An interesting article about China`!

[Joe Shearer]

We claim the IVC on the simple basis of geography - it's most significant sites discovered so far - are on our land.

All along the valley, stream that flashest white,
Deepening thy voice with the deepening of the night,
All along the valley, where thy waters flow,
I walk'd with one I loved two and thirty years ago.

All along the valley, while I walk'd to-day,
The two and thirty years were a mist that rolls away;

For all along the valley, down thy rocky bed,
Thy living voice to me was as the voice of the dead,
And all along the valley, by rock and cave and tree,
The voice of the dead was a living voice to me.

Please, go ahead, sell your tickets. It is surprising that the voice of the dead was muted until Rakhaldas Banerjee told you that it might be heard if you listened. In the light of events that occurred, you will forgive neutral observers for smiling wanly at the pretentious poem; it should be two and thirty centuries, not two and thirty years.

 

[Kloitra]

Again, your personal biases and prejudices are misleading you. Since your personal biases and prejudices are towards seeing the culture of the Gangetic plain as equivalent to the culture of India, which it is not, and seeing Tulsi Das as an embodiment of the culture of the Gangetic Plain, it is easy for you to fall in line with the propagandist slogan that India is represented by mythology of a religious variety. Unfortunately, the obsession with myth and religion displayed by individuals does not amount to a summation of the Gangetic plain culture, and does not represent the whole of Indian culture.

Even this interpretation is wrong, biased and pulled out of context. She is so deeply biased that if India says milk to be white, she would say it is Indian hegemony and racism towards milk and milk is blue.

Forget about one sentence even if a word is used wrong way in an article then it questions the whole intelligence of the author.Just for example how tulasi das is questioned these days left right and center just for using the "Naari" word in his chopai at wrong place.

Dhor Ganwar shudra pashu naari,ye sab hain tadan ke adhikari.(animals, illiterate, of lower caste, animals, and female deserve a beating to straighten up and get the acts together)

Try reading this. And if you could grasp something, try being more rational and less biased.
Hinduism...What does Saint Tulsidas mean by the following verse? - Yahoo! Answers India

He may be off off the mark but he wont allow indians to claim it.As for people keep migrating thien i must think africans should slaim entire world...im not too sure about it.

So even if he is wrong, he wont admit to be wrong? This is how you make it sound!
If you had any rationality, you would at least be a bit more comprehensible, and less of a troll.

 

[KRAIT]

^Don't hit your head against the wall...it will save your time...

She used the verse just for belittling religion and saints without any proper research to create controversy to attract more attention.

 

[Kloitra]

^Don't hit your head against the wall...it will save your time...

Cant help it when you encounter the wall in every second thread, and in most ridiculous manner.

 

[ajtr]

Try reading this. And if you could grasp something, try being more rational and less biased.
Hinduism...What does Saint Tulsidas mean by the following verse? - Yahoo! Answers India



So even if he is wrong, he wont admit to be wrong? This is how you make it sound!
If you had any rationality, you would at least be a bit more comprehensible, and less of a troll.

sorry i dont depend on yahoo answers ,wiki or even internet to interpret any religion.so keep your explanation to yourself.

Just a word of advice please re-read your yahoo answer too.

^Don't hit your head against the wall...it will save your time...

She used the verse just for belittling religion and saints without any proper research to create controversy to attract more attention.

sorry i dont do research like you do. typical geopolitical type.i can easily guess the level of your research.

 

[notsuperstitious]

I have to thank the revived computer literate IVC mummies and their hateful cheerleaders for their inane posts. Thanks to them I got to read these posts by Joe.

 

[Ticker]

Ticker, your compulsions are revealed in your choice of language and the visible departures from fact that you have to take resort to, and your deliberate obfuscation of my main comment by introducing irrelevancies.

Let us deal with your diversionary efforts first. These have nothing to do with what I pointed out, but allowing them to continue amounts to an implicit acceptance, a much-used technique used by officials of a frustrated nation in establishing their fictitious claims in the eyes of a gullible world. They need to be addressed, a waste of time which is one of the objectives of the original diversionary ploy.

Before we consider any other point, there were no "international governance obligations" faced by the UN in its considered quasi-judicial decision; it was a decision on the status of a divided colony, and the question of whether there was an equal division or there was a portion separated from the other. That decision was clear and unambiguous; its scope was the scope of the Independence of India Act, 1947, and it had nothing to do with the concept of a cultural entity, nor with a geographical term. Your seeking to conflate the UN's consideration of the differences or continuity of a colony with the succeeding Dominion is a deliberate attempt at a straw horse strategy, to pretend that the UN considered cultural and geographical aspects of the situation and opined on it in a casual, informal way, and by knocking down this pretended casual, informal decision to denigrate the cultural and geographical aspects that you wish to avoid.

