Motivations behind selecting the name 'India' in 1947

[Joe Shearer]

A plain examination of the envoy's quotes is the first part that you need to take up, in case you need clarification.

The second part is to look up maps of India which belong to those times, to the times of Scylax the navigator, of Strabo the geographer, of the unknown author of the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, and of all ancient maps of India. Those were not maps which look as the South Asian peninsula looks today, but maps which distorted the position and the shape of the sub-continent, and which reflected the partial and imperfect knowledge of the Europeans of those times about India.

Unfortunately, as is only to be expected with amateurs unfamiliar with their subject, every piece of evidence available in ancient times is interpreted in the light of modern knowledge, which leads to the misunderstandings and errors in the statements made.

Try again.

Bits of modern day India may have been discovered by the Ancient Greeks during the time of Megasthenes. I would not say that that quote clearly demonstrates this. But even if it was referring to the whole of modern day India, I've taken this into account when I say that Ancient India from 2,000 to 5,000 years ago referred exclusively to Pakistan.

There is a logical error here, as well as a factual error.

First, the factual part, or parts.

The knowledge of the Indus Valley revealed by, say, Herodotus, is surely not even comparable with that of Megasthenes. As for the others, they based their accounts on the accounts in turn of those who actually accompanied Alexander; they are effectively reporting based on others' reports. Please note that neither Pliny nor Strabo was a contemporary; Megasthenes, on the other hand, was in the Maurya court prior to 288 BC, and was quite possibly - being the trusted ambassador of the Alexandrian successor Seleukos, and the house-guest of the governor of Arachosia (I think; I am not sure of the province) - from the ranks of the middle-ranking generals or civilian officers or savants accompanying the expedition unless he had come out from Greece or Macedonia very late, after 323 BC.

So we have the near-contemporary account of Megasthenes, with considerable information about the court and about life and the environs of the court. Please recall his story of the 'dogs', which is clearly an account of Rhesus monkeys, distorted by the narration to him by narrators unfamiliar with Greek. We are all familiar with the habits of these monkey hordes, which come to the ground, accept with disdain all that interests them, reject with every appearance of contempt that which does not, and troop in and troop out of villages and towns. Megasthenes in a few words describes them perfectly, down to their physiognomy. What do we have in contrast from the other school, with their supposed intimate information about the Indus Valley?

We have Pliny, Strabo, and the lost accounts of Scyllax and Nearchus. I ask only that we read these several accounts side by side - obviously those still extant!!! - and draw our own conclusions.

The logical error is based on the foundation of this thread, that the name India has been hijacked by a people and a civilisation, a culture, that had no right to it.

To this, a thinking response must necessarily be that this is a chronological fallacy. We are already aware that the Greeks can have known of India, whether the Indus Valley or the hinterland, only from the Persians, and that these contacts started with the interaction between the Greeks of Asia Minor and the Achaemenid Empire. This interaction is as late as the 6th century BC, and came to a point from 499 BC onwards, the onset of the Persian War, for recording which we call Herodotus the father of history.

This then leads us to some surprise when the statement is made that Ancient India from 2,000 to 5,000 years ago referred exclusively to Pakistan. But India as a term did not come into existence until the Greeks dropped their aitches. So how can India before 499 BC, at the most 550 BC, during the period 3000 BC to 550 BC, have referred to Pakistan, when the name India didn't exist?

Arguments that the precedessor name for India was known earlier do not convince, as this whole thread is based on the supposed misuse of the name India, rather than a misuse of the alternative names the Sapta Sindhu (please, not the SaptHa Sindhu) or even the Iranian version, the Hapta Hindu. If, therefore, India itself as a term was not in use before 550 BC, charitably speaking, how could it have referred to proto-Pakistan from 3000 BC onwards?

By about 2,000 years ago the land region of modern day India was being discovered slightly more. The land region of modern day Pakistan was well known to the outside world, and reported extensively by the Greeks.

Some citations would be helpful. I have presented, in the previous passage, the far greater detail and depth of account submitted by Megasthenes, through one illustrative passage; is there any corresponding to this on the Indus Valley, other than the accounts of the battles of Alexander, accounts of the Rock of Aornos, and the stray account of the life of the hapless who resisted the aggression of the Macedonians?

