorbing a lot of their vocabulary. However, it largely retained its native grammar, which it inherited from Proto-JD [III].

d) That a nearly similar fate befell Tamil. With the growing influence of Sanskrit in northern India, and the increasing patronage of Vedic Brahmins by southern Indian rulers [IV], Tamil began to absorb a huge corpus of Sanskrit words, while retaining its underlying grammar (which remains distinctly different from Sanskrit even today).

e) That, if one should look for vocabulary correspondences, one should look not in old/classical texts (either of Japanese or Tamil) but in the regional dialects in the heartlands. In an attempt to standardize the Japanese language (and weed out native dialect differences) during the time classical texts were being written, it is possible that Japanese rulers imported several Chinese words into Japanese [V]. So vocabulary correspondences between Japanese and Dravidian, if preserved at all, would be preserved in local dialects, and not the standardizes (textual) form of the language.

Clearly, a lot of this is speculation, but in the next sections I will present evidence to lend weight to Japanese-Dravidian hypothesis.

Footnotes:
[I.]: Although they do share very similar (agglutinative) grammars, with very strong word-order similarities, as noted before.

[II]: There exists the possibility of a Proto-Japonic-Altaic-Dravidian language, but as I have no knowledge of any Altaic language, I cannot bring any new ideas to that hypothesis.

[III]: It is well-established that Chinese and Japanese have completely different grammars, and are not part of the same language family [1]. For further evidence, see next section (Japanese and Chinese)

[IV]: The Pallava kings (c. 600CE, date uncertain) wooed Brahmins from northern India with land grants and settled them into the Kaveri basin in southern India [12].

[V]: China has been the economic and intellectual powerhouse of East Asia over a lot of history. So it is plausible that the Japanese rulers used Chinese words (instead of a native dialect) to standardize the language for texts (after all, the writing system in these texts is the Chinese system!).

This situation is not without parallel in history. The Mughals who ruled India (15th-18th centurey CE) were essentially of Turko-Mongol origin (the word Mughal is, in fact, cognate to the word Mongol). Now, both Turkic and Mongolic belong to the Altaic family of languages. However, the language of the Mughal court and a lot of beatiful literature composed at this time was neither the language of the rulers (Turkic/Mongolic) nor the language of the natives (Sanskrit/Prakrit). Instead the Mughals adopted Persian, an Indo-Iranian language, and (ironically) a sister language of Sanskrit, which was the lingua franca in adjoining Persia, the political and intellectual powerhouse of the near East under the Safavid dynasty in the 15th century [14,15].

Japanese & Chinese: Not all that looks like Chinese is Chinese

Although Japanese writing shares a lot a common with Chinese, Japanese and Chinese are, in fact, completely unrelated languages! Japanese has two (in fact three) scripts: (a) the Chinese-borrowed script (Kanji), with related sounds, to represent vocabulary/ideas (such as verb roots), and (b) (Kanji-derived) Kana to represent the grammatical conjugations specific to Japanese. Each Japanese word is, thus, a composite of a Chinese kanji (to express a core idea) with Japanese-specific grammar endings (written with Kana) tacked on.

For example: 食べられなかった (taberarenakatta) means "Could not eat". However the root of the idea, eat, is the Chinese-borrowed Kanji 食 (ta). The rest of the characters are Kana suffixes indicating the mood or tense of the word. In this example, られ (rare) indicates potential/ability (can), な (na) indicates negative (not), かった (katta) is a past tense marker. There is no equivalent grammatical structure in the Chinese language.

But why did Japanese assimilate only Chinese vocabulary and not the entire grammatical structure of the language? Perhaps because grammar is more resilient to change than vocabulary (any linguists?). To take a simple example, a child learning a foreign language often tries to add the vocabulary of the new language (as superstratum) over the basic structure of his/her native language grammar. For instance, native Tamil speakers not proficient in English can be heard to say "why you are leaving?" (instead of "why are you..."). This is probably because in Tamil the word that naturally follows the question word ("why") is the subject of the sentence ("you") [The situation is actually, a little more complicated, because modern Tamil has lost the copula ("are"). However, even if it were to appear, the copula would appear at the end of the sentence exactly as in Japanese, and as in modern Malayalam (which has retained the copula)].

http://japanese-dravidian.blogspot.in/p/my-theory-is.html

 

[Bharat Muslim]

Linguistic parallels

I. Consonant and vowel orders:


Japanese "Kana" consonant order:
k, s, t2 (dental), [nasal, n], h(p)*[I.], [nasal, m], y, r2(also l2, retroflex?), w, [nasal, n (terminal)]

Tamil consonant order:
k, c, t(retroflex), t2(dental), p, r, [nasal set: ng, ny, n(retroflex), n (terminal), m, n2], y, r2 (retroflex), l (dental), v, zh (retroflex), l2 (retroflex)

Japanese and Tamil also share a nearly identical set of vowels (a, i, u, e, o)*[II]: all of these vowels have both a short and long form. In Tamil script short and long vowels are represented by different letters, in Japanese script one repeats the vowel to extend it (sorta).