The UN decision, which was definitive, in terms of international law, was that the British colony of India, a political entity created by the British through parliamentary action in 1858, therefore consistent with the legal systems governing the world order of the day, was the origin of the Dominion of India.

The British colony of India was a concrete political reality, which

# took part in international treaties, like the establishment of the UN itself,
# in wars, in both the First and Second World Wars, in wars on Afghanistan, on Burma, on Nepal, on Iraq, on Iran that was named Persia, on the Ottoman Empire, on Malay states singly and collectively and against Japan, and
# entered into alliances on its own accord in shipping pacts and agreements, covering the precursors of the current Laws of the Seas, for instance, in
# settlements of political nature outside its territory, including the Simla Pact with Tibet and China, and in several agreements and treaties with Czarist Russia,
# in international commercial arrangements and administering regional economic and trading groupings of countries and regions outside its own, including the use of its currency as common coin in the Persian Gulf, in Aden and in parts of east Africa and south east Asia prior to the introduction of separate currency and economic regulations by those regions and areas;

and was a clearly-defined political reality which spanned the gap between a mediaeval dispensation strayed into modern times and these modern times themselves.

It is this political reality that the UN recognized and identified as the root of the Dominion.

In doing so, the UN made no comment on any older India. Your introduction of such an older India into the limited nature of the UN decision can only be described as mischievous and made with the single purpose of claiming that such an adjudication cannot define the nature of the older entity. It is mischievous since nobody has claimed that the British colony of India a political entity, represented cultural India, or geographical India in its entirety. Pretending that such a claim exists is necessary only in order to introduce further confusion by stating that such a claim cannot be maintained. That claim was never made, so there is no value in your claim that it cannot be maintained; it was never sought to be maintained, and the issue is being brought up by you repeatedly to obscure other issues.

Your second fallacy is to suppose that Mountbatten issued a decree defining that the old India, whatever your construction of that ambiguous term, was equivalent to the new India. Mountbatten issued no such decree. A decree, as you term it, cannot be as ambiguous and formless, and shapeless as a fatwa, and perhaps your lack of understanding of law is responsible for your confusion.

The British ruled India through the rule of law, a rule of law that was one of the most prized tenets of your founding father, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, and a principle and practice for which he worked throughout his professional life. It is ironic that in order to substantiate other nebulous claims, you have undermined that whole broad principle which he and millions of citizens of colonial India worked under.

There was no question of Mountbatten issuing a decree, or an Ordinance, and thereby oversetting legislation by the British Parliament.

Neither Britain nor colonial India was a banana state ruled by decree, or by Martial Law or by avoidance of constitutional responsibility. Your casual, throw-away remark betrays a lack of understanding of the legal framework under which India, a concrete, existent India, was ruled and governed. It fails to understand the day-to-day reality under which even your own state functions TO THIS DAY. If nothing else, you might like to ponder over the origin of the blasphemy law that is causing such a furore in your country today, and work out for yourself, in your own time, what body brought this into existence. You might also like to find out by asking those who know their history who the statesman was who moved for this entire legislation to be brought into the books of statute, not by decree but by legislative action.

In place of this mythical decree that has been created for the sole purpose of furthering your fallacy, there was an Act of Parliament by the British Parliament. It was not the act of a single, whimsical tyrant, it was the considered deliberation of the representatives of a whole people, in a method of proceeding which is accepted to this day as one of the most wholesome expressions of the idea of democracy seen by the world throughout its history. Certainly, nothing equivalent has been available to compare with it outside the Athenian democracy, and to equate it to a one-man decree would be laughable if it was not based on an outrageous attempt to serve up propaganda in the guise of reason or a considered opinion on a piece of legislation.

Such a proceeding was not accidental, and reflects the culmination of more than a century's legislation in collective form, the culmination of the efforts of a leading democracy hailed by the world to put a modern political shape onto an ancient cultural and geographic entity.

It is sad to see you resorting to deliberate distortions of fact in order to make your case.

Neither the UN decision regarding the nature of the Dominion of India, nor the British legislation on the commencement of independence of India, have anything to do with the idea of historical India prior to 1858. They have been used in arguments to show that there was continuity between the political entity that legally supplanted older regimes; that there was a military tradition based in India, the cultural and geographical India which was harnessed and managed with brilliant success by the British, who injected their technology and organizational skills into that tradition; that there was a continuity between borders and frontier arrangements between that age and today; that there was a continuity between laws prevalent today and then; and that there was an intellectual recognition of the nature and concept of cultural India and geographical India under that political entity which we carry forward into the future in this new political India.

