Karachi will be part of India one day,We believe in 'Akhand Bharat' : BJP

[suyog chavan]

Thanks sir. Just engaging briefly for the benefit of any casual viewers who may be deceived by their fabrications.

If so , You are causing more harm than good for your cause by engaging with me,
So be it then,
My facts vs Your fake Rants,

Round of applause for your degree level rationalisation of caste slavery. Well done. Phenomenal apologism for simple slavery.

Still holding onto caste for cover up defense, So naive isn't It???

Your aryan-gangetic civilisation was a BACKWARD step from the great city builders of ancient Pakistan. You couldn't even make bricks! No granaries. No irrigation. IVC had toilets while you shitted in fields - little has changed. Your fathers were horse riding barbarians who lived in mud huts while ours built stunning metropolises and were urbanised. You're unsurprisingly going to try and lay claim to IVC through your weak, flimsy "we wuz all polytheists" argument. It's truly hilarious how you compare their religious beliefs. There are some similarities, just like Christianity and Judaism have similarities, or even between early Christians and post-Nicaea Christendom, but Christianity was radically altered through various interferences,just like the chronologically later manifestation of Aryan Hinduism that you love with its engrained caste structure was unrecognizable from what was previously practiced in harappa.

Lack of adequate knowledge forces individuals to write such bluster paragraph filled with lies, fake rants, flawed and fabricated history,
No facts just rants, No use
Aint buying it again

Why is there no mention of "bricks" or "granaries" in Vedic texts if IVC was an offshoot of Vedic dharm? I can give you countless further examples of how IVC had no significant interaction with your ancestors beyond a few seasonal exchanges. Gangetics were a closed culture who didn't trade. IVC were seafaring and traded with the great western empires of the bronze age.

Lol, where did you pick this commie source from ,
Honest suggestion, don't fall for commie sources, they will humiliate you badly in confrontations ,
Why just bricks and granaries , take whole manual for "how to build the house in Vedic period" from vedas,lol

Architecture in the Vedic period comes down to us from the literature of the period, the main texts being the Grihasutras that accompany house and building construction. This literature can afford us valuable insights into how the house was constructed and even the layout or plan itself. While the house is sometimes referred to as a Griha, the more frequent term is Shala, a term that is still in use in modern day Indian languages. Other terminology that has been intermittently used in the Grihasutras is veshman (habitat), sharana (refuge), avaasa (residence), and the generic term vaastu.

According to the Grihasutras, the house is constructed after ritual vastushamana (earth appeasement), and then what is the equivalent of modern site planning is carried out with the bedroom to be surrounded by moving water with good drainage. Similar instructions exist for the kitchen (bhaktasharana), living room (sabha) and other features. The living room, of course, is to be constructed in the south part of the house, where the flowing water meets. The site is shaped either in a rectangle or a circle, though other texts have it as square.

Texts further describe the digging of post-holes in the ground to support the house, a central pillar (or sometimes two) around which the house is oriented, and the principal door, sometimes described as facing east. The rear door (anudvara) on the other hand is to be placed in a concealed position as its inferior position would indicate: this might indicate also that the door is meant to be used by ‘untouchables’ (chandalas). There is also mention of the dvarpatika.

As far as rooms are concerned, there are few references: one text says that rooms should be arranged between the house beams which would suggest regular partitions in the house. There are also allusions to a ceremonial hall called the shala, which is raised on one side and enclosed on all other sides. The roof of the house is in close connection with placing two large crossing beams (vamsha) running from north to south and from east to west. It is upon these beams that the roof is laid, whose gaps are filled with hay and thatch.

The exterior door has an ornamental frontispiece called the rarati, which is generally made of close spaced reeds and attached to the front cross beam mentioned earlier. The function of this beyond ornamental purposes is not clear: but there are some suggestions that it could be to prevent wind entering through the gap between the door and the walls.

The roofing system, perhaps to account for the hot climate, consists of multiple layers of covering, as many as nine (navachaddis), and may be supplemented by an awning to keep out the summer heat and shade the house. The roof is pitched toward the north, or toward the central pillar mentioned earlier.

Other features of the house are less readily identifiable. For example, there are references to bundles of straw that clad the house (palada), while there is also reference to bundles of mats that ‘clothe’ the residence.

In conclusion, Louis Renou’s interpretation of the Vedic texts that refer to house construction in Vedic times confirms our belief that houses were temporary structures made mainly of straw, mat, wood and mud, and that brick (which would have produced lasting structures) was not so common, except as fire altars and other low structures. This confirms our belief of the Vedic people as a mainly pastoral community that moved with their animals to greener pastures and thus constructed no permanent dwellings. However, some interesting questions are raised by this interpretation of the texts: how did the architect or sthapati eventually emerge from this period to go on to construct temples and palaces during the later Gupta period? What was the inspiration for the formal vocabulary of the Vedic house? An answer to the latter can be indicated from Balthazar Solvyn’s etchings of Bengali Hindu village houses from the 1790s, which look and feel very much like the Vedic house as indicated in the Grihashastra. Here too, no permanent material is used, and there is a considerable use of reed and mat in the construction.

While Renou, being a scholar of Sanskrit and ancient India, has done admirable work in translating the texts and even going so far as to look at ‘mantras’ for allusions to building and construction (where, according to Michael Meister, he finds technical terms ‘used as metaphors’), he cannot be faulted for not fully comprehending the very technical process of construction itself, that would surely have involved an organization of the village community into specialized professions such as site workers, mat weavers, construction specialists and so on. When we tie into this picture the figure of the priest who undertakes the ritual of consecrating the Vedic house, we begin to better appreciate the nature of Vedic society itself, full of animism, powerful Gods and a simple, pastoral way of life that needed the philosophical interpretations of Buddhism, Jainism and later Hinduism to develop the complex, metaphysical vocabulary needed for the development of the Hindu temple of the Gupta age and later.

"1. None of the Veda mentions the abundantly found remains of Phallic and Venus worship practices at the Indus sites. Had the Vedic people been the progenitors of the Indus culture, naturally being part of phallic worship, certainly would also have made mentions of it in The Rig Veda apart from their religious ritual Yajnya. Rather the Rig Veda seems to be hostile towards the phallic worshipers. The Rig Veda clearly makes distinction between sacrificers and non-sacrificers. (i.e. see RV 1.33)

Actually Hindus do worship phallic gods even today,
Atharva Veda on Linga.
‘There is a hymn in the Atharvaveda that praises a pillar (Sanskrit: stambha), and this is one possible origin of linga worship. Some associate Shiva-Linga with this Yupa-Stambha, the sacrificial post. In the hymn, a description is found of the beginning-less and endless Stambha or Skambha, and it is shown that the said Skambha is put in place of the eternal Brahman. The sacrificial fire of the Yajna, its smoke, ashes and flames, the soma plant, and the ox that used to carry the wood for the Vedic sacrifice, gave rise to the conceptions of the brightness of Shiva’s body, his tawny matted hair, his blue throat, and the riding on the bull of the Shiva. The Yupa-Skambha gave place in time to the Shiva-Linga. In the Linga Purana the same hymn is expanded in the shape of stories meant to establish the glory of the great Stambha and the supreme nature of Mahâdeva (the Great God, Shiva).

2. No Indus seal depicts image of the fire sacrifice, which was soul of the Vedic civilization. Rather the images over the seals go contrary to the Vedic religious thought.

Lol, the commie blogger is hell bent on humiliating you badly
The report concluded that Kalibangan was a major provincial capital of the Indus Valley Civilization. Kalibangan is distinguished by its unique fire altars and "world's earliest attested ploughed field".It is around 2900 BC that the region of Kalibangan developed into what can be considered a planned city.