The letter order similarities could be a classic case of evolution from a common ancestor. It is speculated that the Japanese kana ordering derives from the Siddham script (based on the Indian Brahmi, an early script for official edicts) c. 9th centruy AD [6]. Tamil may have incorporated the Brahmi script independently as well [7]. However, there are few important similarities between the Japanese and Tamil alphabet that cannot be brushed aside as products of parallel evolution:

1) Both Tamil and Japanese have two different nasal 'n' sounds, one of which never ends a word and one of which never begins a words. I am not aware of a Brahmi parallel.
2) Tamil does not have arbitrary consonant combinations (as do, for instance, Sanskrit or English). The only valid consonant combinations are i) the same consonant repeated or ii) the 'n' + consonant combination. The same is true of Japanese. Is this true of Brahmi?
3) Neither Japanese nor Tamil have a concept of voiced and unvoiced, or aspirated and unaspirated, consonants (unlike Brahmi which distinguishes these categories). Whether these were later coincidentally dropped from Brahmi in both languages remains to be shown.

Hence, it is entirely possible that the phonetic systems in the two languages shared similarities (which may have predated any script).

Footnotes:
[I.] 'h' is the consonant that is modified with a "maru" to form the 'p' sound in Kana. This is not unique to Japanese. 'p'-sounds in Tamil, often morph into 'h'-sounds in Kannada (a sister language of Tamil), e.g. Tamil 'paalu' = Kannada 'haalu' (milk))

[II] Exceptions: The Japanese u sounds more like the German u with an umlaut, not so in Tamil (but this sound may be a borrowing from Chinese which has this exact u sound [13]). Tamil has the diphthongs "ai" and "au" as well, but even though Japanese does not treat these as vowels, the "au" and "ai" sounds are frequently heard vowel combinations (e.g. kAU = to buy, hAI = yes), although these are generally not pronounced as an unitary diphthong.

II. Syntactic similarities

II. A. Word order


Japanese and Tamil have incredibly similar word order. At the very basic level, they both follow SOV (subject-object-verb) order (unlike English which follows SVO). While much needs to be said about this, here are some simple examples to whet your apettite.

Example 1

Consider the following set of sentences:

The cheese was rotten. A rat ate this cheese. A cat chased this rat. Mike owns this cat.

Try combining these sentences into one in English, and here's what you might get:

(E1) [[[[Mike owns the cat] that chased the rat] that ate the cheese] that was rotten].

In this sentence, Mike is the subject of the sentence (each [...] encodes a complete sentence), so the innermost nested [...] is the core sentence[I.] containing the subject. Now let us try turning this on its head, so that the cheese is the subject of the sentence.

(E2) [[[The cheese that was rotten was eaten by a rat] that was killed by a cat] that is owned by Mike].

Again note that here the core sentence (contained in the innermost nested [...]) is [the cheese ... the rat] in which subject (the cheese) is present.
Now let's try this in Japanese:

(J1) マイクがかったねこがおいかけたねずみがたべたチーズはくさっていた。
[Mike ga katta [neko ga oikaketa [nezumi ga tabeta [cheesu wa kusatte ita]]]].

Corresponding English words in Japanese word-order:
[Mike kept/raised [cat chased [mouse eaten [cheese bad was]]]]

In the case of the Japanese sentence, the cheese is clearly the subject (nested, inner-most sentence is [cheese was bad]). Clearly, a direct correspondence seems impossible between Japanese and English syntax: while sentence J1 appears to follow the word order of E1, however does not have the same subject/core sentence as E1. Again, while J1 has the same core sentence as E2, the word order is completely different. Let us now try this in Tamil.

(T1) Mike valarttha poonai thuratthiya eli pusittha cheesu oosi irundadu.
Corresponding English words in Tamil word-order:
[Mike kept/raised [cat chased [mouse eaten [cheese bad was]]]]

T1 and J1 are identical! If you give it some thought, you will realize that this is a direct consequence of the SOV word order [16]. Ok, are there any parallels that are not a direct consequence of the SOV order? Here is another example.

