TURNING POINT IN THE HISTORY OF INDIAN SUBCONTINENT

[Rig Vedic]

Of course, to those of 'content-free' thought processes, the fact that it was the Vedic culture, in the process of being imposed on another, older culture, and that there was nothing called the Vedic people, is not in the least irrelevant. Such fragments of fact are merely content, to be eschewed.

You are just restating your belief and calling it a "fact".

 

[Rusty]

You are just restating your belief and calling it a "fact".

tell me, did the "vedic people" all spontaneously appear into existence at the same time, believing the same thing, speaking the same language, all across South Asia?
of course not, that is just silly.
So at one point in time a group called the "Vadic people" went across South Asia and imposed it on everyone else. This caused India to lose most of it's earlier religion/language/culture. Yet we still have evidence for this in the few tribe who still live in the jungles and practice a sort of shamanistic religion that is not based on Hinduism. The religion of those people is truly the original religion of India.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You are just restating your belief and calling it a "fact".

<groan>

Somebody rescue me from these autodidact. How come your extensive re-learning did not include some information about the difference between people and culture? How will you understand that diverse peoples followed one culture, some voluntarily, as their inheritance, some involuntarily, in order to get along with the new political order, some opportunistically, in order to get trade and land owning benefits, or military alliances?

Sometimes I wonder if you would pass the Eliza test. Or an IQ test.

tell me, did the "vedic people" all spontaneously appear into existence at the same time, believing the same thing, speaking the same language, all across South Asia?
of course not, that is just silly.
So at one point in time a group called the "Vadic people" went across South Asia and imposed it on everyone else. This caused India to lose most of it's earlier religion/language/culture. Yet we still have evidence for this in the few tribe who still live in the jungles and practice a sort of shamanistic religion that is not based on Hinduism. The religion of those people is truly the original religion of India.

Not just that. If you wander around a Santal village even today, and watch how Bengali or Hindi or Odiya is being shoved down the throat of the children and how they are even as we speak being made ashamed of their own language and heritage, you will learn that the process is ongoing.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Rig Vedic, please tell me that you are using B. B. Lal's nonsensical paper as ammunition and do not really believe it it yourself. I am rapidly losing my faith in my fellow human beings at the thought that you might - just perhaps - actually believe that clap-trap. That a learned researcher and archaeologist like him - wait a minute. A dreadful thought just struck me.

Rig Vedic, please, have pity on me, and answer truthfully. You do know that Dr. Braj Basi Lal is an archaeologist? And that his views on history, and on literary evidence are not worth diddly poop?

Please respond. It is a question of a nervous breakdown for me.

 

[neokautilya2]

what i simply asked was the reason for downfall of india as a country

but it seems the focus has been shifted towards the same old bullshit which was made famous by hitler (aryans)

ontopic- according to me cause of downfall of india was

excessive & wrong interpretation of brahminism (am a brahmin and have no qualms in criticizing it)

rigid caste system

islamic invasion ( talking of invaders ,dont take it on religion)

defensive rather than offensive approach ( may be were too early to bring the concept of peace, while the whole world was still in dark ages glorifying violence)

 

[LaBong]

Your first part is actually quite accurate.
The Aryans did give India proto Sanskrit, but Sanskrit developed natively in India for thousands of years.
I do disagree with the forced part, as the Aryans forced it on the Dravidian speaking people and pushed Dravidian language to south India. So if you really want to be pure of the land, then stop speaking Hindu and start speaking Tamil

We don't have any weird believes of any pure people. In fact it is the Vedas that call them "noble" not us.
I am merely pointing out the similarities of the Aryan invasions and the Islamic ones.
While many Indians despise Muslims because they consider it foreign, they would die to defend their "native" language and culture......which just happens to be not so native to begin with.

And it is due to this paradox that many Indians cannot believe in it. It will destroy their very identity.

First of all I don't consider Indian Muslims outsider nor do I despise them. If that's the presumption based on which your posts are being made then its not worth replying to.

secondly, you once again simplifying a complex process just to suit your believe and at that you are no different than saffronists. None pushed the dravidians to south, the people in south India have been living in south India since the reached there from Africa through the coastal route (second wave of migration to India). Its considered that once upon a time whole subcontinent used to speak a proto Dravidian language before adopting indo Aryan language family. The case is made with existence of Dravidian speaking people in modern day Pakistan and Dravidian substratum of indo Aryan language.