The Fire altars discovered at Kalibangan reveal that the people were ritualistic and believed in worship of fire. A charging bull which is considered to signify the “realistic and powerful folk art of Harappan Age” has been found at Kalibangan. The most important discovery of Kalibangan is a ploughed field.

3. There is no slightest hint in the Rig Veda that the Vedics conducted trade with other civilizations. There is no mention of local or foreign trade-commerce or even cognates for trade or trade related activities in the Rig Veda. Abundant proofs are available from excavations in the IVC and other contemporary civilizations, from Iran to Mesopotamia, to prove IVC trade with them by sea as well as surface routs.

Contradiction , again lol
Doesn't this prove my point, that Harrapans practiced ancient Sanatan dharm and vedic rituals even before, as their is no contact or trading links with aryans , later stages represent first contact with aryans and subsequently trading activities with aryans

Rather the Vedics show great jealousy of the Panis who were expert traders.

LOL, Was this fake commie blogger there when so called Vedics were being jealous on so called pani traders, pathetic,
Isn't it irony when he claims this on above 3rd point , There is no slightest hint in the Rig Veda that the Vedics conducted trade with other civilizations. There is no mention of local or foreign trade-commerce or even cognates for trade or trade related activities in the Rig Veda ,
commie hypocrisy is no new relation, mate

5. The Rig Veda has no mention of fired bricks, brick-paved roads, public baths or granaries that was integral part of almost every Indus settlement. However noted historian Ram Sharan Sharma states, “…And yet all these features can be expected if its culture were urban. Fired bricks are a striking feature of the Harappans, and no Bronze Age civilisation can boast of them on such a large scale. But this important construction material is unknown to the Rg Veda. In the great British archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler's view, there is no granary in the pre-classical world comparable in terms of specialist design and monumental dignity to the examples from the two Indus cities. But because of the absence of urbanism, the Vedic people did not need granaries, and consequently the Rg Veda has no term for granary.” (Indus and the Saraswati, Ram Sharan Sharma, article published online )

LOL,
There is no mention of bricks in Rig Veda for sure, because in Rig Veda mostly hymns are written, no construction business,
Has the blogger ever read Yajurveda , In yajurved there is mention of, use of bricks on cremation grounds.
Maybe blogger knew it, but didn't want to mention it to sow his agenda for your kinds,

6. The Vedic society was horse centered as evidenced from its numerous mentions in the Rig Veda with one verse dedicated to him. (RV 1.171) Many personal names are horse and chariot oriented. It was earlier assumed that the horse was unknown to the Indians until the Aryan invaders introduced them. However, this is not true. There are abundant proofs of the horse bones found in the Indian subcontinent dating back to early phase of the Harappan settlements, although belonging to the different families of horse. (The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate, by Edwin Bryant, 2001.)

This means the IVC too was not unaware of the horses though it carried not much significance in their culture. The horse remains also are so few that renowned archeologist B. B. Lal, as quoted by Ram Sharan Sharma, says, "would like to have more and more examples."

It is natural because the IGVC was mostly agrarian and manufacturing/trading society where bull carried more importance to plow the fields and pull the carts. This is obvious from the fact that the bull is depicted artistically on abundant seals whereas horse finds no place at all on any of the seal. Use of horses to them was scanty and hence carried no major significance in their culture. Obviously, horse images would be redundant for them.

The Vedic Aryans were a mostly pastoral society and hence their life being horse-centered does not come as surprise. Even the life of modern day cattle herders is centered on horses. Abundant mentions of the horse with respect in the Rig Veda and the rite of horse-sacrifice proves the same.

No place for the horses in the IGVC iconography does simply mean that the Horses carried negligible significance in their civilization unlike of the Vedic society. In fact this clearly suggests that the Rig Vedics had no connection whatsoever with Indus Valley civilization. Had it been the case horse would have found prominence in IGVC’s early and later iconography.

Moreover, the horse-chariot issue has unnecessarily been over-debated either by the supporters of the AIT/AMT or OIT propagandists for the sake of proving their futile baseless theories. Even if there was no slightest indication of presence of horse in IGVC, it wouldn’t prove for the lack of that knowledge they were subjugated by the people who knew horse and chariots, for there is no slightest proof that the decline of the IGVC was result of any vicious war won by the mighty invaders who had tamed the horses and used spoke-wheeled chariots!

Surkotada site contains horse remains dated to ca. 2000 BCE, which is considered a significant observation with respect to Indus Valley Civilisation ,
Although the discovery of horse remains at surkotada has settled the age old debate about the presence or absence of horse in the harappan civilization, the absence of horse seals in the harappan civilization still remains a boiling point of ambiguity although terracotta Horse head figurines from Lothal have been reported, Daimabad Chariot also provides evidence of being used on horses and copper vehicle models of carts with animals with arched neck are most probably of horses as well ,

Later they found this coins and artifacts of horses, which they were talking in above para,

7. The images of unicorn are abundantly found in IGVC on various seals. The one-horned animal, labeled as unicorn, could be rhinoceros known to the IGVC people. Dr. Ram Sharan Sharma opines, “…The term ganda or khadga is used for the rhinoceros in Sanskrit, and the term ekasrnga for both the unicorn and the rhinoceros, but none of these terms occurs in the Rg Veda.”

Only a fool will appraise this images as rhinoceros (genda)

8. Vedic people seem to have been at constant wars from the Rig Vedic texts, using variety of arms and armors. At the Indus sites, the finds of arms are meager with no find of armors at all. The IVC cannot be regarded as a warring society the way the Vedic society was. Warring people would naturally have the warlike god, and we find him in the form of the Indra in Rig Veda who helps Vedic people win the wars. However, it is not justifiable to infer from the meager findings of the weapons that the Indus people were peace-loving people. Most probably, either the Indus civilization was unified under a single rule or had established cordial relations with every city-state, minimizing the war-like occasions. Yet it is clear that the IVC was a prospered civilization and the peace that follows in prosperous period was fairly enjoyed by the IVC. Rather, it appears from the Rig Veda that the Vedic people were seekers of the wealth and all the time were engaged in the wars for wealth-hunting, cattle being the treasured wealth to them. Tarkateertha Laxmanshastri Joshi states that Rig Vedic Aryans main professions seems to have been loot the cattle, food, lands of the Das, Dasyu and Panis. This condition certainly cannot be of the prosperous society. (Vaidik Sanskruticha Itihas, Tarkateertha Laxmanshastri Joshi.)

No weapons are found because there were no wars, no Mass graves are found , which signifies a war did not happen and so called Aryans did not massacred native Harrapans, as this fake blogger claims,
Give me source of the war , if it ever happened between so called Aryans and Harrapans,
The weapons later developed by the Harrapans were more likely to hunt and tame water buffaloes than a war,

9. Students of the Indus civilization know very well about the abundant finds of variety of the seals bearing assorted motifs and script at every site. These finds exhibit their cultural beliefs and their awareness of the script. However, none of such practice finds mention in the Rig Veda. There is even no cognate for writing or script in the Rig Veda. Here the suggestion is not that the Vedics did not know the script; it simply is that there is no mention of the seal making, motifs on it and the script. Had the Vedics been progenitors of the Indus civilization, there would have been some mention of the widely held practice that involves not only religious beliefs but also the commercial beliefs of the IGVC.

Harrapans practiced their language orally, till it became customary in written scripts,
Harrapans were too primitive to practice written language , but a commie will pick any point to sow his agenda, thats for sure

10. Plenty of ornament and other goods manufacturing sites have unearthed at the IGVC sites. There is no mention in the Rig Veda of such manufacturing. Besides, there is no mention of harbors though Indus people had many of them, including artificial harbor like of Lothal. So much that scholars seriously doubt whether the Vedic Aryans even knew the sea or not. (The term Samudra in Rig Veda does not essentially mean the sea but it also means lake or pond at many instances.)

