Busting the myth of "British Railway Gift" and other gifts to India

[Kloitra]

1) Yes, but it didn't survive. Pre-vedic civilization perished.

2) On the contrary, Aryans were smaller in numbers. But this point is inconsequential, because pre-vedic civilization was already dead.

Perished, or people simply migrated?
Latest studies claim that they migrated due to climate change, towards Gangatic plains.

Wrong. South Asia had seen invasion/migration of Kushans, Greeks, Persians...since BC and early AD era. Muslim invasion only came about after 900 AD.

India was never isolated, it was a crossroad between middle east, central asian and far east China.There was strong persia influence. Indo-greek empire had significant impact too.

Compare to the interaction within India, those interactions were always limited. So much that locals considered people outside of subcontinent as foreigners and called them with a sort of derogatory term: Mleccha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .

Significant influence of outside world only came after Muslim invasions.

Indus civilization is not entirely a dravidian one, there was significant evidence of Sumerian influence. In any case, it is a moot point, the civilization was dead. What you have now is foreign vedic civilization.

The civilization died of climate changes, not of human causes. The end of the period is also coinciding with so called Aryan migration. Doesn't changes the fact that indigenous people were well capable of forming a civilization, which they did again.

And the vedic civilization was created within India, don't see how this is foreign.

 

[Fattyacids]

Perished, or people simply migrated?
Latest studies claim that they migrated due to climate change, towards Gangatic plains.

Civilization perished, that is not to say people were all dead.

Compare to the interaction within India, those interactions were always limited. So much that locals considered people outside of subcontinent as foreigners and called them with a sort of derogatory term: Mleccha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .

Significant influence of outside world only came after Muslim invasions.

Islamic empire ruled for long period, naturally its influence is greater and more visible. But one can't disregard the early persians, kushans, indo-greeks of the earlier era. Point is, northern India was a large melting pot.

The civilization died of climate changes, not of human causes. The end of the period is also coinciding with so called Aryan migration. Doesn't changes the fact that indigenous people were well capable of forming a civilization, which they did again.

And the vedic civilization was created within India, don't see how this is foreign.

Fallacy. It's like arguing Puritans were not foreign to North America because the US was founded in the North America.

 

[Kloitra]

Civilization perished, that is not to say people were all dead.

My mistake, yeah, civilization perished. Doesn't changes the capabilities of the people. Brings me back to my original argument, India didn't needed outsiders to start a civilization. That was my original point, do you think it is debatable?

Islamic empire ruled for long period, naturally its influence is greater and more visible. But one can't disregard the early persians, kushans, indo-greeks of the earlier era. Point is, northern India was a large melting pot.

Not actually, read about Hindu kush. Another barrier between India and west.

Fallacy. It's like arguing Puritans were not foreign to North America because the US was founded in the North America.

That brings me back to the question I asked American Millenium. When do you consider a group of people native?

 

[faithfulguy]

The point was that India didn't need Aryan migration to get a civilization. I don't argue that Aryans created a civilization and that is major part of India now as the Aryans have the numerical superiority, but at the same time the Dravidian developed there own civilization. You can understand the concept better if you know that south Indian/Dravidian languages bear no similarity to Aryan ones.

I sometimes feel that India has been a comfort zone, not much of predators, easy availability of food and shelter, not much of a hard time for anyone. People living in such conditions get a lot of time to develop a basic civilization. I think it was similar case with eastern regions of China. How advanced that civilization goes to be is a different matter, though Indians did a good job.

Today's Indian civilization can be traced to the Aryan invaders that took over India. I know that many Indians trying hard to deny this fact as its "embarrassing" to accept the basis of Indian civilization is brought in from outside of India. So people start to come up with bull crap that IVC transform to Aryan civilization. But don't be embarrassed by this fact. Most north Indians today are sons and daughter of invaders/colonialist/traveler or which ever term that suite you. For example, most white Americans are proud of their European heritage. Americans are not embarrassed that the language we use is from another country. That our origin are from another place. Neither should you as an Indian.

 

[Fattyacids]

My mistake, yeah, civilization perished. Doesn't changes the capabilities of the people. Brings me back to my original argument, India didn't needed outsiders to start a civilization. That was my original point, do you think it is debatable?

That's a schoolboy's question. It's like red indians arguing they don't need outsiders. But the fact is North America was developed by puritans. Indus civilization was dead. If they could start their own, they would have. They did not.

Not actually, read about Hindu kush. Another barrier between India and west.

Hindu Kush was no barrier to Persians, Scythians, Greeks, and the Kushans. Neither did it prevent the invasion of central asia muslims. Please, talk real history. Ancient Pakistan and northern India were a melting pot of different people.

That brings me back to the question I asked American Millenium. When do you consider a group of people native?

