A Brief History of The Warrior Rajputs

[Joe Shearer]

I have np if you hate khakhi history out of your prejudice and embrace colonial history which is full of false assertions and fantasies of those indologists who know absolutely nothing about what they are asserting except degrading Indians and denying their history.

My assertions are based on the excavations and also assertions based on the postulates proposed in AIT theory.

If one looks into the assertion of AIT and apply the same to OIT theory, OIT theory seems to be true and strong.

I do hate khaki history, as I hate any tendentious history, anything written to order, including colonial history.

The trouble is that you and people of your camp know nothing of history or historical writing other than what you have picked up for polemical purposes. So you know of nothing but your own tribal writings and what you assume is the rest, packed under one label. Sometimes that label is colonial history; sometimes it is Marxist writing of the JNU school. That itself makes two, and contradictory streams, but you never seem to understand that one is devoted to deconstructing the other.

Naturally you also don't know anything about other historians: the original revisionists, J. N. Sircar, R. C. Majumdar, Qanungo and a host of others, who wrote critical re-examinations of everything the colonial school wrote; nor do you know anything about the huge numbers of international historians writing very advanced and sophisticated examinations of the Indian past: but then, how would you? These matters are never mentioned in the web-sites and on YouTube, from which you get most of your information.

Coming to some of your remarks above, which Indologists are you referring to, when you talk of ".....false assertions and fantasies of those indologists (sic) who know absolutely nothing about what they are asserting except degrading Indians and denying their history"? And in what ways have they, according to you, degraded Indians and denied their history?

I would like some answers to these questions, because it is fascinating that you and the rest of the Sangh Parivar, the religious right wing political factions in short, are so agitated by the questions of history, when history was actually brought into our sphere of knowledge through one instance in early mediaeval times, the Rajatarangini by Kalhana, and through numerous instances in late mediaeval times. That being the case, either you should accept what native Indians wrote as history, or you should accept what the foreigners write, or a mix of the two, a rational mix prepared after critically reviewing both sets of conclusions.

Next you assert that you are basing your views on the excavations and on the postulates proposed in AIT (the T in AIT stands for Theory, so you needn't write AIT theory, after all).

You are probably aware of the uncomfortable truth that the Sangh Parivar's version of history depends on one-sided information, on the information revealed by excavations exclusively on the Indian side, and circulated and publicised on the Indian side. There is actually considerable work being done on the other side of the border, and most of it is unknown to our heroic re-write experts. But they bash on regardless. The excavations are said to prove that

1. Most of the civilisation was on the Indian side, on the banks of the Sarasvati, hence it is wrong to call it the IVC;
2. The Sarasvati being mentioned in the Rg Veda clearly indicates that the IVC was extant at the time of the Rg Veda, since much of it was on the banks of the Sarasvati, or even in the river bed, meaning that since the Rg Veda was actually quite some time before the drying up of the river, it was therefore contemporaneous with the IVC;
3. The IVC merged gradually and conclusively with that layer of pottery that is supposed to represent the Aryan speakers in India, so the IVC may be held to have been part of the unbroken Indic tradition, not a one-off as had been thought before.

Presumably these are what emerges from the excavations for you. What do we get from these data?

1. The settlements on the Ghaggar/Hakra are, almost wholly, smaller and less developed than the mega-cities of the main IVC; they are hardly the representative locations;
2. It is argued that the weakness of the AIT is that there is no mention of any other homeland from which the mythical Aryans might have travelled, but simultaneously, there is an adamant refusal to acknowledge that the Sarasvati could have been the Iranian river Haraote. So the mention of the Sarasvati in the Rg Veda is not at all conclusive. It certainly doesn't lead to the conclusions that the revisionists have got to.
3. There is in fact no conclusive archaeological evidence about the merger of the later stages of the IVC with the early stage of north Indian pottery. It is wrong to say on the basis of archaeological evidence that the descendants of the IVC were in fact the Aryan speakers who composed the Rg Veda.

And this is what Uncle Google says:

According to some archaeologists, more than 500 Harappan sites have been discovered along the dried up river beds of the Ghaggar-Hakra River and its tributaries, in contrast to only about 100 along the Indus and its tributaries;[34] consequently, in their opinion, the appellation Indus Ghaggar-Hakra civilization or Indus-Saraswati civilization is justified. However, these politically inspired arguments are disputed by other archaeologists who state that the Ghaggar-Hakra desert area has been left untouched by settlements and agriculture since the end of the Indus period and hence shows more sites than found in the alluvium of the Indus valley; second, that the number of Harappan sites along the Ghaggar-Hakra river beds have been exaggerated and that the Ghaggar-Hakra, when it existed, was a tributary of the Indus, so the new nomenclature is redundant. "Harappan Civilization" remains the correct one, according to the common archaeological usage of naming a civilization after its first findspot.