Than what is this a bucket of water,
Vedic poets used sea as a dominant metaphor to describe creation and Rig Veda paints intimate knowledge of ships, wind patterns, and rains. Rig Veda is also replete with references such as 'treasures of the oceans', 'gains of sea trade', 'ships with hundred oars' and 'shipwrecks'. References to maritime travel abound in Rig Veda e.g. that of Vashishtha and Varuna, of Bhujyu, of Varuna alone. Ramayana also mentions sea travel while seeking Sita in China, Java, Malaya, and elsewhere. Indus valley archaeology shows ports, dockyards, harbor works and so forth which would not have been possible without the knowledge of hydrography and marine engineering in Vedic times. Vedic Sindhuka for mariners was later transformed into Sindabad the sailor in Arabian nights. The word samudra occurs frequently in Rig Veda, contrary to the idea of Muller that Vedic Aryans were barbaric nomads from the Steppes who did not know the ocean. Rig Veda observes:
"He who knows the path of the birds flying in the sky, he knows the course of the ocean going ships". The bow of our devotions hastens to him, like rivers to a vast ocean". All ecstasies merge into Agni. like seven forceful streams into the ocean". As rain waters, the rivers flow their course into the oceans, like chariots in pursuit of their goal".

 

[suyog chavan]

11. Though the Indus script could not be deciphered as yet in want of largest specimens or Rosetta stone, it is clear that they knew the art of writing. We do not find any term or cognate for writing or script in the Rig Veda.

Had the Vedic people migrated from India to the West, as some scholars try to suggest, and if they were progenitors of the IVC, the major question arises why they did not carry the script along with them? If so-called indigenous Aryans, if supposed, left the Indian territories long before the IVC was founded, the whole premise of their theories do collapse because it would be ridiculous and unsupported argument. First of all therde is no proof whatsoever to prove the people those composed Rig Vedic hymns were Indian.

The scholars cite examples of Buddhist migrations to Gandhar and elsewhere where they used extensively Indian Brahmi and Kharoshti scripts for writing. We do not find presence of the Indus script elsewhere in the western world. It means that the Vedic Aryans did not migrate from east to west (from India to Europe) nor were they acquainted with the Indus civilization to the extent Vedic scholars like to believe, forget their being progenitors of the IGVC.

As of written scripts weren't that common during the ancient bharat the people who migrated westwards had just the oral knowledge with them , though they continued doing the Vedic rituals, still today many of those practices are followed in the Roma gypsies of ancient india ( harrapan ) lineage , Who emigrated to Europe from Indus valley, but later on were blend with the local Aryan practices and religions.

12. The Rig Veda mentions destructions of several cities of Dasyus at the hands of Indra. These cities were made of stones (“Asmanmayi” RV 4.30.20) or of metal (“Ayasi”, RV 2.20.8, 4.26.3). We do not know for sure what Vedic people of Rig Vedic times meant by Ashman and Ayas, or to whose cities they were referring to because the Indus cities were built of fired bricks, not of the stones or metal of any kind thus does not fit in the Rig Vedic descriptions. In all probability they were talking about the BMAC sites, not Indus-Ghaggar.

Dasas and Dasyus (Dahae and Dakhyu) were residents of ancient Iran. Therefore, in all probabilities, they could have been referring to the stone-cities of them. Possibly Ayas too was used alternatively for stone and metal for their hardness. Whatsoever might be the case, the Vedic people certainly did not reside in the walled cities or even towns; they were rather village dwellers and preferred to be so until the Brahmanic era. Fired bricks for fire altars came into the use in late Vedic times. (Vaidik Sanskruticha Itihas, Tarkateertha Laxmanshastri Joshi) This clearly suggests there was not any link of the Vedics with the IVC; otherwise they would have known some civil practices of the IGVC.

doesn't this mean Sanskrit was spoken by Harrapans before the aryans arrived,
The Dahae may be connected to the Dasas (Sanskrit दास Dāsa), mentioned in ancient Hindu texts such as the Rigveda . The proper noun Dasa appears to share the same root as the Sanskrit dasyu, meaning "hostile people" or "demons" .
To be precise dahae people were Bactrians who were first aryans to contact with the natives,
The first reliable mention of the Dahae is considered to be the Daeva inscription by Xerxes the Great of Persia (reigned 486–465 BCE). In a list in Old Persian of the peoples and provinces of the Achaemenid Empire, the Daeva identifies the Dāha as neighboring the Saka.

13. Rig Veda doesn’t know cotton or it does not have any cognate for it. IGVC people were expert cotton weavers. The Rig Vedic people seem to have been using wool for clothing, but natural for the people living in extreme climatic conditions.

Whatt??lol
In 1500 B.C. cotton was referred to in a Hindu Rig-Veda hymn mentioning “threads in the loom.” It is generally believed that the first cultivation of cotton was in India, though it grew wild in several locations around the world. ... Ancient Greek and Roman texts also make references to Indian cotton.

And, for God sake man, drop the pathetic Tamil argument. Yes, we know loan words flowed between the two languages. That's all that happened. Don't throw b.s. into the argument. Show me how, based on syntax, grammar, lexiconical explanations....how can Tamil and Sanskrit be from the same family.

Because both the languages share similarities to the core , but principal question is which one came to writing form of scripts first , Sanskrit and Tamil both the languages when came on the written scripts were used for propagating and recording the Vedic and Sanatan Dharm, if there was a supposed Aryan-Dravidian rivalry why would a so calledDravidian script (Tamil) shower praises and write hymns on the common gods of so called aryans and same goes on with the so called Aryan Sanskrit language.

Sanskrit has far more in common with Greek than Tamil. Can't help your delusions beyond that.
"Sanskrit belongs to the Indo-European family of languages. It is one of the three earliest ancient documented languages that arose from a common root language now referred to as Proto-Indo-European language:[18][19][20]

Vedic Sanskrit (c. 1500–500 BCE).
Mycenaean Greek (c. 1450 BCE)[53] and Ancient Greek (c. 750–400 BCE).
Hittite (c. 1750–1200 BCE).
Other Indo-European languages distantly related to Sanskrit include archaic and classical Latin (c. 600 BCE–100 CE, old Italian), Gothic (archaic Germanic language, c. 350 CE), Old Norse (c. 200 CE and after), Old Avestan (c. late 2nd millennium BCE[54]) and Younger Avestan (c. 900 BCE).[19][20] The closest ancient relatives of Vedic Sanskrit in the Indo-European languages are the Nuristani languages found in the remote Hindu Kush region of the northeastern Afghanistan and northwestern Himalayas,[20][55][56] as well as the extinct Avestan and Old Persian — both are Iranian languages.[57][58][59] Sanskrit belongs to the satem group of the Indo-European languages."

NO,
Sanskrit is the most related language with Tamil, Greek doesn't even come close to Tamil-Sankrit connections and correlations,
To be clear Tamil is the oldest language in the world, even older than Greek, from whom the Bactrians had link with ancient bharat,
Why would you think one way traffic , could be migration from native people of bharat mix up with bactrian and greeks too

Vedic Sanskrit (c. 1500–500 BCE).
Mycenaean Greek (c. 1450 BCE)[53] and Ancient Greek (c. 750–400 BCE).
Hittite (c. 1750–1200 BCE).
Other Indo-European languages distantly related to Sanskrit include archaic and classical Latin (c. 600 BCE–100 CE, old Italian), Gothic (archaic Germanic language, c. 350 CE), Old Norse (c. 200 CE and after), Old Avestan (c. late 2nd millennium BCE[54]) and Younger Avestan (c. 900 BCE).[19][20] The closest ancient relatives of Vedic Sanskrit in the Indo-European languages are the Nuristani languages found in the remote Hindu Kush region of the northeastern Afghanistan and northwestern Himalayas,[20][55][56] as well as the extinct Avestan and Old Persian — both are Iranian languages.[57][58][59] Sanskrit belongs to the satem group of the Indo-European languages."