Example 2
Consider the sentence:

(J2)　猫に食べ物をやりました。
[Neko ni tabemono wo yarimashita]

Corresponding English words in Japanese word-order:
[cat {indirect object marker} edible-item {direct object marker} gave]

In English this would be:
(E3) I gave the cat food.

In Tamil this would be:
(T2) Poonai-irkku unavupporul-ai kodutthen.

Corresponding English words in Tamil word-order:
[cat {indirect object marker} edible-item {direct object marker} gave]

Again, note that while T2 and J2 are in direct correspondence, E2 differs significantly in terms of word order. Also interesting is the fact that dropping the subject (I) is completely acceptable in both Japanese and Tamil. Except that the final verb conjugates according to person and number in Tamil (but not in Japanese), so that the subject of the sentence T2 can only be "I (singular)". Whereas in Japanese, the subject could be any person (first, second or third, singular or plural). [II]

Footnotes:
[I.] What I keep calling "core sentence" here probably has a (bettter!) name in linguistics jargon I am not aware of. I understand that the other clauses that are tacked on to the "core sentence" are called "pre/postnominal relative clauses" [16].

[II] This feature (or lack of it) has been source of incredible amusement to me and many others. I quote from [19]: "...Because of this, the sentence "He just killed her!" and "I just killed her!" sound exactly the same, meaning that most people in Japan have no idea what is going on around them at any given moment. You are supposed to figure these things out from the "context", which is a German word meaning "you're screwed"....". For the rip roaringly funny article (to be read in a spirit of good fun), see [19].

II. B. Particle correspondences


I am currently working through Chevray and Kuwahira's Japanese Grammar (Schaum's Outlines), as well as the two volumes of げんき (Banno, Ohno, Sakane, Shinagawa, Tokashiki; Japan Times), both introductory texts of conversational Japanese. Based on these, I have found that particle correspondences between Tamil and Japanese can be built in a consistent way.

More on this will appear soon!

II. C. Similarities in vocabulary

II. C. 1. Words derived from the same root with related meanings


A remarkable feature I have observed in both Tamil and Japanese, is the derivation of a variety of loosely related words from the same root.

For instance, consider the set of words:

kan (eye) -- kaan-pathu (see) -- kaanu-vathu (visible) -- kaan-pippadhu (show) -- kandu-pidipathu (find/discover)

These are all derived from the same Tamil root “kan”, meaning “eye” (the meanings of the other derived words are in parentheses).

In Japanese, an identical set of words can derive from the same root: “me” (pronounced may) also meaning eye.

me (eye) -- mi-ru (see) -- mi-eru (visible) -- mi-seru (show) -- mi-tsukeru (find/discover)

Of course, this is how simple and compound words are built in every language. So what is unique about Tamil and Japanese?

It is my opinion that such root-relationships for words with related meanings share close correspondences in Tamil and Japanese, whereas in other languages such relationships never existed, or have diverged to such an extent as to be unrecognizable.

Note that the verb “discover” does have something to with being able to “see” a hidden object. However the English terms “find” or “discover” have little direct etymological relationship to “eye”, whereas their Japanese and Tamil counterparts do.

Here’s another example: In Japanese, the noun pre/post fix (居), “i” (pronounced “i” as in hit) can mean either “being” or “sitting”; the commonly encountered Japanese verb “i-ru” (to-be) derives from the same root. In Tamil, the same root (in fact the same sound) “i-ru” has similar connotations: “iru-ppu” means “status/being”; “iru-kkai”, a related term means “seat/sitting”

http://japanese-dravidian.blogspot.in/p/linguistic-parallels.html

 

[Tergon18]

Craziest theory ever. Post this on some anthropological forum and you'll get laughed at.

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

Neither Bharatis nor Pakistanis may have created the Indus Valley Civilization. Indus Valley Civilizations may have been created by Japanese. Japan probably colonized the South Asian subcontinent. In fact it was perhaps the superpower of those times and colonized other parts of the world too.

Just as the Erstwhile British Government built the waterworks of Sukkur (Sindh) and went away, Japanese too may have built the structures of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa and then went away.

@Kaptaan @django

@xyxmt

@Joe Shearer

@Spring Onion @Mugwop

 

[Spring Onion]

@Kaptaan @django

@xyxmt

@Joe Shearer

@Spring Onion @Mugwop

Thank you for the tag dear. Will surely post when I am free. At the moment damn engaged in something that is becoming such a drag

 

[xyxmt]

well I had a friend in College in Karachi and we used to call him Japani because he had oriental looks so I would say this theory holds ground....you can cite me in papers if you like

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

Neither Bharatis nor Pakistanis may have created the Indus Valley Civilization. Indus Valley Civilizations may have been created by Japanese. Japan probably colonized the South Asian subcontinent. In fact it was perhaps the superpower of those times and colonized other parts of the world too.

