The Reign of Non-History

[Chronos]

Puzzled me too. @Joe Shearer must have confused you with a crazy right winger.

either my sarcasm is too effective, or really poorly done. I choose to believe the former

 

[Joe Shearer]

either my sarcasm is too effective, or really poorly done. I choose to believe the former

Oh, shut up. Look at your bloody ratings. Don't go on and bloody on about it.

 

[Chronos]

Oh, shut up. Look at your bloody ratings. Don't go on and bloody on about it.

take a deep breath. I had issues with other members of this forum with my badly timed humor. I was merely replying to @Bang Galore who had similar things happen to him as well.

Amazing contributions.

The dating based on the birth of Christ is at the moment nothing but a convention, and remains in place because there is no agreement on a replacement. You will, of course, be vastly astonished to find that the issue had arisen and has been debated,and is being debated even today, with no conclusion apparent.

As for the past demands by the last BJP government, removal of AIT if it is considered a mass invasion is one thing, removing it as a short-hand for the introduction of Aryan languages by migrants, and the spread of this language, or these languages, is quite another thing. They may do what they want by administrative fiat, no historian worth his or her salt will agree, and nor will future generations, unless the Sangh Parivar decides to give them sinecures.

Describing the Muslim invasion no doubt means gory accounts of every urban legend in the repertory; if the government is stupid enough to put such divisive and socially explosive things into the textbooks, that is up to them.

Finally, what freedom fighters are we talking about? There were none from the Sangh Parivar, not even from the Hindu Mahasabha, which existed then?

would that explain Vallabhai patel's and Bose's induction into the pantheon of 'their' freedom fighters.

 

[Bang Galore]

Getting sucked into discussing the Aryan whatever bit runs the risk of focusing too much attention on this area, a place where however well intentioned the arguments may end up getting oneself stuck. The focus should be on the point you make about how later history is read and whether "marxist" historians have done as bad a job as is supposed. Many right wingers will always use the AIT part to beat down everything else & it would be better not to get stuck in an un-winnable debate.

You draw a distinction above between the concept of a Deva and Asura divide between the Indo-Aryans and the Iranians, relating to division of Indo-Iranian people in different cultural practices, and that of the colonial historians.

First, you meant religious beliefs and bowdlerised that by an equivocation, 'different cultural practices'. That is all right; if you do not want to face up to the fact that there was a religious schism, and that the Zoroastrians were the dominant branch who retained their position and status, and sent away to exile elements of their kindred who believed in an opposite theology, that is up to you.

Difficult to argue Zoraoastriansim ran parallel to the early part of the Rg veda, most scholars admit a later connection . Especially considering the early part of the Rg veda used Asura & Deva interchangeably and it was only later the schism actually took place. Known Iranian mythology starts from after the schism.

Second, it is irritating to see a shifting position taken, where at times, someone says that the AIT was nonsense, at other times, that same person cites the Indo-Iranian people and their division into Indo-Aryan and Iranian. What is that, pray, other than the classical AIT division and the classic AIT position of an invading mass re-stated without acknowledgement that it is being re-stated?

No one disputes the division (cannot be done), only the timing and probably the area.

If I may be critical of an otherwise balanced set of views, where is the connection between discarded mythologies, ancient scripts or preoccupied (did you mean pre-determined?) ideological dogmas and the Marxist school? The Marxist school wrote on mediaeval India; Irfan Habib wrote on that period. Which Marxist historian are you claiming to have addressed the ancient Indian historical period? And how do you call the theories of the AIT Marxist theories, when they had nothing to do with those theories, or with their opposites?

Whether the Marxists are right or wrong about their interpretation of mediaeval India, and their analysis of the structure of the nobility at court during the Sultanate or the Mughal empire is one thing; calling both historians who happen to be ethnic Europeans, and others who are Indian but have published their works in peer reviewed journals and got their work approved by peer groups through papers, conferences and seminars Marxist is a bizarre piece of labelling.

Particularly bizarre because the bone-heads who use these obtuse labels themselves draw all their inspiration and their adversarial energy from western historians, while continuing to accuse everybody not in agreement of being Marxists and of being missionary and of being of suspect western origin, all at once, all in one breath.

Good point. We now have have a situation where what passes for debate is muck throwing & name calling.

 

[Joe Shearer]

take a deep breath. I had issues with other members of this forum with my badly timed humor. I was merely replying to @Bang Galore who had similar things happen to him as well.



would that explain Vallabhai patel's and Bose's induction into the pantheon of 'their' freedom fighters.

Two Congress members? One whose brother was a stalwart of the party even after he, the main hero and protagonist, had left the party for all practical purposes? Whose family continued to be, and is, to this date, a staunchly Congress family? The other the very person who once banned the RSS? He lifted the ban, on conditions, which were recently breached by the RSS under Mohan Bhagwat, more shame to them.

How it would 'explain' these inductions is evidently clearer to you than to me.

@Bang Galore

I object to the sheer lack of knowledge that was displayed in the offensive posts. None of them deployed the information and analysis that you did.