Sanskrit, Greek and Latin are three different languages. Contrary to what some of the users have suggested, in truth, Sanskrit does NOT belong to the PIE family. There is nothing called Indo-European family of languages. So let me expose this pseudo-theory called PIE. The hypothesis that Sanskrit and European languages including Greek are related is a "lie" for three reasons, among others
(1) There is no language without culture: we have heard of French language and French culture; Greek language and Greek culture. The relationship between the two is such that one can NEVER exist without the other. There is no language without a culture and vice versa. If there really existed an Indo-European family of languages, how can they exist in isolation from an Indo-European family of cultures ??? Since an IE composite culture cannot be located anywhere in the world (indeed, there is Indian culture in opposition to European culture), the theory that there existed a PIE super family of languages is purely counter-intuitive, especially when there is no VALID proof (that fails the test of falsification), without which there is no question of empirical science.
(2) The methodology itself of Historical Linguistics is deeply flawed, as a language is not merely a list of words and sounds. Comparative Linguists, who for the most part are Sanskrit-illiterate, in their zeal to establish comparisons, only look at the Phonetics of individual words. But languages take shape by virtue of the use of these words in "contexts" and not in isolation. Therefore, it is Pragmatics that should be the guiding light and not Behaviorist Taxonomies and Phonetics in the comparative study of languages. Seen this way, French and German, for example, do not deserve to be lumped together as being part of the IE languages; there are more syntactical and other similarities between Tamil and Sanskrit than between, say, Greek and Hindi; there are NO cultural similarities between Lithuanian and Indian (Sanskrit) cultures,
(3) The very idea of comparison is flawed since if Sanskrit and Greek languages indeed belonged to the SAME family, there is no need to compare. If two individuals are of the SAME height, then why should there be any comparison??? The goal behind ALL comparisons is to show that Sanskrit is alien to India and that it is inferior to Semitic languages/cultures. There is no more science to this PIE bullshit.

It was more like debunking that fake commie blogger, than debunking you , you were just product of humiliation by sharing his false flag agenda, lol

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Roma gypsies of ancient india ( harrapan ) lineage , Who emigrated to Europe from Indus valley, but later on were blend with the local Aryan practices and religions.

So what have Roma gypsies got to do with you? If they're harappans, how can you claim they migrated from Ganges-land? You're Ganga. We're not. Try to be at peace with this reality.

Harrapans were too primitive to practice written language

Just because you can't decipher it, doesn't mean it doesnt exist. Apply Ganga logic elsewhere please.

doesn't this mean Sanskrit was spoken by Harrapans before the aryans arrived,

Wow. You ignored the point made about iron and have invented a theory that because the rigveda mentioned some Iranian city, it means harappans were Vedic?? You are joining up theories like some super computer with autism today. Sorry to burst your bubble.....It's a story in an ancient scripture. You think harappans were the only ones who heard this story?? Whadda genius you are.

among others
(1) There is no language without culture: we have heard of French language and French culture; Greek language and Greek culture. The relationship between the two is such that one can NEVER exist without the other. There is no language without a culture and vice versa. If there really existed an Indo-European family of languages, how can they exist in isolation from an Indo-European family of cultures ??? Since an IE composite culture cannot be located anywhere in the world (indeed, there is Indian culture in opposition to European culture), the theory that there existed a PIE super family of languages is purely counter-intuitive, especially when there is no VALID proof (that fails the test of falsification), without which there is no question of empirical science.
(2) The methodology itself of Historical Linguistics is deeply flawed, as a language is not merely a list of words and sounds. Comparative Linguists, who for the most part are Sanskrit-illiterate, in their zeal to establish comparisons, only look at the Phonetics of individual words. But languages take shape by virtue of the use of these words in "contexts" and not in isolation. Therefore, it is Pragmatics that should be the guiding light and not Behaviorist Taxonomies and Phonetics in the comparative study of languages. Seen this way, French and German, for example, do not deserve to be lumped together as being part of the IE languages; there are more syntactical and other similarities between Tamil and Sanskrit than between, say, Greek and Hindi; there are NO cultural similarities between Lithuanian and Indian (Sanskrit) cultures,
(3) The very idea of comparison is flawed since if Sanskrit and Greek languages indeed belonged to the SAME family, there is no need to compare. If two individuals are of the SAME height, then why should there be any comparison??? The goal behind ALL comparisons is to show that Sanskrit is alien to India and that it is inferior to Semitic languages/cultures. There is no more science to this PIE bullshit.

Look, don't cry yourself to sleep, but just because the ONLY similarity between you gangas and the ancient Greeks is from the linguistic side, it doesn't mean they are obligated to share your culture - I'm sure they thank Apollo and Zeus that they don't! Ancient Britannic languages are also from this family - again, doesn't mean that these peoples are obligated to share ANY other traits. You are creating a classic "straw man" here.

Sanskrit is the most related language with Tamil, Greek doesn't even come close to Tamil-Sankrit connections and correlatio

Fuking hell whadda brain dead idiot.

Carry on mate. Nobody can help you out of this quagmire.

References to maritime travel abound in Rig Veda e.g. that of Vashishtha and Varuna, of Bhujyu, of Varuna alone. Ramayana also mentions sea travel while seeking Sita in China, Java, Malaya, and elsewhere. Indus valley archaeology shows ports, dockyards, harbor works and so forth which would not have been possible without the knowledge of hydrography and marine engineering in Vedic times. Vedic Sindhuka for mariners was later transformed into Sindabad the sailor in Arabian nights. The word samudra occurs frequently in Rig Veda, contrary to the idea of Muller that Vedic Aryans were barbaric nomads from the Steppes who did not know the ocean. Rig Veda observes:

How sweet....fairy tales about oceans somehow *prove* seafaring ability. And don't think I didn't notice you slip in harappan archaeology as evidence of Vedic seafaring! Lolz. Hands off harappans you filth! You invert reality by claiming harappans needed Vedic filth to advance technologically?? I already told you - you mudhut nomads took a REGRESSIVE step from the glory of your fathers and your superiors who lived in the Indus Valley. You cannot rival the city builders of IVC. You devolved backwards into a slave culture. The Greeks traded with harappans, not you elephant riders.

cotton was referred to in a Hindu Rig-Veda hymn mentioning “threads in the loom.” It is generally believed that the first cultivation of cotton was in India, though it grew wild in several locations around the world. ... Ancient Greek and Roman texts also make references to Indian cotton.

Filthy little liar. Go wash your mouth out. Everyone here can see you for the fraud you are. IF a Sanskrit word existed for "cotton", why was it not ACTUALLY USED, INSTEAD OF THIS NEBULOUS "THREAD IN THE LOOM" REFERENCE?

I'll explain it to you dipshit...Your horse riding fathers who raped your mother and produced you and the rest of your little tree dwelling race didn't know what it was that they were ululating about. The harappans knew cotton. The vedics simply knew something magical arising from looms, hence they DIDN'T USE THE ACTUAL SANSKRIT WORD FOR COTTON IN THEIR TEXTS!! What a buffoon you are proving to be. Please continue. Your fathers are laughing at you and your enslaved ancestors from atop their heavenly horses.

Ancient Romans and Greeks also knew of cotton and guess what? Their words for it are remarkably similar to the Sanskrit word. Now why would that be again? Remind me please. Could it be because the three languages are OF THE SAME DAMN ROOT LANGUAGE?? Or is Tamil now the root of ancient Greek lolz!?