Do you agree that during the time of Herodotus, the Ancient Greeks did not know about the land of modern day India?

Indeed I do. I was planning to qualify this, but the qualificatory remarks are not important.

Yes, I agree.

You do realise that in terms of your argument, this means that the term 'Ancient India' can be applied to Pakistan from 499 BC to 288 BC? I make that the sum figure of 211 years in total.

 

[Joe Shearer]

There was no question of Pakistan or the ancient Pakistani people never agreeing to accept anybody as part of the original India or Sindhu, as there was in fact no Pakistan or ancient Pakistani people to do all this agreeing and accepting. There was not even a name that such an ur-Pakistan called itself. It was certainly not Sindhu; neither the Arachosians or the hillmen or the residents of the Punjab as we know it today called themselves Sindhis, for instance, which presumably they would have done if they had that sense of proto-Pakistani identity that you think they did. Nor did they call themselves Indians; as you yourselves have pointed out in numerous comments, this was a name applied to the entire sub-continent by the Europeans.

Well this is so basic it's not worth comment really. Pakistan was known by various names, Saptha Sindhu, for example. The borders of Saptha Sindhu were not necessarily corresponding to any modern borders. From this comes the name of the Indus, and India.

Oh dear. If it were not for the evident integrity of your position and your stand, which I respect, it would be tempting to quote a bard,

"Oh what a web we weave....."

and so on. I do not believe that this position is an attempt to deceive, rather it is an attempt to load more than its fair burden on a simple geographical term and a simple geographical fact.

First, I note with great pleasure the statement

Pakistan was known by various names, Saptha Sindhu, for example. The borders of Saptha Sindhu were not necessarily corresponding to any modern borders.

What, the Saptha (sic) Sindhu did not necessarily correspond to any modern borders? Not to the borders of modern Pakistan, for instance, only to a broad concept of Pakistan (a borderless Pakistan? nothing could be better!)? Then what is the argument about? But wait, there is more to come.

From this comes the name of the Indus, and India.

Oh, bliss.

So first, the Sapta Sindhu does not correspond to any modern-day political division, merely to a broad concept, and it is the origin of the name India? In other words, the name India does not correspond to any modern-day political division, merely to a broad concept? In that case, what is all this about?

The reason for repeating this when it has been said so many times before is to point out that the origin of the name Indus and Indioi was from Greek times.

The name of the Indus comes from Rig Vedic times. It was known as the Sindhu even then.

Indeed.

But not as the Indus. As we just found out, the name Indus came about only when the Greeks figured out what the Persians were referring to when they referred to the Hapta Hindu. So pushing the name Indus into the Rg Veda is both a linguistic and a chronological error.

As we already know ... the Greeks knew the Persians with the invasion of Greece in 499 BC. It was only when they encountered Indian soldiers with the other provincial soldiers that they realised that that there was more to Persia than Persia and Medea. And it was only when the initial wave of Greeks travelled to the frontier under the auspices of the Persian empire that they realised that there was a vast land behind the great river, and came in due course to name it India, and the inhabitants Indioi, well before Alexander's much advertised march.

Yes, finally you've got it! The Ancient Greeks only realized that the Indus was not the end of terra firma when they crossed to the other side of it.

Er...in case it escaped your attention, the words I used were very precise.

"...it was only when the initial wave of Greeks travelled to the frontier under the auspices of the Persian empire that they realised that there was a vast land behind the great river, and came in due course to name it India, and the inhabitants Indioi, well before Alexander's much advertised march..."

Considering the dates, this is between 499 BC and 323 BC, or at best, 550 BC and 323 BC.

Previously the world knew of the Indus as being the end of the earth. No modern day India, no trade, no civilization until 2,000 years ago. All the civilizations, mathematics, history before 2,000 years ago corresponded to regions outside of modern day India.

Well done for finally realizing this.

It is apparent that I am gaining much merit. Soon it may be possible for me to pass an exam in history, Pakistan-style.