And I didn't understand why should I stop speaking hindi( I don't speak Hindi to begin with)

 

[Rig Vedic]

<groan>

Somebody rescue me from these autodidact. How come your extensive re-learning did not include some information about the difference between people and culture? How will you understand that diverse peoples followed one culture, some voluntarily, as their inheritance, some involuntarily, in order to get along with the new political order, some opportunistically, in order to get trade and land owning benefits, or military alliances?

Sometimes I wonder if you would pass the Eliza test. Or an IQ test.

What new political order, if there had not been any "Aryan" invasion / migration? Which is why your output is a restatement of your known beliefs. In fact, the Vedic settlements on the banks of the Saraswati had endured for millenia before abandonment around 2000 BC.

Not just that. If you wander around a Santal village even today, and watch how Bengali or Hindi or Odiya is being shoved down the throat of the children and how they are even as we speak being made ashamed of their own language and heritage, you will learn that the process is ongoing.

We've had ANIs and ASIs, and we certainly have diverse local subcultures.

 

[Bang Galore]

How come languages from Celtic to Persian to Hindi and Bengali are more similar than other languages, such as Arabic or Chinese?

That is the million dollar question that single-handedly continues to support the likelihood of an proto Aryan influence into India. No matter what the dating controversies are, no matter whether there is no archaeological proof of any invasion, no matter the genetic studies, this question cannot be answered (not counting OIT seriously) in any other manner satisfactorily. It is the one reason why I believe that one can never rule out some sort of AIT, even if it is a much changed version from the present.

 

[Rig Vedic]

@Rig Vedic, please tell me that you are using B. B. Lal's nonsensical paper as ammunition and do not really believe it it yourself. I am rapidly losing my faith in my fellow human beings at the thought that you might - just perhaps - actually believe that clap-trap. That a learned researcher and archaeologist like him - wait a minute. A dreadful thought just struck me.

Rig Vedic, please, have pity on me, and answer truthfully. You do know that Dr. Braj Basi Lal is an archaeologist? And that his views on history, and on literary evidence are not worth diddly poop?

Please respond. It is a question of a nervous breakdown for me.

He has been finding, excavating and dating settlements. Various others have been looked at genetics, satellite hydrology and at the Vedic texts. One puts everything together to form a picture.

 

[Rig Vedic]

not counting OIT seriously ... one can never rule out some sort of AIT

A valid statement, if one makes discounting the OIT an axiom.

 

[Joe Shearer]

What new political order, if there had not been any "Aryan" invasion / migration? Which is why your output is a restatement of your known beliefs. In fact, the Vedic settlements on the banks of the Saraswati had endured for millenia before abandonment around 2000 BC.

We've had ANIs and ASIs, and we certainly have diverse local subcultures.

The Vedic settlements on the banks of the Saraswati were Harappan culture settlements, and were close to the settlements of their type at other locations. The settlements in the riverbed - none were on the banks, a content that you earnestly seem to be trying to shake off - included parallel and distinct settlements with the pottery associated with Vedic settlers, and a glance at the table I have drawn will help you educate yourself on this point. Harappan settlements - the entire IVC, in fact - had died out by 1200 BC. There may have been parallel settlements, but nobody has claimed that they are one and the same except to achieve the political purpose of isolating a religious community as not being indigenous.

The diverse sub-cultures you are talking about are those actively speaking Dravidian and Mon-Khmer languages. Don't create confusion.

He has been finding, excavating and dating settlements. Various others have been looked at genetics, satellite hydrology and at the Vedic texts. One puts everything together to form a picture.

Then how is it that you did not notice, before doing arati to it, that his paper on the Saraswati is largely based on analysis of the Vedas, for which he is singularly untrained? Unless knowledge of Classical Sanskrit automatically empowers you, as it seems to do for the entire revisionist pack.

 

[Rig Vedic]

The Vedic settlements on the banks of the Saraswati were Harappan culture settlements, and were close to the settlements of their type at other locations. The settlements in the riverbed - none were on the banks, a content that you earnestly seem to be trying to shake off - included parallel and distinct settlements with the pottery associated with Vedic settlers, and a glance at the table I have drawn will help you educate yourself on this point. Harappan settlements - the entire IVC, in fact - had died out by 1200 BC. There may have been parallel settlements, but nobody has claimed that they are one and the same except to achieve the political purpose of isolating a religious community as not being indigenous.