Simple. It's a matter of separating prehistoric from historic period. The first group of people with a common way of life are native. In the case of the US, Red Indians are native american. For South Asia, dravidian, ANI and ASI are native. Aryans are foreigners.

 

[Hermione]

Indian Gold Reserves. Forgotten History! New Opportunity? | 2ndlook

That is one of the best researched blogs.

Just how India was cheated of the money Britain owed India in collaboration with US makes for such a fascinating read.

OUR SILVER SAVED INDIA FROM CRISIS - Release of $200,000,000 at the Urging of Lord Reading Averted Financial Disaster. VICTIM OF HER PROSPERITY Currency Was Lacking to Carry On Business and Natives Would Not Take Notes. - View Article - NYTimes.com

 

[Hermione]

Nothing changed with colonization. While it is true that India lagged in industrialization, but thats because the industrial revolution started in Europe. The princely states were not far behind in getting tech and knowledge from the west. As you can read in the OP, most railway lines were owned by those princely states. I fail to see what it was that could not be done without British.

Actually India got massively de-industrialized during the British rule. From textile industry to ship building, the British destroyed most it.

1857: History & Propaganda | 2ndlook

 

[Armstrong]

Actually India got massively de-industrialized during the British rule. From textile industry to ship building, the British destroyed most it.

Whats the point of being a Hogwart's Graduate when you can't even use your wand to re-industrialize the region ?

 

[Hermione]

Whats the point of being a Hogwart's Graduate when you can't even use your wand to re-industrialize the region ?

Oh Armstrong if only you knew. The wand broke and now everything I do with it backfires

 

[Armstrong]

Oh Armstrong if only you knew. The wand broke and now everything I do with it backfires

Oh damn you're not throwing up slugs like Ron are you ?

 

[Hermione]

Oh damn you're not throwing up slugs like Ron are you ?

It is much much worse than that. The last time I used the wand, Arvind Kejriwal popped up and now he is set on destroying Delhi.

 

[Robinhood Pandey]

Oh Armstrong if only you knew. The wand broke and now everything I do with it backfires

It is much much worse than that. The last time I used the wand, Arvind Kejriwal popped up and now he is set on destroying Delhi.

Posts Reported phor talking about personal phailures on a thread about british India

 

[Hermione]

Posts Reported phor talking about personal phailures on a thread about british India

Angrez ke zammane ke jailer ho kya sahib, jahan dekho jasoosi karthe phirthe ho

 

[Kloitra]

That's a schoolboy's question. It's like red indians arguing they don't need outsiders. But the fact is North America was developed by puritans. Indus civilization was dead. If they could start their own, they would have. They did not.

Unfair comparison. IVC was an advanced civilization. It ended due to natural causes. For whatever reasons they could not start a new, as influential civilization again, might have to do with mingling with the new migrants.

Besides who said there was no civilization in India after 1900 BC, which didn't involved any new migrants in the region, that is, if wiki and certain historians are to be believed. For example:

C. 3000-1000 BCE
Kerala was a major spice exporter as early as 3000 BCE, according to Sumerian records.[27] Its fame as the land of spices attracted ancient Babylonians, Assyrians and Egyptians to the Malabar Coast in the 3r and 2nd millennia BCE. Arabs and Phoenicians were also successful in establishing their prominence in the Kerala trade during this early period.[28][29]

There were Tamils and others. By 500 BC, there were pretty big empires down in the south.

Hindu Kush was no barrier to Persians, Scythians, Greeks, and the Kushans. Neither did it prevent the invasion of central asia muslims. Please, talk real history. Ancient Pakistan and northern India were a melting pot of different people.

Barrier, as in making the travel harder. I do not deny people coming in, they even had trade down south. But for people living in the subcontinent, those regions were not easily accessible. You read the accounts of people coming in India, but not so much of going out.

And no, before the Muslim invasions, there was no significant impact on Indian culture from outside. Not that I know of. Unfortunately my work doesn't permits me to read a lot on this, I would be happy if you point it out to me!

Simple. It's a matter of separating prehistoric from historic period. The first group of people with a common way of life are native. In the case of the US, Red Indians are native american. For South Asia, dravidian, ANI and ASI are native. Aryans are foreigners.

Doesn't makes it easier. @American_Millennium gave a good reference, of using language. But if we are talking about prehistoric time, when people were mass migrating, would not a group which settled down in a place and started a civilization be called a Native? Compared to USA, where most of the world was already civilized and after a long period of settlement, people again started to move out and invade, 2000 BC was when people were migrating around to an extent.

 

[Chronos]

Thanks for letting me know. But please stop sending Bollywood porno movies of so called superstars in our country.
Our spirituality is very much disturbed with Bollywood movies.

I would be more concerned with intellectual pornography than anything else.