"Interestingly the Sanskrit word for cotton is karpasa, which is related to the Latin carbasus and Greek karpos. While there are no doubts that cotton cloth was used in the Harappan times, the Vedas however do not make any direct references to cotton, though there are innumerable references to spinning, weaving, and designing of textiles (guna, dasa, tusa, tarka, etc)"
" "Farmers in the Indus valley were the first to spin and weave cotton. In 1929 archaeologists recovered fragments of cotton tetiles at Mohenjo-Daro, in what is now Pakistan, dating to between 3250 and 2750 BCE. Cottonseeds founds at nearby Mehrgarh have been dated to 5000 BCE. Literary references further point to the ancient nature of the subcontinent's cotton industry. The Vedic scriptures, composed between 1500 and 1200 BCE allude to cotton spinning and weaving . . .." So goes a remarkable new book, Empire of Cotton A Global History by Sven Beckert"

Note the above text. Again, DESPITE HAVING A SANSKRIT WORD FOR COTTON, VEDIC TEXTS DIDN'T DIRECTLY REFERENCE COTTON, RATHER THEY MERELY ALLUDED TO IT WITH VAGUE WHATABOUTERY AND TALK OF WEAVING. HARAPPANS ACTUALLY INVENTED COTTON. GANGADESHIS LIKE You SIMPLY STOLE IT when your pastoralist ancestors decided animal skins were too smelly. Vedas doesn't mention the Sanskrit word for cotton.

I'll say it AGAIN. Hands off our harappans!

WE traded and recorded the earliest cotton....not you nomadic filth who probably wore animal skins until the flesh rotted.

 

[suyog chavan]

So what have Roma gypsies got to do with you? If they're harappans, how can you claim they migrated from Ganges-land? You're Ganga. We're not. Try to be at peace with this reality.

Just because you can't decipher it, doesn't mean it doesnt exist. Apply Ganga logic elsewhere please.

Wow. You ignored the point made about iron and have invented a theory that because the rigveda mentioned some Iranian city, it means harappans were Vedic?? You are joining up theories like some super computer with autism today. Sorry to burst your bubble.....It's a story in an ancient scripture. You think harappans were the only ones who heard this story?? Whadda genius you are.

Look, don't cry yourself to sleep, but just because the ONLY similarity between you gangas and the ancient Greeks is from the linguistic side, it doesn't mean they are obligated to share your culture - I'm sure they thank Apollo and Zeus that they don't! Ancient Britannic languages are also from this family - again, doesn't mean that these peoples are obligated to share ANY other traits. You are creating a classic "straw man" here.

Fuking hell whadda brain dead idiot.

Carry on mate. Nobody can help you out of this quagmire.

How sweet....fairy tales about oceans somehow *prove* seafaring ability. And don't think I didn't notice you slip in harappan archaeology as evidence of Vedic seafaring! Lolz. Hands off harappans you filth! You invert reality by claiming harappans needed Vedic filth to advance technologically?? I already told you - you mudhut nomads took a REGRESSIVE step from the glory of your fathers and your superiors who lived in the Indus Valley. You cannot rival the city builders of IVC. You devolved backwards into a slave culture. The Greeks traded with harappans, not you elephant riders.

Filthy little liar. Go wash your mouth out. Everyone here can see you for the fraud you are. IF a Sanskrit word existed for "cotton", why was it not ACTUALLY USED, INSTEAD OF THIS NEBULOUS "THREAD IN THE LOOM" REFERENCE?

I'll explain it to you dipshit...Your horse riding fathers who raped your mother and produced you and the rest of your little tree dwelling race didn't know what it was that they were ululating about. The harappans knew cotton. The vedics simply knew something magical arising from looms, hence they DIDN'T USE THE ACTUAL SANSKRIT WORD FOR COTTON IN THEIR TEXTS!! What a buffoon you are proving to be. Please continue. Your fathers are laughing at you and your enslaved ancestors from atop their heavenly horses.

Ancient Romans and Greeks also knew of cotton and guess what? Their words for it are remarkably similar to the Sanskrit word. Now why would that be again? Remind me please. Could it be because the three languages are OF THE SAME DAMN ROOT LANGUAGE?? Or is Tamil now the root of ancient Greek lolz!?


"Interestingly the Sanskrit word for cotton is karpasa, which is related to the Latin carbasus and Greek karpos. While there are no doubts that cotton cloth was used in the Harappan times, the Vedas however do not make any direct references to cotton, though there are innumerable references to spinning, weaving, and designing of textiles (guna, dasa, tusa, tarka, etc)"
" "Farmers in the Indus valley were the first to spin and weave cotton. In 1929 archaeologists recovered fragments of cotton tetiles at Mohenjo-Daro, in what is now Pakistan, dating to between 3250 and 2750 BCE. Cottonseeds founds at nearby Mehrgarh have been dated to 5000 BCE. Literary references further point to the ancient nature of the subcontinent's cotton industry. The Vedic scriptures, composed between 1500 and 1200 BCE allude to cotton spinning and weaving . . .." So goes a remarkable new book, Empire of Cotton A Global History by Sven Beckert"

Note the above text. Again, DESPITE HAVING A SANSKRIT WORD FOR COTTON, VEDIC TEXTS DIDN'T DIRECTLY REFERENCE COTTON, RATHER THEY MERELY ALLUDED TO IT WITH VAGUE WHATABOUTERY AND TALK OF WEAVING. HARAPPANS ACTUALLY INVENTED COTTON. GANGADESHIS LIKE You SIMPLY STOLE IT when your pastoralist ancestors decided animal skins were too smelly. Vedas doesn't mention the Sanskrit word for cotton.

I'll say it AGAIN. Hands off our harappans!

WE traded and recorded the earliest cotton....not you nomadic filth who probably wore animal skins until the flesh rotted.

Freak delusional psycho returning to howling and pep talk ranting again, at best makes my stand more firm
The argument was more of a debunking a commie author of the filth you borrowed from his nincompoop website, You only being that engot having zero knowledge in the ninny corner,
Contradicting again and again with your pea-brain logics, Fake claims ,
And still no facts , rather a message full of fairytales and fantasy of being an Harrapan, (haram)
Still, will provide truth to your grievance , And end your hallucinations
Desperation symptoms seems at peak, atleast control it for the sake of viewers watching ,just a suggestion

So what have Roma gypsies got to do with you? If they're harappans, how can you claim they migrated from Ganges-land? You're Ganga. We're not. Try to be at peace with this reality.

Just because you can't decipher it, doesn't mean it doesnt exist. Apply Ganga logic elsewhere please.

Wow. You ignored the point made about iron and have invented a theory that because the rigveda mentioned some Iranian city, it means harappans were Vedic?? You are joining up theories like some super computer with autism today. Sorry to burst your bubble.....It's a story in an ancient scripture. You think harappans were the only ones who heard this story?? Whadda genius you are.

Look, don't cry yourself to sleep, but just because the ONLY similarity between you gangas and the ancient Greeks is from the linguistic side, it doesn't mean they are obligated to share your culture - I'm sure they thank Apollo and Zeus that they don't! Ancient Britannic languages are also from this family - again, doesn't mean that these peoples are obligated to share ANY other traits. You are creating a classic "straw man" here.

Fuking hell whadda brain dead idiot.

Carry on mate. Nobody can help you out of this quagmire.

How sweet....fairy tales about oceans somehow *prove* seafaring ability. And don't think I didn't notice you slip in harappan archaeology as evidence of Vedic seafaring! Lolz. Hands off harappans you filth! You invert reality by claiming harappans needed Vedic filth to advance technologically?? I already told you - you mudhut nomads took a REGRESSIVE step from the glory of your fathers and your superiors who lived in the Indus Valley. You cannot rival the city builders of IVC. You devolved backwards into a slave culture. The Greeks traded with harappans, not you elephant riders.