We know from Vedic texts that there were Vedic settlements on the banks of the Saraswati when it was a mighty river. Any settlements in the Kalibangan area, for example, at the confluence of the Drishadvati and Saraswati, both important Vedic rivers, dating to around 2500 BC, must be Vedic.

The diverse sub-cultures you are talking about are those actively speaking Dravidian and Mon-Khmer languages. Don't create confusion.

Why the confusion?

Then how is it that you did not notice, before doing arati to it, that his paper on the Saraswati is largely based on analysis of the Vedas, for which he is singularly untrained? Unless knowledge of Classical Sanskrit automatically empowers you, as it seems to do for the entire revisionist pack.

More content-free ad-hominem stuff. You are welcome to post any substantive objections to what he is saying.

 

[Joe Shearer]

We know from Vedic texts that there were Vedic settlements on the banks of the Saraswati when it was a mighty river. Are you saying that Kalibangan say is not on the banks?

Why the confusion?



More content-free ad-hominem stuff. You are welcome to post any substantive objections to what he is saying.

What was Vedic about Kalibangan? It is a pure Harappan site.

About ANI and ASI, those are genetic categories; Santals being Sanskritised is a cultural process. You cannot use genetic categories to track cultural status or movement. It is the confusion in your mind about the difference between people, considered as genetic instances, and culture, which refers to the language that people use, the clothes they wear, the food they eat, the life-style that they lead and their main means of occupation and earning a livelihood, their religion, their life practices, including ceremonies at birth, when reaching mature years and on being married, having children, and dying. Try to retain some vague knowledge when you post what you are discussing and what concepts are involved. Otherwise it is not only so visibly difficult for you, it becomes difficult for others to slow down, give you a helping hand, and explain things patiently over and over again. Nobody signed on here as an educational aide to the learning challenged.

About the B. B. Lal piece of trash. All right, if you seriously want his piece of trash dissected, you will get it, in my own sweet time.

 

[Rig Vedic]

What was Vedic about Kalibangan? It is a pure Harappan site.

And why should those two categories be distinct?

About ANI and ASI, those are genetic categories; Santals being Sanskritised is a cultural process. You cannot use genetic categories to track cultural status or movement.

Sure, they may have their subculture but that need not have any genetic implication. And I had no intention of positing that. The genetic studies in fact show that both Adivasis and non-Adivasis are equally indigenous.

About the B. B. Lal piece of trash. All right, if you seriously want his piece of trash dissected, you will get it, in my own sweet time.

err ... the "trash" is from a former Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India, and Padma Bhushan awardee. But I mention that only because you are excessively enslaved to titles ... I prefer to look at content rather than personalities, and have no a-priori problem with the proverbial child who is unable to see the King's clothes.

 

[madooxno9]

Well i wish to introduce an excerpt from Vivekanana's Book The East and the west . I hope this may help you realize that you all are mixed , non are pure . But we may take pride that we still behold the values our ancestors had .

The original word is Yavana itself; for not only the Hindus but the ancient Egyptians and the Babylonians as well called the Greeks by that name. By the word Pahlava is meant the ancient Parsees, speaking the Pahlavi tongue. Even now, Khash denotes the semi-civilised Aryan tribes living in mountainous regions and in the Himalayas, and the word is still used in this sense. In that sense, the present Europeans are the descendants of the Khash; in other words, those Aryan tribes that were uncivilised in ancient days are all Khash.
In the opinion of modern savants, the Aryans had reddish-white complexion, black or red hair, straight noses, well-drawn eyes, etc.; and the formation of the skull varied a little according to the colour of the hair. Where the complexion is dark, there the change has come to pass owing to the mixture of the pure Aryan blood with black races. They hold that there are still some tribes to the west of the Himalayan borders who are of pure Aryan blood, and that the rest are all of mixed blood; otherwise, how could they be dark? But the European Pundits ought to know by this time that, in the southern parts of India, many children are born with red hair, which after two or three years changes into black, and that in the Himalayas many have red hair and blue or grey eyes.
Let the Pundits fight among themselves; it is the Hindus who have all along called themselves Aryas. Whether of pure or mixed blood, the Hindus are Aryas; there it rests. If the Europeans do not like us, Aryas, because we are dark, let them take another name for themselves &#8212; what is that to us?
Whether black or white, it does not matter; but of all the nations of the world