Neither of your preliminary remarks has anything of relevance to do with the subject of the cultural or geographical concepts named India. Let us now examine whether or not they have anything to do with historical India. In particular, let us examine whether or not India is representative of an old mythological religion base, in distinction to a civilisation based on historical fact and ground reality.

Joe, I can understand your compulsions to retain and support a religion or mythology based ideological moorings and pseudo identity base with a civilization which most Indians think that it was their origin and define their identity.

I also understand that if this is taken away, a nation as big as India would tend to lose the historical structure around which such farcical mooring are tied to. And what I state is not to create an identity for Pakistani people, but to point towards an existing one, which has been there since thousands of years and New India wrongfully seeks to identify with.

The earlier part of your explanation states that, there were no "international governance obligations" faced by the UN in its considered quasi-judicial decision, and that it had nothing to do with the concept of a cultural entity, nor with a geographical term.

And then you also state that, the UN decision, which was definitive, in terms of international law, was that the British colony of India, a political entity created by the British through parliamentary action in 1858, therefore consistent with the legal systems governing the world order of the day, was the origin of the Dominion of India.

Two self contradictory statements. You are growing old Joe, and need to stress yourself with better explanations next time.

Pakistan never claimed owning of a historical fact at the UN at that time, because the matter under discussion was a world governing order. Old India had treaties signed with world, had trading agreements etc etc. UN gave the New India a successor status for obligatory emendation of existing treaties etc etc within the ambiance of world governing order.

This is exactly what I stated at many places. Thank you for accepting and supporting my stance.

However, your implied argument that because an obligation under a world governance order was given to New India, it also by measure of default ordained, that India is the sole inheritor of Old India’s civilization is not only incorrect and frivolous as it sounds, it was not part of the UN decision.

And therefore your claim is as gaudy as a dancing girl stating that because she can dance as good as Madhuri Dixit, she has the right to be her successor.

More a bit later.

 

[Armstrong]

Sorry to disappoint you but you dont have that caliber to guess anyone's type that include yourself.

Oyeee pehaaan merii China dei khilaaaf gaaal na kareinnn !

 

[Ticker]

.........yup, I can't. Some people can't be guessed or described by normal terms.

Now either post on topic or refrain from it. Or may be you will run to someone to get your infraction overturned.

And because you are a JR. THINK TANK, you have a right to use objectionable language against anybody. You are a troller yourself and nothing more.

 

[dollarman]

Pakistanis claiming IVC? What next, they start practising Hinduism and start producing Hindu Fatwas on Indians that Pakistanis are the real Hindus? LOLLZZZ...

On topic: Very good read though, India and China are great historical civilizations that have stood the test of time and are both coming out stronger than ever, and I look forward to both countries progressing in the 21st Century.

 

[Ticker]

Apart from the nonsense stated by Ticker with regard to legal roots of the modern Indian state, we have an opportunity to examine whether 'Indian' civilisation is a mythological religion-based creation, or a vibrant culture independent of any religion though deeply interactive with it, with two distinct ones in this case. Rather like European civilisation, for instance, or Iranian, Turkish, or Indonesian, or Chinese or Japanese or Vietnamese or Malay.

The point has already been made, numerous times, that India as a cultural entity was well represented by a number of constituent political entities through its history, some encompassing portions of the geographical India, some approximating to the same, and some exceeding the geographical India. Both cultural and political aspects are recorded in history, and are ground realities; it is, in fact, the mythological portion which is the happy hunting ground of Hindu revisionist, Muslim obscurantist and latter-day political propagandist alike. I hope you can recognize yourself in this rogues' gallery.

With regard to cultural India, there are so many pieces of historical evidence, and signs and indicators which continue into today's ground realities, that singularly unfortunate phrase selected, that listing them itself is a monumental task which will take several days even in the shallow manner of this forum. Culture, whether represented in art or in the daily manner of life of people, is profusely present in today's world, and can be traced in cases through the preceding centuries to the pre-Christian era, or in other cases to recent efflorescences based on these earlier foundations.

Let us consider language first, and its concomitant aspect of script.