But to return to the real world of history and historians from that Nephelokokkygia, to borrow from that great Ancient Pakistani playwright Aristophanes, we have the periplus written in 60 AD, and with a clear mention that Hippalus' discovery of the monsoon was well before that date. Therefore the entire coastal line of the west coast of India (as we earth-bound clodhoppers know it) and much of the east was known to the Greeks. We are also aware that the Persians were well aware of conditions beyond their borders on the Indus; there is in fact evidence that their borders extended beyond the Indus. We are aware that Zhang Qian, the Chinese delegate of the imperial court had identified Shendu, and found to his utter astonishment artefacts and trade goods from southern China emerging after transit through the entire Gangetic basin into the trade bazaars of Central Asia.

We are also aware of Megasthenes' accounts dating to 288 BC or earlier - 288 BC being the last possible date when he could have met a live Chandragupta - and the wealth of detail he adduced. We know of the Indo-Greeks penetrating India up to Mathura in the 2nd century BC, well before your defined time line of 2000 years ago.

What, then, is it that is being reserved for original and unique discovery later? Other than increasing accretion of detailed information?

Further, I am curious to know - what aspects of Ancient Indian civilisation, the civilisation, mathematics (surely you are not referring to the discovery of the 0? Be still, my heart!) and history that your note refers to, pre-dated your cut-off date of 2000 years ago (approximately 10 AD)? If it is in an earlier comment, I apologise; please point me in that direction, and I shall look it up myself.

 

[Ras]

I am glad you asked. This is a hugely neglected aspect of Indian history, and we really should get away from the excessive concentration on the happenings in the Gangetic Plains.

This present thread has taken on disturbing, polemic aspects, otherwise the history of the trans-Indus regions, extending to present-day Ferghana, the outskirts of the Takla Makan, and Uzbekistan, and their surrounding steppe-lands on the one hand, and the ancient and mediaeval cultural focal centres of Balkh/Badakshan and Khurasan is utterly fascinating, and ranges in scope of time from before 3000 BC, perhaps more, to contemporary times. Unfortunately, it has become a propaganda battlefield, and I am deeply saddened at the hyper-patriotic approach taken by some commentators (not Roadrunner, who, to his credit, has come out with considerable ability and command of the big picture, betrayed by defects in specific knowledge and technical information; there are other, presumably younger people who are quite maddening in their approach).

The approach that the originators have taken is flawed at its foundation; it is based on a minor thing, the name of the sub-continent in European accounts, which gives no distinction worth its while to the land on both sides of the Indus, in spite of strenuous attempts to prove that there is in fact some identity. On the other hand, there is rich and ample evidence of the historical unity, though not a cultural unity, of the cultures on the banks of the Indus, excluding some sections. It is a surprise that they do not concentrate on that, which is in historical terms so self-evident that all will align themselves behind the proposition.

On the other hand, the history of South India illustrates a point that I have yet to make, not having found an opportunity. The fact is that ancient Indian history should be based on people, not on regions; if considering regions at one remove from people, it should concentrate on river basins, not on empires; if considering empires, it should concentrate on their linkages with other developments before, during and after their moments in history.

Without claiming that the book has all these aspects within it, I urge you to lose no time in getting your hands on a copy of Nilakantha Sastri's magisterial work "A History of South India". I first encountered it as an undergraduate, and remember the delight and shock with which I devoured it, at one sitting, a treat after the sludgy writing and academic drone of typical history texts on India, not excluding the Cambridge and New Cambridge Histories. Excluding only Romila Thapar and the remarkable D. D. Kosambi.

When you read Nilakantha Sastri - it is very readable, but yet not an easy read, because of the sheer breadth and scope of his vast subject - remember that this was a scholar of Titanic proportions. It was the same man's edited Comprehensive History of India which kindled my interest in the north-west and the fascinating period of the Indo-Greeks, the Indo-Scythians, the Pallavas, and the Kushana.

