‘Indian history was distorted by the British’

[Srinivas]

The PDF you mentioned has has not even little bit of examination which lead them to the conclusion that the text were 5000 BC OLD . Anyone can write anything !




That also simplifies caste origins, as shudra caste was not present in other early IE religions , they had only three .

The Adi the vana the shanti parva all proclaim castes as divine .



I'am taking about text and writings not the original event BTW what makes you say bindusar was in 800 BC?

The Mahabharata we read was some what modified version of "Bharata".

The title may be translated as "the great tale of the Bhārata dynasty". According to the Mahabharata itself, the tale is extended from a shorter version of 24,000 verses called simply Bhārata.

Mahabharata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The caste system we see was due to the brahmanisation of the Indian society during the golden ages of India, The tales and epics were also twisted according to the will.

During the golden ages of India there are some modifications of the original Indian scripts were done.


Regarding the Rigvedic date, IVC and Saraswati civilization is a sophisticated one compared to Rigvedic civilization and Saraswati, IVC civilization is a city based one.

 

[Srinivas]

India does not have Proud History
if Indian member here want to prove thay have Proud History
Phir indian awam kia kuch nahi ho skate

Looks like a senior member is hiding behind this ID

 

[ANPP]

India does not have Proud History
if Indian member here want to prove thay have Proud History
Phir indian awam kia kuch nahi ho skate

lol even Indian history also belongs to PAK.
If we dont have proooud history than whats your. You are the one who run from own past & give up own ancestors values, but the real quetion is that what you get from it, just muslim terrorism. Your ancestor are also shaming on you.

 

[Srinivas]

The scientific evidence doesn't say so, sadly. Sadly because I am a Bengali, and would have liked to retain some distance from - oh, let's just say, others.

Can you present some Aryan Invasion theory proofs in this thread???

Can you explain why the skeletons seen in IVC are also matching with the todays people residing there and traditions like bangle wearing girls are still matching with the current Gujarat and Rajasthni traditions.

Problem is there are vast differences between the european thinking and India culture and the problem lies when we look into the history through the perspective of these europeans.

The simple fact that there is no evidence of Aryans (not a race but language speaking people who integrated into native India society) invading native Indians will disprove the theory as a hoax.

 

[Joe Shearer]

it got destroyed dude,thats all and the british purposefully did not let us get it,

mAnasa-taraMgiNI

I read the manasataramgini blog with great relish. However, the connection with your comment was not very clear. Why did you cite this passage?

 

[bronxbull]

no,that blog i felt had a hindu view of things,even though little biased,gave a good account of many stories.

 

[newdelhinsa]

People who disrespect Hindu mythology (so called) can not claim to be knowing history of Indian sub continent.

The history was written in scripts but the way was not compatible to modern logical history writing. This is from where western historians took advantage to throw any garbage they liked.

Why Shiva was not popular during vedic or per vedic times has so many clue in many other scripts which came into existence following oral tradition referring to dominance of vashnavas and rivalry between Shiva and Daksh prajapati.

 

[dronedevta]

I am talking about Bimbisara, the Magadh king of Rajgriha. Bindusara was second Maurya king, son of Chandragupta Maurya.

Oh yah i misread , please tell me how 'bimbisaras era' got to 800 BC ?

 

[dronedevta]

The Mahabharata we read was some what modified version of "Bharata".

Let me correct you a little bit more the original 8000 verses text was named 'JAYA' originally .

The caste system we see was due to the brahmanisation of the Indian society during the golden ages of India, The tales and epics were also twisted according to the will.

Caste system is mentioned in the later part of rigveda itself , the purusha sukta (10 mandala 90th sukta ).Vedic sanskrit the so called 'bhasha' is quiet different from the classical scripture , its almost impossible to make later additions in RV.