Next you say that applying the arguments and logic of the AIT to the OOI theory (not OIT, actually) makes the OOI very persuasive, in your view.

That is good to know.

It is a very good thing to form one's views on important matters.

However, while I rejoice in your individual epiphany, it is also a regrettable duty to point out that your individual convictions do not take the place of peer review within an academic framework.

The OOI theory is still unaccepted by the academic community. Sad, but true. They still do not accept YouTube as an academically sound forum.

There is a book called "the lost river" by Micheal Danino.

Book Review: The Lost River

Perhaps you should go through this book and the excavation evidence that is pointing to what I have written in my post. Excavation evidence I mean the new sites that are found in India believed to be on the banks of now dried up Saraswathi river.

Michel Danino is one more revisionist mushroom with no academic credentials. Neither his book nor his theories have any professional support. He is, like all the other revisionist historians, except for Elst, a self-taught expert with no acceptance.

Coming to the new sites that are found in India, I hope that you realise that many of them are in what would have been the bed of the supposed river.

Even if one takes into account the similarities between Indo-Aryan Languages, OIT can explain all the migrations and spread of language than AIT.


P.S : I have debated lot of points on this topic and it seems you have changed some of the views on this topic over time. Regarding the negative rating you gave, I consider it as your frustration.

Let us have a separate argument over the AIT and the OOI theory.

 

[Joe Shearer]

well sir there is also a story behind this murder Like every murder
After Conquest of Sindh Bin Qasim did sex with Raja Dahir beautiful daughter Like every conqueror do....
then he send Raja Dahir Daughter to Caliph as a gift
when Caliph want to sex with daughter of Raja Dahir She told Caliph that MOhammad Bin Qasim Already did sex with her
When Caliph know this then he called Bin Qasim back and kill him
@INDIC

What is your source?

 

[defence_analyst]

well sir there is also a story behind this murder Like every murder
After Conquest of Sindh Bin Qasim did sex with Raja Dahir beautiful daughter Like every conqueror do....
then he send Raja Dahir Daughter to Caliph as a gift
when Caliph want to sex with daughter of Raja Dahir She told Caliph that MOhammad Bin Qasim Already did sex with her
When Caliph know this then he called Bin Qasim back and kill him
@INDIC

Story is not like that. Qasim send Dahir daughter to Caliph, who found her very beutifull. Caliph wanted to marry her but she told him that Qasim already slept with her after conquering which was actually a lie. So caliph called Qasim back to kill him.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You didn't try very hard to get evidence, did you? This is only the fourth entry in a Google search for the Out of India Theory, or OOI.

Kazanas is a respectable scholar, but has lost all support on this. I could refute him point by point on the basis of his presentation, especially where he asks in tones of bewilderment how the Indo-Aryan language could have spread inside India, so rapidly, in an age of poor communications and without mass media, by pointing to the seminal studies of south Indian history by a series of brilliant (non-colonial, non-Marxist) historians. These studies show that the Sanskritisation of south India, as demonstrated by epigraphic, not by linguistic evidence, proceeded through the acculturation vectors of Brahmin priests, who achieved the following: they promoted state-formation, and merged tribal societies into centralised states with a strong administration; they promoted the king as an essential component, an indispensable part of state-building; they helped to substitute the source of state wealth from sporadic acquisition of wealth through raids and pillage to the systematic expansion of cultivation and the imposition of carefully designed taxation mechanisms, managed by professional administrators and bureaucrats; they spread Sanskrit, and they worked hard to replace older theogonies with the standard Puranic theogony.

This is almost certainly the exact set of practices used in the north, some 1,600 years earlier. It is backed, as mentioned, by painstaking and thorough epigraphic research, not merely by linguistics.

About Kazanas himself, the extraordinary attempt by academe to give him (and others) a fair hearing, and his efforts and the response to these efforts, please read on:

An Indian Urheimat has been promoted more recently by Elst (1999) and Talageri (2000), which led to an exchange of criticisms with Michael Witzel.