There are several others you can read thereafter. A completely different approach and treatment is R. C. Majumdar's books; the old man, by the time he stopped writing, had reeled off a matchless set of books, some examples of which (apparently still in print) are:

• Champa: History and Culture of an Indian Colonial Kingdom in the Far East, 2nd to 16th Century AD;
• SuvarnaDvipa: Ancient Indian colonies in the Far East;
• History of Kambuja-Desa;

His other books are heavy going (not that these listed aren't) as he is always addressing a professional audience. They concentrate on the history of eastern India, and on very specialised subjects, including the Vakataka-Gupta period and rule, aspects of Mughal rule, and so on. I have suggested these as he is the only good source that I have read on the Indian interaction with south-east Asia in historical times.

There has been so much incredible work done over the last 40 years that I find myself always swamped with a huge backlog of reading, and can never keep up. It is quite possible that some excellent recent texts have been omitted due to this, and this possibility may kindly be forgiven.

You asked about its dates. Tamil (= Dramila = Dravida) civilisation predates the Indo-Aryan language introduction in India, and the civilisation arguably covered the entire peninsula. Brahui is a remnant of a Dravidian language in the north-west; recently, by undertaking mathematical pattern-matching exercises on a very powerful computer, some purely scientific and mathematical researchers located in Chennai (not Tamilian themselves) found that Tamil patterns matched the Mohenjodaro patterns most closely. A direct linkage between IVC and Tamil is still unproven although tempting, but must await the discovery of a Rosetta stone before it can be confirmed.

Before turning to historical notices and confirmed evidence, it may be noted that the Dravidian languages are apparently cognate to Kol/Mundari; the conclusion is that the original population of India spoke Dravidian languages in one form or the other throughout the sub-continent. This dates back many thousands of years before Christ; the first movement of people out of east Africa is dated to around 40,000 years earlier than today, and the backwash may have taken place - with migrants to south-east Asia and to the archipelagos of Indonesia and the Philipines flowing back to the sub-continent - perhaps 10,000 years later. These dates are pre-historical and speculative; they must be avoided in any academic discussion except as an unproven possibility. In genetic terms, all of the sub-continent except the Pushto are identical in blood-grouping; the Indo-Aryans contributed their language, which swept northern India from end to end, but not much variation occurred in genetic terms. The Pushto are found to be Iranian by blood and genetic analysis. It is amusing to note that pretentious claims of exclusivity by this, that and the other caste group are totally belied by this recent research; there is no genetic difference between Brahmin and Chandal, none between men and women, none between north and south. Facial and skin-colour differences are finally, genetically, in almost undetectable percentages. The north-east is differently constituted, I understand.

In historical terms, the first mentions of the Tamils are from the Sangam era. For the rest, I suggest Nilakantha Sastri. Happy reading and happy learning.

Thanks for the reference...I will try to read Nilakantha Sastri as soon as possible.

It is weird as you say how the history of the South has been almost forgotten in the tug of war about the Gangetic civilizations.

 

[anoop]

i thought i was neutral forum i just said that whats point of debating on country selecting whats is name . our leaders selected in past and we are happy with it. your leader is selected the name "pakistan" i think u are happy with it .

is it a view point so why my post was deleted as a troll ?

and some posted an animated version of pakistan baburs missile whats logic of posting in this thread? is that trolling

 

[Tameem]

One must Ask why the articulators of the constitution of India needs to elaborate further the Term "India" with addition of "Bharata" in it.
Quote
"India, that is Bharata, shall be a union of states."
UnQuote

The subsequent question after reading this above phrase will arises where is that "India, that is not Bharata," because its seems the articulators of constitution knows that place in their deep conscious. didn't they?

I mean to say the term Bharata relates to whole of subcontinent or earth whereas India only related to original word "Sindhu" or IVC.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

One must Ask why the articulators of the constitution of India needs to elaborate further the Term "India" with addition of "Bharata" in it.
Quote
"India, that is Bharata, shall be a union of states."
UnQuote

The subsequent question after reading this above phrase will arises where is that "India, that is not Bharata," because its seems the articulators of constitution knows that place in their deep conscious. didn't they?

I mean to say the term Bharata relates to whole of subcontinent or earth whereas India only related to original word "Sindhu" or IVC.

Do you even know what Bharat means,how the name came into existence?

 

[Tameem]

Do you even know what Bharat means,how the name came into existence?