Filthy little liar. Go wash your mouth out. Everyone here can see you for the fraud you are. IF a Sanskrit word existed for "cotton", why was it not ACTUALLY USED, INSTEAD OF THIS NEBULOUS "THREAD IN THE LOOM" REFERENCE?

I'll explain it to you dipshit...Your horse riding fathers who raped your mother and produced you and the rest of your little tree dwelling race didn't know what it was that they were ululating about. The harappans knew cotton. The vedics simply knew something magical arising from looms, hence they DIDN'T USE THE ACTUAL SANSKRIT WORD FOR COTTON IN THEIR TEXTS!! What a buffoon you are proving to be. Please continue. Your fathers are laughing at you and your enslaved ancestors from atop their heavenly horses.

Ancient Romans and Greeks also knew of cotton and guess what? Their words for it are remarkably similar to the Sanskrit word. Now why would that be again? Remind me please. Could it be because the three languages are OF THE SAME DAMN ROOT LANGUAGE?? Or is Tamil now the root of ancient Greek lolz!?


"Interestingly the Sanskrit word for cotton is karpasa, which is related to the Latin carbasus and Greek karpos. While there are no doubts that cotton cloth was used in the Harappan times, the Vedas however do not make any direct references to cotton, though there are innumerable references to spinning, weaving, and designing of textiles (guna, dasa, tusa, tarka, etc)"
" "Farmers in the Indus valley were the first to spin and weave cotton. In 1929 archaeologists recovered fragments of cotton tetiles at Mohenjo-Daro, in what is now Pakistan, dating to between 3250 and 2750 BCE. Cottonseeds founds at nearby Mehrgarh have been dated to 5000 BCE. Literary references further point to the ancient nature of the subcontinent's cotton industry. The Vedic scriptures, composed between 1500 and 1200 BCE allude to cotton spinning and weaving . . .." So goes a remarkable new book, Empire of Cotton A Global History by Sven Beckert"

Note the above text. Again, DESPITE HAVING A SANSKRIT WORD FOR COTTON, VEDIC TEXTS DIDN'T DIRECTLY REFERENCE COTTON, RATHER THEY MERELY ALLUDED TO IT WITH VAGUE WHATABOUTERY AND TALK OF WEAVING. HARAPPANS ACTUALLY INVENTED COTTON. GANGADESHIS LIKE You SIMPLY STOLE IT when your pastoralist ancestors decided animal skins were too smelly. Vedas doesn't mention the Sanskrit word for cotton.

I'll say it AGAIN. Hands off our harappans!

WE traded and recorded the earliest cotton....not you nomadic filth who probably wore animal skins until the flesh rotted.

Have decency to read full abstract of Max Muller's book physical religion the writer of aryan invasion theory has to say , And come to conclusion, Rather counter with facts, Not interested in your delusions and pink elephants,

Age of the Veda.
Accurate knowledge of the Veda necessary for a study of Physical Religion.
THE survey of the Vedic literature which I endeavoured to place before you in my last lecture may seem to have occupied a great deal of our time. But for studies such as we are engaged in it is absolutely necessary to make our foundation sure. It really makes one shiver if one sees how the Veda is spoken of by some very eminent writers in their treatises on the origin of mythology and religion. First of all I hope I shall not hear the Veda any longer spoken of as the Veeda. As I explained to you before Veda means knowledge and is derived from the root vid to see which we have in Latin videre. The vowel in Veda is a diphthong consisting of a + i. This a + i is pronounced in Sanskrit like ai in aid and should properly be written ê. It is the same diphthong which in Greek is represented by ο + ι as in οȋ̓δα I know which stands for Fοîδα. Secondly though Veda ends in a it is not a feminine in Sanskrit but a masculine and I hope that French and German writers more particularly will no longer speak of the Veda as she.

It is not to be expected that every student of the science of mythology and religion should read the Veda in the original. But it is essential that they should know more than the name; that they should have a clear idea what the Vedic literature consists of how it arose when it arose where it arose how it was handed down when it was consigned to writing how it is to be interpreted and what is the reason why so much of it is still doubtful and unintelligible and why scholars so frequently differ in their translations of difficult passages. No knowledge is better than knowledge that cannot give an account of itself and I do not think that a scholarlike study of Physical Religion would be possible without a clear and accurate conception of what the Veda is which has been truly called the Bible of Physical Religion.
How to fix the Date of the Veda.
As yet the whole of the Vedic literature such as I described it to you hangs so to say in the air. There was a time not very long ago when the whole of Sanskrit literature the Veda included was represented as a forgery of the Brâhmans. It seemed too bad to be true that the language of India should be as perfect as Greek and that the mythology of Greece should have the same roots as the mythology of India. And though this uncompromising scepticism finds but few representatives at present Sanskrit is still looked upon as an unwelcome guest by many classical scholars and anything that can be said against it is welcomed by all who dislike the trouble of learning a new language.
Aryan immigration into India.
Not long ago my friend Professor Sayce stated as the result of his Babylonian researches that the migration of the Âryas towards India could not have taken place before about 600 or 700 B.C. Now consider what a complete upheaval of all our ideas on the ancient history of the Âryas in general and more especially on the growth of religious thought in India would be caused if this discovery could be maintained. Between the migration of the Âryas into the land of the Seven Rivers and the composition of hymns addressed to the rivers of the Penjâb and containing allusions even to the Ganges some time must have elapsed. We have then to find room for successive generations of Vedic poets and Vedic princes for repeated collections of ancient hymns for a period filled by the composition of the Brâhmanas written in prose and in a dialect different from that of the hymns and lastly for the rise of that philosophical literature which we find in the Upanishads. If this Upanishad literature is as I have tried to show presupposed by Buddhism and if Buddha lived about 500 B.C. what becomes of the first immigration of the Âryas into India about 600 or 700 B.C.?
Sindhu cotton mentioned 3000 B.C.
But while Professor Sayce has given us no arguments in support of this very recent date assigned by him to the first appearance of Âryas in India he has placed at our disposal some facts which if true would seem to prove that Sanskrit must have been the language of India at least 3000 B.C.
We are told1 that ‘in the copy of an old list of clothing one article is mentioned which has to be pronounced sindhu in Assyro-Babylonian and has the two ideographs “cloth + vegetable fibre.” The copy of the list now extant was made for the library of Assur-bani-pal but the original Babylonian tablet was of a much earlier date possibly as early as the age of Khammuragas say about 3000 B.C. though this is not quite certain.’
If we trust to these facts and if as Professor Sayce suggests this vegetable fibre was cotton and was called sindhu by the Babylonians because it came from the river Sindhu i.e. from India this would prove the presence of Sanskrit-speaking Âryas in India about at least 3000 B.C.
Professor Sayce further identifies the Assyro-Babylonian word sindhu with the Greek σινδών which occurs in Homer and he thinks that the Hebrew sâtin a linen shirt mentioned in Isaiah iii. 23 was borrowed from Greek. I confess I see no similarity whether in form or meaning between the Hebrew sâtin and the Greek σινδών particularly as we have in Arabic the word sâtin meaning a covering in general. But if as he argues the Phenicians brought this word from the Sindhu the Indus and if both the Greeks and the Babylonians borrowed that word from the Phenicians the presence of Sanskrit-speaking Âryas on the shores of the Indus would go back to a far more distant antiquity than we hitherto ventured to assign to it.
It should likewise be considered that cotton is not yet mentioned in the Vedic hymns nor in the ancient Brâhmanas. It appears for the first time in the Sûtras (Âsval. Srauta Sûtra IX. 4) as the name of a dress made of karpâsa cotton. The other names piku pikula and tûla are certainly post-Vedic. However a cloth made of vegetable substances need not necessarily be cotton. It may have been valka the bark of certain trees which was used from a very early time in India for making cloth while in the Veda wool is the principal material used for weaving2.
This discrepancy between two such dates as 600 B.C. and 3000 B.C. as the time of the migration of the Vedic Âryas into India will show at all events how necessary it is to defend every approach to the fortress of Vedic chronology and how essential for our own purposes to settle once for all the true antiquity and the really historical character of the Veda.
There are but few chronological sheet-anchors which hold the ancient history of India and we must try to fasten the floating literature of the Veda to one of them as firmly and securely as we can. In order to do that I must however first say a few words more on another class of literary compositions which form the last products of the Vedic age and which will have to serve as our hawsers to connect the ancient history of India with the terra firma of Greek chronology.