बराह्मणो.अस्य मुखमासीद बाहू राजन्यः कर्तः |
ऊरूतदस्य यद वैश्यः पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत ||

The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rājanya made.
His thighs became the Vaiśya, from his feet the Śūdra was produced. [RV 10.90.12]

During the golden ages of India there are some modifications of the original Indian scripts were done.

Correct ! but that doesn't makes it the ORIGINATOR. Castes Were developed in vedic period itself they became 'rigid' later .

Regarding the Rigvedic date, IVC and Saraswati civilization is a sophisticated one compared to Rigvedic civilization and Saraswati, IVC civilization is a city based one.

That's also a good point ! Now tell me until there is a discovery of pre-harrapan vedic archeological site(which is looking impossible ) , why should one not believe that the vedic period is later to 'early' IVC ?

 

[dronedevta]

That is the problem, present archeological thinking suggests that the Sarasvati probably disappeared either in the late third millenium/early second millenium BCE(2200-1800BCE) or even earlier; 4th millenium BCE (3800 BCE) . Big problem when you consider how central the Sarasvati is to the Rg veda.

The other point is that, is the 'disappeared' saraswati saraswati of the RV? or is the RV talking about any other river ?

why do definitive later text say saraswati is flowing ? if the SW ended in 3000+ BC they MUST be talking about something else .

Not really, those dates make it difficult to place anyone of the other related linguistic families anywhere at that time. Remember that even the Iranians can only be dated archeologically only to 900 BCE (Assyrian sources). Another big problem.

It's not about the LINGUISTICS only , its about what 'we have' as historical source and what they 'point out '.

 

[True pakistani 22]

lol even Indian history also belongs to PAK.
If we dont have proooud history than whats your. You are the one who run from own past & give up own ancestors values, but the real quetion is that what you get from it, just muslim terrorism. Your ancestor are also shaming on you.

we dont Share history with India
Look at Islmic History in India
if u want to say Qasim was not our hero our Hero was Raja dahir it is Bullshit

 

[INDIC]

we dont Share history with India
Look at Islmic History in India
if u want to say Qasim was not our hero our Hero was Raja dahir it is Bullshit

But Raja Dahir was a Sindhi.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

But Raja Dahir was a Sindhi.

If you ask me...... Raja Dahir was a hero... he fought for sindh... his homeland...... while qasim was beheaded when he went back home...lol

 

[Bang Galore]

The other point is that, is the 'disappeared' saraswati saraswati of the RV? or is the RV talking about any other river ?

why do definitive later text say saraswati is flowing ? if the SW ended in 3000+ BC they MUST be talking about something else .

That would beg that question, wouldn't it? If later texts talk about a flowing Sarasvati (the Mahabharata describes it as a no longer continuously flowing river and ending in lakes), you would then have to reconsider the dates being applied, wouldn't you?

It's not about the LINGUISTICS only , its about what 'we have' as historical source and what they 'point out '.

There is no other historical, archaeological evidence, all we have is a linguistic connection. If that didn't exist, almost no one would have bothered with an Aryan Invasion Theory. Since the linguistic connection exists, there has to be some theory that explains the connection. Hence all the gymnastics (both by AIT & OIT proponents). The only evidence we have (at the moment) is that there is no real change in the population during the time period commonly suggested for an "Aryan Invasion". That is all. The Rg veda has no memory of any migration/invasion whatsoever and certainly has no recollection of any other homeland.

If we are to take the dates suggested by you as being correct for Aryan presence in India (and they might well be correct), the theory of AIT as it stands today would have been compromised severely, probably even fatally. Some other explanation would then have to be found for the linguistic connection, one that would probably make supporters of AIT very unhappy.

 

[INDIC]

Oh yah i misread , please tell me how 'bimbisaras era' got to 800 BC ?

His dynasty started somewhere 800BC when Magadh grew stronger. Bimbisara and Ajatashatru are two well known kings of that dynasty. Before 800BC it is said that Magadh was ruled by Jarasandh's descendents.