With Due apologies, i'm not an expert here on this subject but what i know is as follows;
Quote
the Vayu Purana says he who conquers the whole of Bharata-varsa is celebrated as a samrāt (Vayu Purana 45, 86).[3]. However in some puranas, the term 'Bharate' refers to the whole Earth as Emperor Bharata had ruled the whole Earth. Until the death of Maharaja Parikshit, the last formidable emperor of the Kuru dynasty (there were other emperors too after him but they were not as powerful as him), the known world was known as Bharata varsha.
UnQuote.

 

[500]

India is located on Indostanic peninsula, most of people have Hindu religion, and are from Indo-Aryan origin. So I guess India is pretty natural choice.

 

[Joe Shearer]

India is located on Indostanic peninsula, most of people have Hindu religion, and are from Indo-Aryan origin. So I guess India is pretty natural choice.

I am sorry to be a continuing and unrelenting pedant, but the thing is that

• the peninsula is properly South Asia or India, as the term Hindustan, Hindostan or Indostan, the latter two being exotic and archaic in the extreme, referring largely to north India until the Narmada river;
• many 'Hindus' belonging to a political faction have started refusing to be called Hindus, and insist that they belong to Sanatan Dharma, largely for the reasons raised by roadrunner;
• nobody is from Indo-Aryan origin, as the term refers to a group of languages, not to any scientifically valid racial or ethnic group.

These are obviously from an academic point of view, and few people in daily life would have major issues with your summary, if made during a casual conversation. Please do not take my comment as critical.

 

[Ras]

Joe Shearer,

You stated some time back on the thread that the Bhagwat Gita was introduced into the Mahabharata...is there any knowledge on who actually wrote the verses down as it was surely written a long time after the vedas were composed.

 

[Joe Shearer]

One must Ask why the articulators of the constitution of India needs to elaborate further the Term "India" with addition of "Bharata" in it.
Quote
"India, that is Bharata, shall be a union of states."
UnQuote

The subsequent question after reading this above phrase will arises where is that "India, that is not Bharata," because its seems the articulators of constitution knows that place in their deep conscious. didn't they?

I mean to say the term Bharata relates to whole of subcontinent or earth whereas India only related to original word "Sindhu" or IVC.

The reason for Dr. Ambedkar agreeing to this phrasing was because of a widespread feeling among a section in the house that in the aftermath of victory over the colonial power, the departed master's terms and phrases should be avoided as far as possible.

Even within the Constituent Assembly, there was a distinct division of opinion between compulsive and radical revisionists, and an innately conservative body who wanted the least disturbance possible.

The naming of the republican democracy was therefore a compromise between the two: the radicals got their non-European version of the name, the conservatives, presiding over a constitution formation which was so largely dependent on English as a language for discussion and definition, got their traditional name.

The rest of that reported debate had not taken place in the way reported, as far as I know.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Joe Shearer,

You stated some time back on the thread that the Bhagwat Gita was introduced into the Mahabharata...is there any knowledge on who actually wrote the verses down as it was surely written a long time after the vedas were composed.

No, there is no evidence on the real author.

While tradition states that it was composed by Vyasa himself, that is simply not consistent with the history of the Mahabharata itself.

Just to refresh our memory, the original 24,000-verse Jaya was introduced by Vyasa, himself a character in the epic, supposedly dictated to Ganesha;
it was introduced to the great-grandson of the Pandavas, Janamejaya, by Vaisampayan, the disciple of Vyasa, still probably 24,000 verses long;
finally, Ugrasrava Sauti, a professional story-teller, told the long story, by now approximately 100,000 verses, to a group of sleepy and tired priests presiding over a 12-year long yagna.

My own best guess, from whatever I have read (not much) was that it was composed after the Upanishads, before the formation of the six schools of philosophy, perhaps between 100 BC to 0 BC. The composer had great poetic skills. Whoever he was. I have no comment about the contents, some of which is indeed sublime, as I do not wish to die a messy death.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I beg leave to absent myself for a day, as I found that my memory of the history of Buddhism needs serious refreshing. It would be discourteous to roadrunner to respond to his queries without getting a renewed grip on this long-forgotten subject.