On an Indian currency note of today, it will be apparent that there are two kinds of languages which are in daily use by citizens of the world's second largest nation. These are those with foundations in ancient usage, dating back to the pre-Christian era, and those which have flowered on those earlier foundations in more recent times. Thus we have, and I quote this from an examination of a 100 rupee note,

From the Indo-Aryan group of languages:

Assamese
Bengali
Oriya
Kashmiri
Urdu
Gujarati
Hindi
Konkani (in Nagari script)
Marathi
Nepali
Punjabi
Sanskrit and
Sindhi

From the Dravidian group of languages

Kannada
Tulu
Malayalam
Tamil
Telugu

None of this mythological, none of this religious.

Coming to the script, the scripts of modern India are written in two distinct forms, those derived from the Sanskrit radix and those derived from Dravidian forms, essentially, from Tamil. Those derived from the Sanskrit radix are based on Nagari script, used to write Sanskrit and Prakrit before the 10th century AD, which was based on the earlier Gupta script. Another derivative of the Sanskrit radix, through the Gupta script, was Sarada, a western Indian equivalent of Nagari, from which are derived a form of Kashmiri which was wiped out by cultural genocide, and Gurmukhi, the standard script followed in Indian Punjab.

The Gupta script was itself derived from Brahmi, which is a script which dates back to Asoka, again, from before the Christian era, and gave rise to Sarada, Nagari and Siddham. Tibetan script, although Tibeto-Burmese is a different language group, is also a derivative of Brahmi, through Gupta Brahmi.

This was the script in which the literature of northern and cis-Deccan India was composed, consisting of a body of literature as large as any other in history, and of a quality which still permits its performance or readership in contemporary times, with relevance.

Of the scripts in which Dravidian languages are written, Tamil script of modern times was derived from southern Brahmi, and was popularized by Pallava and Chola patronage, and displaced an earlier script, also derived from Brahmi. Telugu script derived from Brahmi as well, and was well-established by the fifth century AD. Kannada script (I hope I am allowed to go home by 'diga chauvinists) is a calligraphic variant.

The Silapattikaram, and the other four of the five great Tamil epics, was written in a parallel Tamil Brahmi script, since fallen into disuse, in the first century of the Christian era. Those who have read this classic will recognize that the characters, the places, the social context, the norms, economic relations, trade and commerce and the administrative pattern could be drawn from any other part of cultural India, from the distant mountain territories of the Bahlika to the the river valleys of Kamarupa, or from the valleys of the northern Himalayan mountains, with little or no change.

Nothing religious, nothing mythological.

So, too, if we go through other parts of culture, like painting, or sculpture, or architecture, or dance, or drama, or literature, there is one Indian civilisation.

Nothing religious, nothing mythological. All existent in one form or the other in India today, Ticker, sadly for your thesis.

On the other hand, nothing exists of the IVC but the ruins, lost and forgotten by the people in their neighbourhood, found by a Bengali, and extricated painstakingly by the British, whose supposed misconceptions of the nature of Indian polity, culture and geographical extent you were so scornful about in your sadly mistaken comment.

I hope you have a sense of humour, Ticker, and that you laugh to yourself when putting down your tongue-in-cheek fantasies to raise Pakistani morale. It would be pathetic if it were otherwise.

I have already listed the political formations which are to be seen today, in today's republic that is called India. However, just for the sake of the record, let us look at them again. In the next comment.
Nothing mythological, nothing religious.

Expression of commonsense at times is fairly uncommon with some Indian hues, who particularly hew their thoughts with those of Joe Shearer’s. Regretfully, history and the legal routes of New Indian state proclaimed by Joe’s favourite English speaking Mountbattens, does not legalize their links to Old India of IVC era, Chandragupt Mauriya, nor the other great Kings that Old India produced.

The only thing common with Chadragupt Mauriya and some other great kings of Old India era has been religion or the mythology. Interestingly, since some great kings and Old India also followed Buddhism at certain times, a convenient terminology was coined for a later stage pseudo-amalgamation of New India, known as Indic Civilization or Indic Religions or Indic Culture. This was also done to remove Islam and Christianity from New Indian horizon as non-Indic religions and cultures.

Incidentally, India does not have a singular culture which could be identified as an Indian culture. Different geographical regions of India have had different cultures since thousands of years. They speak different languages and even have different and distinct facial features.

And then Joe turns around and tells us that all exist in India today in one form or the other, ruefully preceded by an unnecessary though impressive historical narration of languages. And he says that this is a political entity. I agree with him, this is a modern day political entity having different histories and cultures of different people living in present day India. And he also says that there is nothing religious and nothing mythological in this union.

If this is the case, then we may not have any grievance to acquisition of political inheritance of Old India with regard to its interaction with different countries around the world. However, in such a case India can not claim the historical aspects and historical moorings which most Indians identify themselves with and believe these to be embedded in their religion and their mythology.