Just as the Erstwhile British Government built the waterworks of Sukkur (Sindh) and went away, Japanese too may have built the structures of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa and then went away.

@Maarkhoor

Thank you for the tag dear. Will surely post when I am free. At the moment damn engaged in something that is becoming such a drag

If you are so busy, why do you even log in to PDF?

well I had a friend in College in Karachi and we used to call him Japani because he had oriental looks so I would say this theory holds ground....you can cite me in papers if you like

Mystery solved at last!

Neither Bharatis nor Pakistanis may have created the Indus Valley Civilization. Indus Valley Civilizations may have been created by Japanese. Japan probably colonized the South Asian subcontinent. In fact it was perhaps the superpower of those times and colonized other parts of the world too.

Just as the Erstwhile British Government built the waterworks of Sukkur (Sindh) and went away, Japanese too may have built the structures of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa and then went away.

@Sher Shah Awan

@PaklovesTurkiye

Neither Bharatis nor Pakistanis may have created the Indus Valley Civilization. Indus Valley Civilizations may have been created by Japanese. Japan probably colonized the South Asian subcontinent. In fact it was perhaps the superpower of those times and colonized other parts of the world too.

Just as the Erstwhile British Government built the waterworks of Sukkur (Sindh) and went away, Japanese too may have built the structures of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa and then went away.

@somebozo

 

[Ocean]

May be my forefathers came to South India via Pakistan just like most of the people who migrated to India, I have no records.


Ask the people who speak a Dravidian language called "Brahui" in your region.

All people in Indian Sub continent share the same Dharmic values and cultural similaties. Some got converted and are trying their best to degrade ancient traditions of this very land.

[/QUOTE]
Ur forefathers came from africa and settled in mallu land aka south india so you mallu have no claim on ivc and ivc p-ians wee civilized people whilst u mallus eat rice on huge banana leaves and wear ur lungis uptil your knees and in ur movies no matter how civilly dressed are ur hero heriones they dance around like monkeys almost exactly as monkeys hang by tress barnches cause dravidas wre jungle inhabitors who used to hop around from one tree to another just like monkeys and these traits are still found there. So better stay in ur mallu land boundaries and not dare laying a claim on ivc that u got zilch to do with.

Oh and please perfect ur moneky dances moves in ur some next song which woukd sound like Andday manddaday kandady ayyappan ayenger dingdum adingdoo

Because Pakistan is "not India" !

LMAO the irony is mallu bandar that word india is derived from word indus and 95 pc indus sits inside pakistan and this dravida is claiming pakistan is not india. And what u consider current day india is not and had never been a part of pakistan barring few border adjacent regions and kashmir.

The desperation these central and south indians have to link themselves with pakistan. History chors apnay forefathers tak badal letay hain to get a better history for themselves.

well I had a friend in College in Karachi and we used to call him Japani because he had oriental looks so I would say this theory holds ground....you can cite me in papers if you like

I had a friend whose mom was a chinese n dad pakistani, another whose grandmother was Japanese n grand pa pakistani, another whose grand mother was malaysian and rest were pakistanis.

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

Neither Bharatis nor Pakistanis may have created the Indus Valley Civilization. Indus Valley Civilizations may have been created by Japanese. Japan probably colonized the South Asian subcontinent. In fact it was perhaps the superpower of those times and colonized other parts of the world too.

Just as the Erstwhile British Government built the waterworks of Sukkur (Sindh) and went away, Japanese too may have built the structures of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa and then went away.

@jbgt90 @Peshwa

@PAKISTANFOREVER

 

[Trango Towers]

Neither Bharatis nor Pakistanis may have created the Indus Valley Civilization. Indus Valley Civilizations may have been created by Japanese. Japan probably colonized the South Asian subcontinent. In fact it was perhaps the superpower of those times and colonized other parts of the world too.

Just as the Erstwhile British Government built the waterworks of Sukkur (Sindh) and went away, Japanese too may have built the structures of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa and then went away.

Probably probably probably......
Probably you are not Indian but just a wart with limited intelligence and use a IA to type garbage

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

https://www.facebook.com/

 

[Jaanbaz]

lol seriously

 

[Bharat Muslim]

IA

What is IA?