If there are any queries addressed to me, or any that might benefit from an additional comment from me, I will take all these up together tomorrow, Wednesday the 8th of December. With some luck, somebody will remember that today is a military anniversary of great significance, and I will get some more time in the resulting uproar.

 

[Pagla Dashu]

Joe, here is article by Mr Pradip Bhattacharya. The article is actually a review of a research work by Dr. James Mitchiner, former British Deputy High Commissioner in Kolkata. I read this article quite sometime ago and then completely forgot about it until I read your comments. Mr Bhattacharya makes some interesting points, although he seems to be taking the Puranas and associated texts as historical texts. Anyway, he states towards the end of his article;

The Yavanas (Greeks) are stated to have demolished the mud walls of Kusumadhvaja (Pataliputra) after approaching Saketa (Ayodhya) with Panchalas and Mathuras, following which there is anarchy. It goes on to say that the Yavanas will not remain here but are drawn away by war in their own realm. After their departure there will be seven great kings of Saketa. Thereafter, a mighty Shaka king raids Pushpanama (Pataliputra) and kills a quarter of the population including all the youngest men but is slain by the Kalinga king Shata and a group of Sabalas (Savaras).

<snip>

Patanjali mentions Saketa and Madhyamika being besieged by the Yavana. A series of Indo-Greek coins have been found at Dewas near Ujjain, supporting the Yavana presence in Malwa. The Besnagar Garuda pillar inscription of Yavana Heliodorus as an envoy from Taxila of king Antialkidas is dated to around 140 B.C. Kharavela’s inscription in Hathigumpha mentions his attacking Rajagriha and sending the Yavana king Dimita (Demetrios) packing to Mathura, showing a Greek presence in Magadha around the same time. Panchala “Mitra” coins have been found at Pataliputra and names ending with “mitra” in inscriptions at Bodh Gaya. All these substantiate the Yuga Purana’s account of a joint expedition of Yavanas, Panchalas and Mathuras. Mitichiner suggests that this occurred around 190 B.C. between the reigns of Shalishuka Maurya (c. 200 B.C.) and Pushyamitra Sunga (c. 187 B.C.) when the Indo-Greek king was either Euthydemos (230-190 B.C.) or Demetrios (205-190 B.C. as co-regent and 190-171 as king). The Yavanas were called away by some attack on the border such as the Antiochus III’s two year long siege of Euthydemos in Balkh , or the seccession of Sogdiana from Bactria around 190 B.C. This is also when the Maurya dynasty was extinguished by Pushyamitra.

All that remains is to explain the absence of any reference to Alexander’s invasion, about which all Puranas are silent. K.D. Sethna (Amal Kiran) made a valiant effort to plug this gap in his Ancient India in a New Light. But that is a different story.​

 

[Joe Shearer]

So you don't think Sunga's reign virtually eliminated Buddhism from modern day India through religious persecution?

You also don't believe that the most significant advances in Buddhism occurred outside of modern day India? Mahayana Buddhism, tantric buddhism etc, the Buddhist Scrolls in Afghanistan, the Bamiyan Buddahs, the Swat inscriptions?

It is a matter of satisfaction to have gone back to the boundless fascination that Buddhism and the history of Buddhism holds for students of Ancient Indian history.

To revert to the suggestions you made, seriatim:

1. Mahayana Buddhism
   
   This is a little puzzling.
   
   Mahayana Buddhism is mistakenly taken to be a distinct branch or school of Buddhism. The fact is that it is the tendency within Buddhism to look for an intermediary, a Buddha, a Bodhisattva, (in Theravada Buddhism, an Arahant), to introduce ordinary mortals to the benefits and advantages of leading a good life, and proceeding to go through various stages, including Arahant, Bodhisattva and Buddha, to parinirvana - the ultimate nirvana. Don't even ask what other kind of nirvana there might be, or it will become necessary to immerse ourselves in nirvana-with-limits and nirvana-without-limits. Trust me, unless you are a senior lama, you don't need to know.
   
   It is theoretically possible for Mahayana and, say, Theravada Buddhists to coexist peacefully in the same monastery, or for instance, Mahayana and Vajrayana monks to stay in proximity without disturbing or distressing each other.
   