Regretfully though, the religion and the language(s) of IVC have not been deciphered so far. The political moorings most certainly can not be congruent with that era compared to present day systems that we follow to fool the humanity. So, with nothing common, how can the Indians identify themselves with IVC and claim it as their civilization.

In any case, Joe says that no human linkages with IVC can be established with the present day inhabitants. Thank you Joe. Please tell the Indians as well that their moorings have no bondage with a non-existent IVC. Let us Pakistanis live with our beliefs that IVC is a Pakistani civilization and not India’s. I wonder why do you get angry when I highlight that IVC is a Pakistani heritage.

It also brings us to the mother of all questions – what is India’s civilization.

 

[OOPS !]

Expression of commonsense at times is fairly uncommon with some Indian hues, who particularly hew their thoughts with those of Joe Shearer’s. Regretfully, history and the legal routes of New Indian state proclaimed by Joe’s favourite English speaking Mountbattens, does not legalize their links to Old India of IVC era, Chandragupt Mauriya, nor the other great Kings that Old India produced.

The only thing common with Chadragupt Mauriya and some other great kings of Old India era has been religion or the mythology. Interestingly, since some great kings and Old India also followed Buddhism at certain times, a convenient terminology was coined for a later stage pseudo-amalgamation of New India, known as Indic Civilization or Indic Religions or Indic Culture. This was also done to remove Islam and Christianity from New Indian horizon as non-Indic religions and cultures.

Incidentally, India does not have a singular culture which could be identified as an Indian culture. Different geographical regions of India have had different cultures since thousands of years. They speak different languages and even have different and distinct facial features.

And then Joe turns around and tells us that all exist in India today in one form or the other, ruefully preceded by an unnecessary though impressive historical narration of languages. And he says that this is a political entity. I agree with him, this is a modern day political entity having different histories and cultures of different people living in present day India. And he also says that there is nothing religious and nothing mythological in this union.

If this is the case, then we may not have any grievance to acquisition of political inheritance of Old India with regard to its interaction with different countries around the world. However, in such a case India can not claim the historical aspects and historical moorings which most Indians identify themselves with and believe these to be embedded in their religion and their mythology.

Regretfully though, the religion and the language(s) of IVC have not been deciphered so far. The political moorings most certainly can not be congruent with that era compared to present day systems that we follow to fool the humanity. So, with nothing common, how can the Indians identify themselves with IVC and claim it as their civilization.

In any case, Joe says that no human linkages with IVC can be established with the present day inhabitants. Thank you Joe. Please tell the Indians as well that their moorings have no bondage with a non-existent IVC. Let us Pakistanis live with our beliefs that IVC is a Pakistani civilization and not India’s. I wonder why do you get angry when I highlight that IVC is a Pakistani heritage.

It also brings us to the mother of all questions – what is India’s civilization.

there is change in way of life but all parts of India have common culture even which reflect in some indian muslims too.

IVC is just and disputed theory discarded by scholars and it has nothing to with pak . Islam is not Indian culture , Indic religion are strongly associate with Indian culture . Actually Hindu is name of culture not religion who are free to any faith , you can worship anyone , you can follow any faith . Islam doesn't fit with indic culture , it's opposite to indic culture and free faith with bind to particular faith of islam , islami god have limited boundaries. islam don't respect other faith .

 

[Ticker]

there is change in way of life but all parts of India have common culture even which reflect in some indian muslims too.

IVC is just and disputed theory discarded by scholars and it has nothing to with pak . Islam is not Indian culture , Indic religion are strongly associate with Indian culture . Actually Hindu is name of culture not religion who are free to any faith , you can worship anyone , you can follow any faith . Islam doesn't fit with indic culture , it's opposite to indic culture and free faith with bind to particular faith of islam , islami god have limited boundaries. islam don't respect other faith .

You are so eloquent, I am left speechless.

 

[Armstrong]

You are so eloquent, I am left speechless.

IVC ain't Pakistani & Islam doesn't belong here except we've got the land !

On a side note might I ask when do they accuse us of idolizing the so-called 'Afghan Invaders' & yet forget that we've probably got more than twice of their descendants *the Pashtuns* then those present in the rest of the world combined. !

 

[Ticker]

IVC ain't Pakistani & Islam doesn't belong here except we've got the land !

On a side note might I ask when do they accuse us of idolizing the so-called 'Afghan Invaders' & yet forget that we've probably got more than twice of their descendants *the Pashtuns* then those present in the rest of the world combined. !

Interesting thought. Pushtuns notwithstanding, the accusatory invaders from the west left over 450 million behind in South Asia alone.