Apart from the muck-throwing and the name-calling, do let me know where I am wrong.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Getting sucked into discussing the Aryan whatever bit runs the risk of focusing too much attention on this area, a place where whoever well intentioned the arguments may end up getting oneself stuck. The focus should be on the point you make about how later history is read and whether "marxist" historians have done as bad a job as is supposed. Many right wingers will always use the AIT part to beat down everything else & it would be better not to get stuck in an un-winnable debate.


Difficult to argue Zoraoastriansim ran parallel to the early part of the Rg veda, most scholars admit a later connection . Especially considering the early part of the Rg veda used Asura & Deva interchangeably and it was only later the schism actually took place. Known Iranian mythology starts from after the schism.


No one disputes the division (cannot be done), only the timing and probably the area.


Good point. We now have have a situation where what passes for debate is muck throwing & name calling.

I agree that this particular controversy is not to be resolved in the near future, although, quite honestly, I think that there is enough incremental evidence that the Indo-Aryan languages were imported. The mass invasion part of it is to be ruled out, although considering the numbers of migrants from Central Asia during the late mediaeval period, and their lack of impact on the genetics of the population, we might pause for thought.

What irritates me the most is that this is not even history. It keeps getting dragged in because some professors insist on trying to explain this introduction of the Indo-Aryan languages and the Indus Civilisation, and end up making appalling wrong statements.

 

[Bang Galore]

Apart from the muck-throwing and the name-calling, do let me know where I am wrong.

Didn't suggest that was what you were doing (nor was I referring to the debate here), I was agreeing with you about how the discourse is all about "marxist " historians & not about history in itself. Labeling someone something & using that label to ignore any & all points raised is becoming standard practice. On both sides, though one has to admit that some of the people making the "Hindutva historians" tag seem to have more of the first part & less of the second bit. Lousy situation. I find some of the "new history" ideas pathetic. We are now reaching a stage where all learning might as well be done on the internet. A mating of large dollops of fiction with small slices of history......

 

[Bang Galore]

I agree that this particular controversy is not to be resolved in the near future, although, quite honestly, I think that there is enough incremental evidence that the Indo-Aryan languages were imported. The mass invasion part of it is to be ruled out, although considering the numbers of migrants from Central Asia during the late mediaeval period, and their lack of impact on the genetics of the population, we might pause for thought.

Good point. It's why I never rule out some sort of an migration, we simply have no explanation for the languages, certainly no adequate explanation. It's far easier however to beat down the conventional AIT than it is to offer an workable & evidenced based alternative. The genetic evidence only adds to the confusion, some of the dating is confusing to say the least. As is, (you mentioned that) the lack of impact of known migrations and the almost complete mixing(to whatever percentages). We just have to accept that we are unlikely to find clear evidence (beyond however clear genetics is), certainly nothing that will convince all doubters, one way or the other. Better not to labour too much on this point, it is now more of a quagmire than anything else.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Can you please tell us a better way to define "Raksasa" other than that is given by Marxist historians here? Or do you really believe in demons?

Who were the Rakshashas in the Vedas etc?

 

[scorpionx]

If I may be critical of an otherwise balanced set of views, where is the connection between discarded mythologies, ancient scripts or preoccupied (did you mean pre-determined?) ideological dogmas and the Marxist school? The Marxist school wrote on mediaeval India; Irfan Habib wrote on that period. Which Marxist historian are you claiming to have addressed the ancient Indian historical period? And how do you call the theories of the AIT Marxist theories, when they had nothing to do with those theories, or with their opposites?

There is absolutely no connection at all. When someone comes with Deva Asura , Ravana or kamsa's stories and mix it up with studies (that demand proper scholarly research) I refuse to accept it to be discussed with any seriousness. By ideological dogmas I meant that inspires our right wing historians who are hell bent upon mixing their religious faith with scientific research by using epics as part of their own method of historiography.

As far as reading history of medieval India is concerned, is there any other set of historians who can outperform Habib, Romla Thapar or Satish Chandra? It is gross stupidity to call them Marxist as their works have nothing to do with anything leftist and their contribution to Indian history can not be matched by much others. What I meant is, if "Marxist" historians (as they have been blamed by right wingers to malign Indian history by their invasion theory) are proved wrong by genetic studies then it is a good sign and this is what we should look for; Not what Y S Rao and ICHR is trying to do.

Who were the Rakshashas in the Vedas etc?

No idea, my friend. Who were they?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Good point. It's why I never rule out some sort of an migration, we simply have no explanation for the languages, certainly no adequate explanation. It's far easier however to beat down the conventional AIT than it is to offer an workable & evidenced based alternative. The genetic evidence only adds to the confusion, some of the dating is confusing to say the least. As is, (you mentioned that) the lack of impact of known migrations and the almost complete mixing(to whatever percentages). We just have to accept that we are unlikely to find clear evidence (beyond however clear genetics is), certainly nothing that will convince all doubters, one way or the other. Better not to labour too much on this point, it is now more of a quagmire than anything else.

<sigh>

Indeed.

 

[INDIC]

You must bring yourself to limit what you say and write in the interests of sanity, not least of it your own.