   Was Mahayana Buddhism developed outside India? Ah, now I get it. Actually, no. It started within India, well within the living memory of the early converts, but it took massive proportions, huge followings in Central Asia, and is today the dominant form in China, Japan and so on.
   
   The greatest influence on this conversion was the legend of the Amitabha Buddha, and the Pure Land school, which attracted hundreds of thousands of converts. I am not at all sure that the Buddha would have approved, sceptical as he was about human intermediaries interfering between individuals and their quest for salvation.
   
   The best that can be said in support of a connection between the Indus Valley cultures and Mahayana Buddhism is that Mahayana Buddhism was hugely popular outside India, in Central Asia, in China, Japan, Mongolia, Korea, Vietnam, Tibet (along with Vajrayana), Nepal and Bhutan.
   
   Also, Amitabha Buddha is associated with this phase of development, representing as he did in Buddhist mythology the Pure Land school, and thereby hugely popular in these countries.
   
   
2. Tantric/Vajrayana Buddhism
   
   There is of course the legend that Padmasambhava was born not in Orissa but in Swat. As a leading light in the development of Vajrayana theory, his presence in that area and his work having developed in that area (both conjectural) would naturally place Swat among the early centres of development of the theory and practice of Vajrayana Buddhism.
   
   Unfortunately, it is a highly speculative theory, and the standard agreement seems to be on a kingdom placed within Orissa.
   
   Considering the significant role played by eastern India in the growth of Tantric Buddhism as well as Tantric Hinduism, it is difficult to know what to believe.
   
   On the other hand, there were no connections between Swat and Tibet, whereas there were connections between Ladakh and Tibet.
   
   It is another matter when it comes to the development of Vajrayana Buddhism.
   
   On this I can say with force and certainty that this was largely a development within India, and in fact, had parallels within Hinduism itself; there are Vajrayana Buddhists and Tantric Hindus (it is technically incorrect to talk of Tantric Buddhism).
   
   Nalanda in its late stages, in the 13th century, was a particularly strong centre of Vajrayana. Far more than Mahayana Buddhism, which depended on elevated beings to lead humans beings to salvation, Vajrayana Buddhism depended on training the mind and senses through a series of attention-focussing 'instruments' = tantra instruments.
   
   There are also esoteric and mysterious practises which are hair-raising in the recounting, and we shall keep away from them.
   
   There was almost nothing with an Indus orientation in Tantric Buddhism; in fact, if it is to be localised, eastern India and in particular, Bengal, have a vital role to play. Tibet was re-seeded with Buddhist doctrine by a Bengali master, Atish Dipankar, from my part of the country - but I think I have spoken of that already, elsewhere.
   
   
3. Buddhist scrolls in Afghanistan
   
   There were Buddhist scrolls all over the world, not just in Afghanistan. The Indo-Greek kingdoms of Balkh were early converts to Buddhism. For that reason, this region had its share of manuscripts. The real treasure troves lie in China and in Tibet.
   
   It is estimated that perhaps between 1,500 and 2,000 manuscripts are left in Indian languages. Of these, a large number have been translated into Chinese and Japanese languages, and into Tibetan. Almost all are available in India, but scattered in different repositories, and of course, their translated counterparts exist in Japan, China and Tibet.
   
   I am not sure what particular significance exists for Buddhist manuscripts in Afghanistan.
   
   
4. The Buddha of Bamiyan
   
   A wonderful monument, but in what way was it essential or central to the growth of the Buddhist religion? Or different from the Buddha of Kamakura? or the Stupa of Sanchi?
   
   The point of course is that the only thing that the Indus Valley cultures, Gandhara under the Greeks to be precise, was instrumental in introducing to India was iconography. Until the Greeks started building statues of the Buddha, building icons of the Gods, idols, was not a common practice in Vedic Hinduism. In fact, it didn't exist. It was with the imitation of Greek icons that India came to idolatry.
   
   Ironic.
   
   
5. The Swat inscriptions
   
   I am not aware what these refer to, other than Ashokan pillars. Only two are to be found in these regions, to the best of my knowledge.