Founder of aryan invasion theory (AIT) - Max Muller

 

[jamahir]

The rear door (anudvara) on the other hand is to be placed in a concealed position as its inferior position would indicate: this might indicate also that the door is meant to be used by ‘untouchables’ (chandalas).

Hah ! Discrimination against the "Untouchables".

 

[suyog chavan]

Hah ! Discrimination against the "Untouchables".

Lol, Not on the basis of caste rather on the work conducted by chandalas,
" Chandala is a Sanskrit word for someone who deals with disposal of corpses "
As the chandalas dealt with dead corpses, Which might be contaminated with various pathogens and viruses, Stop finding caste bias in everything you get your hands on and think logically once in a while ,laal salaam

 

[jamahir]

Lol, Not on the basis of caste rather on the work conducted by chandalas,
" Chandala is a Sanskrit word for someone who deals with disposal of corpses "
As the chandalas dealt with dead corpses, Which might be contaminated with various pathogens and viruses, Stop finding caste bias in everything you get your hands on and think logically once in a while ,laal salaam

But why the rear door ? And are you saying that the rear door, or the front one, of a Brahmin's house would have welcomed other "Untouchables" ? The modern-day Dalits ?

And Google gave me this :

Question 12. Answer: Chandalas or 'untouchables' were placed at the very bottom of the hierarchy. They had to live outside the village, use discarded utensils and wear clothes of the dead and ornaments of iron

Why the discrimination ?

 

[arjunk]

So, when you think abt it, PM IK is right, India under BJP is a threat to whole region.Their "undivided India" contains the whole indian subcontinent.

They want the British Raj back?

 

[suyog chavan]

But why the rear door ? And are you saying that the rear door, or the front one, of a Brahmin's house would have welcomed other "Untouchables" ? The modern-day Dalits ?

And Google gave me this :

Why the discrimination ?

As the chandalas dealt with dead corpses, Which might be contaminated with various pathogens and viruses.
BTW chandala wasn't a caste then, they were mainly mix born between brahmin and Shudra i.e 5th varn,
Modern day so called Dalits aren't untouchables technology have advanced, laal salam

 

[jamahir]

As the chandalas dealt with dead corpses, Which might be contaminated with various pathogens and viruses.

But why the rear door ? Did the Upper Caste houses had a biological decontamination unit installed there so that the UCs can do some anna daan to the possibly-contaminated Chandalas and return into the house after going through the decontamination unit ?

BTW chandala wasn't a caste then, they were mainly mix born between brahmin and Shudra i.e 5th varn,

Is there really a fifth varn ?

Modern day so called Dalits aren't untouchables

Come now Suyog, you very well know how Dalits are treated. I will give the example of some Northern village where if a Dalit goes into a kirana store and touches a biscuit pack he has to buy it because the Upper Caste shopkeeper will not take it back from the 'Untouchable' Dalit.

 

[Khan vilatey]

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• We believe in 'Akhand Bharat' and we believe that one day Karachi will be part of India: Fadnavis
• Region from Azad Kashmir to Gilgit-Baltistan is an integral part of India: Rajnath Singh
• The Parliament has also passed resolution that Azad Kashmir is part of India

New Delhi: In a strong pitch for ‘Akhand Bharat’, former Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis said one day Karachi will be part of India.

Fadnavis gave this statement to PTI when he was asked about an incident in Mumbai where a Shiv Sena worker asked the owner of a sweet shop to drop the word ‘Karachi’ from the shop’s name because it is a Pakistani city.

We believe in ‘Akhand Bharat’ (undivided India) and we believe that one day Karachi will be part of India, he had said.

We believe in ‘Akhand Bharat’: Fadnavis
On Thursday, an activist from Shiv Sena ordered the owner of the reputed Karachi Sweets in Bandra to change its name to something more Indian or Marathi.

Embarrassed by the incident Shiv Sena’s Sanjay Raut made it clear that it was not the “official stand” of the party.





"Karachi Sweets and Karachi Bakery have been in Mumbai for 60 years. They have nothing to do with Pakistan. It makes no sense to ask for changing their names now...It's not the Shiv Sena's official stance," Raut said.

Earlier this month, Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh called the region from Azad Kashmir (Azad Kashmir) to Gilgit-Baltistan an integral part of India adding that it’s under the illegal occupation of Pakistan currently.

Azad Kashmir under Pakistan's illegal occupation: Rajnath Singh
Taking to Twitter Singh said: “Gilgit-Baltistan is under illegal occupation by Pakistan and is now going to make it a state on which our government has said in two words that from Azad Kashmir to Gilgit-Baltistan is an integral part of India.”

The Defence Minister had earlier said that the Modi government will change the face of Jammu and Kashmir with its development works so much that people from Azad Kashmir will demand to be part of India.

Earlier, the Parliament has also passed a resolution that Azad Kashmir is part of India.

We believe in 'Akhand Bharat', Karachi will be part of India one day: BJP's Devendra Fadnavis

Former Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has said one day Pakistan’s Karachi will be part of India.

www.timesnownews.com

agreed, Akhand Pakistan is the future and destiny of Paksitan. We will rule over all of South Asia and finally the Indians will experience true freedom under the just Pakistani rule. Inshallah

k

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Freak delusional psycho returning to howling and pep talk ranting again, at best makes my stand more firm
The argument was more of a debunking a commie author of the filth you borrowed from his nincompoop website, You only being that engot having zero knowledge in the ninny corner,
Contradicting again and again with your pea-brain logics, Fake claims ,
And still no facts , rather a message full of fairytales and fantasy of being an Harrapan, (haram)
Still, will provide truth to your grievance , And end your hallucinations
Desperation symptoms seems at peak, atleast control it for the sake of viewers watching ,just a suggestion

Have decency to read full abstract of Max Muller's book physical religion the writer of aryan invasion theory has to say , And come to conclusion, Rather counter with facts, Not interested in your delusions and pink elephants,

View attachment 691381
Age of the Veda.
Accurate knowledge of the Veda necessary for a study of Physical Religion.
THE survey of the Vedic literature which I endeavoured to place before you in my last lecture may seem to have occupied a great deal of our time. But for studies such as we are engaged in it is absolutely necessary to make our foundation sure. It really makes one shiver if one sees how the Veda is spoken of by some very eminent writers in their treatises on the origin of mythology and religion. First of all I hope I shall not hear the Veda any longer spoken of as the Veeda. As I explained to you before Veda means knowledge and is derived from the root vid to see which we have in Latin videre. The vowel in Veda is a diphthong consisting of a + i. This a + i is pronounced in Sanskrit like ai in aid and should properly be written ê. It is the same diphthong which in Greek is represented by ο + ι as in οȋ̓δα I know which stands for Fοîδα. Secondly though Veda ends in a it is not a feminine in Sanskrit but a masculine and I hope that French and German writers more particularly will no longer speak of the Veda as she.