You draw a distinction above between the concept of a Deva and Asura divide between the Indo-Aryans and the Iranians, relating to division of Indo-Iranian people in different cultural practices, and that of the colonial historians.

First, you meant religious beliefs and bowdlerised that by an equivocation, 'different cultural practices'. That is all right; if you do not want to face up to the fact that there was a religious schism, and that the Zoroastrians were the dominant branch who retained their position and status, and sent away to exile elements of their kindred who believed in an opposite theology, that is up to you.

Second, it is irritating to see a shifting position taken, where at times, someone says that the AIT was nonsense, at other times, that same person cites the Indo-Iranian people and their division into Indo-Aryan and Iranian. What is that, pray, other than the classical AIT division and the classic AIT position of an invading mass re-stated without acknowledgement that it is being re-stated?

Third, who is it that you claim first explained this Indo-Iranian=>Iranian + Indo-Aryan structure, essentially today a linguistic structure, in opposition to those whom you call 'colonial historians'? Can you name an historian not from the Europeans' ranks who said this earlier than the Europeans, including Max Mueller? Why do you spread disinformation of this particularly disingenuous kind?

Fourth, which colonial historian mapped Devas onto Aryans and Asuras onto Dravidians? Was it not that the Dravidian language was thought, and is still thought to have been spoken throughout south Asia, superseding the Austric languages? Is not the Deva-Asura identification with Aryan and Dravidian an afterthought of uncertain origin, perhaps from one of those Internet sites that people keep expressing satisfaction about, as they are bringing in diverse views which we can absorb through our pores without being 'fed' our knowledge?

Fifth, why are you introducing the Ramayana as an historic source through the backdoor, by raising a straw man controversy about Ravana being an Asura being counterpoised by Jarasandha and Kansa also being Asuras? No sane historian claims the events of the Ramayana, or the characters of the Ramayana to be historical figures; raising the question of Ravana's Asura status is entirely your own concoction, and nothing to do with history, other than the history of the hedge scholars that have now become popular with the idiots of the Sangh Parivar. Raising his status is itself an injection of myth into history; raising two others as a triumphant vindication of the opposite camp, and a contradiction of theories based on his status is pure concoction, as nobody built any theories based on his status in the first place, and there was no opposite camp among historians as a direct consequence.

All that this intervention of yours shows is the dismal depth which historical analysis will reach once these Hindutvavadi clowns start manipulating the texts.

Please, on a personal note, get a grip on yourself. For every sane and sensible note or post, at least a half-dozen before and after ensue, which are completely ridiculous and seemingly the fantasies of a feverish mind. This is really not acceptable.

I am not referring to it being taught in history books but there are lots of people who still use Asura and Deva things to attack Hinduism and Indian culture. I have personally witnessed that, the colonial historians have left behind a huge pile of garbage about the Indian history and you will discuss it with other people you find it and there are scores of people who infact blatantly claim genetic studies as Hindutva propaganda. So, I was merely referring to where Asura-Deva schism can be traced to even if it goes beyond to the Indo-Iranian culture.

 

[Bang Galore]

As far as reading history of medieval India is concerned, is there any other set of historians who can outperform Habib, Romla Thapar or Satish Chandra? It is gross stupidity to call them Marxist as their works have nothing to do with anything leftist and their contribution to Indian history can not be matched by much others. What I meant is, if "Marxist" historians (as they have been blamed by right wingers to malign Indian history by their invasion theory) are proved wrong by genetic studies then it is a good sign and this is what we should look for; Not what Y S Rao and ICHR is trying to do.

The problem here is not about questioning biases, many left leaning historians can be accused of a slant. No real problem if there is a preference for a slant in the other direction by historians who lean that way. The problem here is that we may no longer be bothering about with historians by replacing them non-historians without even a pretense of a fig leaf.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I am not referring to it being taught in history books but there are lots of people who still use Asura and Deva things to attack Hinduism and Indian culture. I have personally witnessed that, the colonial historians have left behind a huge pile of garbage about the Indian history and you will discuss it with other people you find it and there are scores of people who infact blatantly claim genetic studies as Hindutva propaganda. So, I was merely referring to where Asura-Deva schism can be traced to even if it goes beyond to the Indo-Iranian culture.

That puts a different complexion on things. I agree with you in broad principle on these points.

 

[INDIC]

You might like to include the plain fact that it is the Hindutva revisionists who are clinging on to the racial connotations of Aryan and Dravidian, while the rest of the world has agreed that these terms can be used only as linguistic categories.

Why are you selective in your explanations? Is there something you are afraid to bring up?

What did you mean by the statement that there are new discoveries in archaeology rejecting old theories? Can you cite an example? Or examples? I ask in order to know.

I was referring to inclusion the real meaning of Arya and Dravida from Hindu scriptures which has a non-racial meaning and unfortunately many of the current pool of students in India don't know this basics since Europeans turned them into a races. Infact, the whitewashed version of Arya and Dravida into the races is so ingrained, if somebody write 'aryan was not a race' in history books, there will be a group of historians who will come to open protest and criticism against this change.