In what its editor J. P. Mallory (2002) described as a "sense of fair play," the Journal of Indo-European Studies waived peer review to publish Kazanas' (2002, 2003) defence of the "Indigenous Indo-Aryan" viewpoint — which cited Elst (1999) and Talageri (2000). Mallory's reasoning for this exceptional omission of peer-review was as follows:

“The reasons for the acrimony between the two camps is not purely academic but may involve agendas that are variously associated with Hindu nationalism, western cultural imperialism, communalism, post-colonialism, and just about any other form of -ism that reflects current political frictions. [...] For the editor of a Western peer-reviewed journal, the publication of an article in support of the Indigenous Indo-Aryan camp poses obvious problems. Many regard the scholarship of the Indigenous Indo-Aryan camp so seriously flawed that it should not be given an airing. They view the Indigenous Aryan camp as more a religion than an academic position and no amount of scholarly refutation is likely to have the least impact on its adherents. On the other hand, we might also invoke some sense of fair play [...] I indicated that I thought it would be unlikely that any referee would agree with [Kazanas'] conclusions but that I would consider publication if one of the referees believed that the article had made a case to answer; I requested the referees to view the article in that light. This is indeed what happened and the authors agreed with my suggestion that we might treat the article in a review format where I would invite a series of relevant scholars to comment upon the article and then provide the author with space to make his final reply to his critics.”

The debate consisted of an article by Kazanas (2002), nine highly critical reviews by referees, Kazanas' (2003) response to those criticisms, and a few further responses available online.

Witzel (2003) warned:

“It is certain that Kazanas, now that he is published in JIES, will be quoted endlessly by Indian fundamentalists and nationalists as "a respected scholar published in major peer-reviewed journals like JIES" – no matter how absurd his claims are known to be by specialist readers of those journals. It was through means like these that the misperception has taken root in Indian lay sectors that the historical absurdities of Kak, Frawley, and even Rajaram are taken seriously by academic scholars.

Familiar?

I wish you would keep your religious constructs out of fora like this. What you are peddling is not history, it is Hindutva propaganda for an anti-Muslim agenda and for the imposition of a dictatorship totally violative of the Indian Constitution.

 

[sid426]

That's not correct.The concept of 'martial race' was a brotish concept for all those castes who were loyal to them.Jats of Western UP are agriculturalists and so are the Jutts from Punjab.As late khushwant singh said..''Jats till their lands by tying a sword on their waists''

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Srinivas, have you actually gone through the utter rubbish on the Talageri video? Please be honest.

 

[bronxbull]

I do hate khaki history, as I hate any tendentious history, anything written to order, including colonial history.

The trouble is that you and people of your camp know nothing of history or historical writing other than what you have picked up for polemical purposes. So you know of nothing but your own tribal writings and what you assume is the rest, packed under one label. Sometimes that label is colonial history; sometimes it is Marxist writing of the JNU school. That itself makes two, and contradictory streams, but you never seem to understand that one is devoted to deconstructing the other.

Naturally you also don't know anything about other historians: the original revisionists, J. N. Sircar, R. C. Majumdar, Qanungo and a host of others, who wrote critical re-examinations of everything the colonial school wrote; nor do you know anything about the huge numbers of international historians writing very advanced and sophisticated examinations of the Indian past: but then, how would you? These matters are never mentioned in the web-sites and on YouTube, from which you get most of your information.

Coming to some of your remarks above, which Indologists are you referring to, when you talk of ".....false assertions and fantasies of those indologists (sic) who know absolutely nothing about what they are asserting except degrading Indians and denying their history"? And in what ways have they, according to you, degraded Indians and denied their history?

I would like some answers to these questions, because it is fascinating that you and the rest of the Sangh Parivar, the religious right wing political factions in short, are so agitated by the questions of history, when history was actually brought into our sphere of knowledge through one instance in early mediaeval times, the Rajatarangini by Kalhana, and through numerous instances in late mediaeval times. That being the case, either you should accept what native Indians wrote as history, or you should accept what the foreigners write, or a mix of the two, a rational mix prepared after critically reviewing both sets of conclusions.

Next you assert that you are basing your views on the excavations and on the postulates proposed in AIT (the T in AIT stands for Theory, so you needn't write AIT theory, after all).

You are probably aware of the uncomfortable truth that the Sangh Parivar's version of history depends on one-sided information, on the information revealed by excavations exclusively on the Indian side, and circulated and publicised on the Indian side. There is actually considerable work being done on the other side of the border, and most of it is unknown to our heroic re-write experts. But they bash on regardless. The excavations are said to prove that

1. Most of the civilisation was on the Indian side, on the banks of the Sarasvati, hence it is wrong to call it the IVC;
2. The Sarasvati being mentioned in the Rg Veda clearly indicates that the IVC was extant at the time of the Rg Veda, since much of it was on the banks of the Sarasvati, or even in the river bed, meaning that since the Rg Veda was actually quite some time before the drying up of the river, it was therefore contemporaneous with the IVC;
3. The IVC merged gradually and conclusively with that layer of pottery that is supposed to represent the Aryan speakers in India, so the IVC may be held to have been part of the unbroken Indic tradition, not a one-off as had been thought before.

Presumably these are what emerges from the excavations for you. What do we get from these data?