It is not to be expected that every student of the science of mythology and religion should read the Veda in the original. But it is essential that they should know more than the name; that they should have a clear idea what the Vedic literature consists of how it arose when it arose where it arose how it was handed down when it was consigned to writing how it is to be interpreted and what is the reason why so much of it is still doubtful and unintelligible and why scholars so frequently differ in their translations of difficult passages. No knowledge is better than knowledge that cannot give an account of itself and I do not think that a scholarlike study of Physical Religion would be possible without a clear and accurate conception of what the Veda is which has been truly called the Bible of Physical Religion.
How to fix the Date of the Veda.
As yet the whole of the Vedic literature such as I described it to you hangs so to say in the air. There was a time not very long ago when the whole of Sanskrit literature the Veda included was represented as a forgery of the Brâhmans. It seemed too bad to be true that the language of India should be as perfect as Greek and that the mythology of Greece should have the same roots as the mythology of India. And though this uncompromising scepticism finds but few representatives at present Sanskrit is still looked upon as an unwelcome guest by many classical scholars and anything that can be said against it is welcomed by all who dislike the trouble of learning a new language.
Aryan immigration into India.
Not long ago my friend Professor Sayce stated as the result of his Babylonian researches that the migration of the Âryas towards India could not have taken place before about 600 or 700 B.C. Now consider what a complete upheaval of all our ideas on the ancient history of the Âryas in general and more especially on the growth of religious thought in India would be caused if this discovery could be maintained. Between the migration of the Âryas into the land of the Seven Rivers and the composition of hymns addressed to the rivers of the Penjâb and containing allusions even to the Ganges some time must have elapsed. We have then to find room for successive generations of Vedic poets and Vedic princes for repeated collections of ancient hymns for a period filled by the composition of the Brâhmanas written in prose and in a dialect different from that of the hymns and lastly for the rise of that philosophical literature which we find in the Upanishads. If this Upanishad literature is as I have tried to show presupposed by Buddhism and if Buddha lived about 500 B.C. what becomes of the first immigration of the Âryas into India about 600 or 700 B.C.?
Sindhu cotton mentioned 3000 B.C.
But while Professor Sayce has given us no arguments in support of this very recent date assigned by him to the first appearance of Âryas in India he has placed at our disposal some facts which if true would seem to prove that Sanskrit must have been the language of India at least 3000 B.C.
We are told1 that ‘in the copy of an old list of clothing one article is mentioned which has to be pronounced sindhu in Assyro-Babylonian and has the two ideographs “cloth + vegetable fibre.” The copy of the list now extant was made for the library of Assur-bani-pal but the original Babylonian tablet was of a much earlier date possibly as early as the age of Khammuragas say about 3000 B.C. though this is not quite certain.’
If we trust to these facts and if as Professor Sayce suggests this vegetable fibre was cotton and was called sindhu by the Babylonians because it came from the river Sindhu i.e. from India this would prove the presence of Sanskrit-speaking Âryas in India about at least 3000 B.C.
Professor Sayce further identifies the Assyro-Babylonian word sindhu with the Greek σινδών which occurs in Homer and he thinks that the Hebrew sâtin a linen shirt mentioned in Isaiah iii. 23 was borrowed from Greek. I confess I see no similarity whether in form or meaning between the Hebrew sâtin and the Greek σινδών particularly as we have in Arabic the word sâtin meaning a covering in general. But if as he argues the Phenicians brought this word from the Sindhu the Indus and if both the Greeks and the Babylonians borrowed that word from the Phenicians the presence of Sanskrit-speaking Âryas on the shores of the Indus would go back to a far more distant antiquity than we hitherto ventured to assign to it.
It should likewise be considered that cotton is not yet mentioned in the Vedic hymns nor in the ancient Brâhmanas. It appears for the first time in the Sûtras (Âsval. Srauta Sûtra IX. 4) as the name of a dress made of karpâsa cotton. The other names piku pikula and tûla are certainly post-Vedic. However a cloth made of vegetable substances need not necessarily be cotton. It may have been valka the bark of certain trees which was used from a very early time in India for making cloth while in the Veda wool is the principal material used for weaving2.
This discrepancy between two such dates as 600 B.C. and 3000 B.C. as the time of the migration of the Vedic Âryas into India will show at all events how necessary it is to defend every approach to the fortress of Vedic chronology and how essential for our own purposes to settle once for all the true antiquity and the really historical character of the Veda.
There are but few chronological sheet-anchors which hold the ancient history of India and we must try to fasten the floating literature of the Veda to one of them as firmly and securely as we can. In order to do that I must however first say a few words more on another class of literary compositions which form the last products of the Vedic age and which will have to serve as our hawsers to connect the ancient history of India with the terra firma of Greek chronology.

Founder of aryan invasion theory (AIT) - Max Muller

1. The article you posted confirms the absence of the Sanskrit word for "cotton" in ancient Vedic texts. If you didn't document it, it didn't happen. Tough shit, as we say in scientific circles.

2. What Ashurbanipal has or doesn't have in his library book collection is not relevant to the above.

3. None of what you extracted from Muller's text negates or rules out the possibility that Aryans enslaved your ancestors.

You've posted a meaningless excerpt that doesn't support your stance.

Keep trying though.

 

[Champs Trophy 2017]

A big middle finger from Karachi and GB for you delusional Devinder or whatever your name is!

 

[suyog chavan]

But why the rear door ? Did the Upper Caste houses had a biological decontamination unit installed there so that the UCs can do some anna daan to the possibly-contaminated Chandalas and return into the house after going through the decontamination unit ?



Is there really a fifth varn ?



Come now Suyog, you very well know how Dalits are treated. I will give the example of some Northern village where if a Dalit goes into a kirana store and touches a biscuit pack he has to buy it because the Upper Caste shopkeeper will not take it back from the 'Untouchable' Dalit.

Totally against this sort of chauvinism, As me being a so called Dalit too, but community never faced this discrimination or untouchability nor it is advised in Sanatan ancient scriptures, which have been deliberately misinterpreted out of context most of the time, By your Communists friends,
And displayed Aurangzeb as a peaceful saint from 16th century,

I will give the example of some Northern village where if a Dalit goes into a kirana store and touches a biscuit pack he has to buy it because the Upper Caste shopkeeper will not take it back from the 'Untouchable' Dalit.

Would love to debunk this too,
Provide the source,

 

[suyog chavan]

1. The article you posted confirms the absence of the Sanskrit word for "cotton" in ancient Vedic texts. If you didn't document it, it didn't happen. Tough shit, as we say in scientific circles.

What about the words of mr max muller
"If we trust to these facts and if as Professor Sayce suggests this vegetable fibre was cotton and was called sindhu by the Babylonians because it came from the river Sindhu i.e. from India this would prove the presence of Sanskrit-speaking Âryas in India about at least 3000 B.C. "

3. None of what you extracted from Muller's text negates or rules out the possibility that Aryans enslaved your ancestors.

You've posted a meaningless excerpt that doesn't support your stance.

Keep trying though.

This racial theory of the 19th century assumed that blonde blue-eyed warriors on horse-drawn chariots smashed their way into India by overpowering the cities of the Indus Valley, enslaving their people. This aryan invasion theory explained the collapse of the Indus Valley cities and the ubiquitous caste system of India. This theory was however part of the European propaganda machinery. The Germans used it as part of nationalist mythology, celebrating their pre-Semitic Nazi heritage. The British used it to delegitimize Hindus, claiming that ‘upper caste’ Hindus were as much invaders and conquerors of India, as Muslims and Europeans, and so they have no moral right to claim India as homeland.

A period when the cities of the Indus-Saraswati valleys had already declined. These cities were first established as early as 8,000 years ago, as per current evidence, but after thriving for nearly 3,000 years, had collapsed following climactic change and poor agricultural patterns. The Aryans brought the PIE language with them,
But not quite the Vedas.