1. The settlements on the Ghaggar/Hakra are, almost wholly, smaller and less developed than the mega-cities of the main IVC; they are hardly the representative locations;
2. It is argued that the weakness of the AIT is that there is no mention of any other homeland from which the mythical Aryans might have travelled, but simultaneously, there is an adamant refusal to acknowledge that the Sarasvati could have been the Iranian river Haraote. So the mention of the Sarasvati in the Rg Veda is not at all conclusive. It certainly doesn't lead to the conclusions that the revisionists have got to.
3. There is in fact no conclusive archaeological evidence about the merger of the later stages of the IVC with the early stage of north Indian pottery. It is wrong to say on the basis of archaeological evidence that the descendants of the IVC were in fact the Aryan speakers who composed the Rg Veda.

And this is what Uncle Google says:



Next you say that applying the arguments and logic of the AIT to the OOI theory (not OIT, actually) makes the OOI very persuasive, in your view.

That is good to know.

It is a very good thing to form one's views on important matters.

However, while I rejoice in your individual epiphany, it is also a regrettable duty to point out that your individual convictions do not take the place of peer review within an academic framework.

The OOI theory is still unaccepted by the academic community. Sad, but true. They still do not accept YouTube as an academically sound forum.



Michel Danino is one more revisionist mushroom with no academic credentials. Neither his book nor his theories have any professional support. He is, like all the other revisionist historians, except for Elst, a self-taught expert with no acceptance.

Coming to the new sites that are found in India, I hope that you realise that many of them are in what would have been the bed of the supposed river.



Let us have a separate argument over the AIT and the OOI theory.

As long as you dont have a time machine,any qualified doctoral thesis of any 10 rupee historian is still only a theory.

 

[Srinivas]

@Srinivas, have you actually gone through the utter rubbish on the Talageri video? Please be honest.

I will reply to your posts soon Mr.Joe !

 

[Joe Shearer]

I will reply to your posts soon Mr.Joe !

Either you have not actually read it, or you have no time due to other preoccupations. If you had not read it, let us talk about it once you have played it through from beginning to end. It is a truly disastrous piece of trash, and demolishing it, for your benefit and pleasure, will be a great boon. If you have no time, and allow me to go ahead, I can start the demolition job right away, without the benefit of bell, book and candle.

 

[Srinivas]

Either you have not actually read it, or you have no time due to other preoccupations. If you had not read it, let us talk about it once you have played it through from beginning to end. It is a truly disastrous piece of trash, and demolishing it, for your benefit and pleasure, will be a great boon. If you have no time, and allow me to go ahead, I can start the demolition job right away, without the benefit of bell, book and candle.

I am little bit busy with my new project, been working even at home off late.

I watched those two videos and I am aware of each point the authors discussed.

 

[INDIC]

What is your source?

That account is written in Chachnamah but Caliph actually wanted to make them the part of his harem.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I am little bit busy with my new project, been working even at home off late.

I watched those two videos and I am aware of each point the authors discussed.

Please take your time. I can wait.

 

[KingMamba]

NO sir i dnt know about Mohammad bin Allafi never heard about him
and you know about daughter of Hazrat Ali(as) Bibi Pak daman?
and why caliph killed Bin Qasim?

That story is untrue. The caliph who sent MBQ to Sindh died after he conquered it and MBQ went back at the calling of a new caliph who also recalled another general who was in a different part of the empire, he then executed them both.

Story is not like that. Qasim send Dahir daughter to Caliph, who found her very beutifull. Caliph wanted to marry her but she told him that Qasim already slept with her after conquering which was actually a lie. So caliph called Qasim back to kill him.

That is the MBQ supporter account but I think both are made up.

 

[Joe Shearer]

That story is untrue. The caliph who sent MBQ to Sindh died after he conquered it and MBQ went back at the calling of a new caliph who also recalled another general who was in a different part of the empire, he then executed them both.



That is the MBQ supporter account but I think both are made up.

@INDIC has correctly pointed out that these narrations are mostly based on the @Chachnama. Most other accounts are themselves more or less based on the @Chachnama, and this reference is the most authentic account.

 

[KingMamba]

@INDIC has correctly pointed out that these narrations are mostly based on the @Chachnama. Most other accounts are themselves more or less based on the @Chachnama, and this reference is the most authentic account.

According to the Futuh ul Buludan which chronicles MBQ return to Iraq he was given a heroes welcome and was only executed after his main benefactor Hijjaj bin Yusef fell out of favor with the new Caliph and then passed away. MBQ was later executed alongside a fellow general Qutaibah bin Muslim who was also close to the late Hijjaj.

The chachnama states that he arrived having already been tortured and killed after which the Caliph boasted over his body which is just not the case.