TURNING POINT IN THE HISTORY OF INDIAN SUBCONTINENT

[KingMamba]

Not in the least. Not when it couches arguments which hold some water. Not when it originates from a well-schooled Madrasah boy with whom I can cross swords without losing caste.

We would definitively not want that.

 

[DarkPrince]

islamic super power(islam ka qila)=pakistan .

bhai tera india hi islamic super power hai pakistan nahi

 

[Joe Shearer]

But that, as I explained above, is the crux of the matter. How do you claim something as indigenous if there was no political unity, and only a lowest common denominator at a cultural level. By what stretch of the imagination is the IVC indigenous to an Assamese or a Keralite?

Once you accept that these influences were, indeed, foreign at the time of introduction, then it becomes problematic to exclude Islam as a legitimate member of Indian culture.

A quick aside before I dive into my cornflakes (the maidservant is making encouraging noises with a frying pan as well and a higher call will soon take me away).

The IVC has NOTHING to do with an Assamese or a Keralite, if that's what you call a Malayali these days. On the other hand, it has nothing to do with a Sindhi or a Punjabi either. It is a lost civilisation, and bequeathed none of its gifts to anyone in passing. As I have said time and again, those who live in the Sindh and in those areas of western Punjab which contain the remains of IVC sites have ticketing rights; so, btw, do Gujaratis, Rajasthanis and eastern Punjabis. It does not belong culturally to anyone now. It does belong geographically to Pakistan and to India, not in equal measure, but to both to the extent that the ruins and remains are present.

Oh, just for the record: I do not accept that Islam is not part of Indian culture. It was not in the past, but then neither was Hinduism; neither was Buddhism; neither was Jainism; neither was the path of the Khalsa. So they entered, and so did Islam, earlier than the Sikh faith.

Below is a Chart of India's share of the GDP with respect to the world over the last 2000 years (dont know how accurate it is).

I believe India started to go downhill economically when Aurangzeb bankrupted the nation with his rather bloody and foolish conquest of Deccan.

Source:
The Economic History of the Last 2,000 Years in 1 Little Graph - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic

I am glad and appreciative that it is data based.

Now for the dismal part. The signs of decline are post 1700; Aurangzeb died in 1707. Don't you think that a precipitous decline must have been longer in the making? Isn't sticking it to a single, unpopular ruler a bit too tidy for the real world?

 

[ishaqzaade]

bhai tera india hi islamic super power hai pakistan nahi

nahi bhai hum to hindutva vadi hai hum akhand bharat mein bharosa karte hai .

 

[KingMamba]

nahi bhai hum to hindutva vadi hai hum akhand bharat mein bharosa karte hai .

Paar behn Akhand Bharat tou Musalman super power hoi ga.

I really hope we are all being sarcastic btw.

 

[Developereo]

A quick aside before I dive into my cornflakes (the maidservant is making encouraging noises with a frying pan as well and a higher call will soon take me away).

The IVC has NOTHING to do with an Assamese or a Keralite, if that's what you call a Malayali these days. On the other hand, it has nothing to do with a Sindhi or a Punjabi either. It is a lost civilisation, and bequeathed none of its gifts to anyone in passing. As I have said time and again, those who live in the Sindh and in those areas of western Punjab which contain the remains of IVC sites have ticketing rights; so, btw, do Gujaratis, Rajasthanis and eastern Punjabis. It does not belong culturally to anyone now. It does belong geographically to Pakistan and to India, not in equal measure, but to both to the extent that the ruins and remains are present.

I think we are talking on two different axes. My comment was along the spatial axis only regarding the contemporary Assamese and Keralites who absorbed elements of IVC culture (or even Saraswati/Vedic culture, for arguments' sake). To them, it was a wholly foreign imposition when it occured.

Again, I am not trying to single out Vedic influence; quite the contrary. My whole argument is that all cultural influences diffuse over time through a variety of means, violent and non-. This applies to all the major religions of today, not to mention other ideologies.

 

[Rig Vedic]

By that logic, the claim that Vedic influences were wholly indigenous makes no sense when viewed from a East/South Indian perspective, since the IVC was not a part of a common political entity until several centuries later. These were foreign influences absorbed into their own culture over time, just as Islamic influence was absorbed. Now one can claim that Islamic influences came on the back of a military conquest, but there were military conquests within the subcontinent throughout history. When kingdoms ruled over each other, it is unrealistic to expect that there was no cultural transfer.

My own perspective is that you have a right over that heritage that is a living part your own life.

Thus I do accept that America has a claim over the heritage of Greece and Rome: Their language and laws, which are a part of their lives, are derived from that history.

As regards the Vedic culture - who would have a closer association: the Vedic Pundit residing in Kerala, or a Madrassa student memorizing the Quran in Pakistan?

But it is open to anybody and everybody to immerse themselves in Vedic thought, its subsequent developments in the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, and the Sanskrit language.

Anybody who does that would be a true successor to the Vedic Rishis, and there have even been Westerners who can be considered to be in that category.

 

[ishaqzaade]

Paar behn Akhand Bharat tou Musalman super power hoi ga.

I really hope we are all being sarcastic btw.

lekin unke cuurent condition ko dekhkar to aisa nahi lagta .

 

[Rig Vedic]

So your belief is that the Vedic culture originated in the Saraswati River region and radiated outwards?

Yes. The oldest books of the Rig Veda talk about the Ganga, Yamuna and Saraswati, but not the western rivers.

P.S. But, even so, given the lack of a unifying political entity, would you not agree that the spread of Vedic influence throughout the rest of the subcontinent was a foreign imposition at the time it occurred? The "we are all one" unification came much, much later.

I would not say it was an imposition, it was an organic absorption. And there were also major contributions along the way by people from different regions. Something like how modern mathematics developed in Europe. Euclid and Archimedes played a role, but so did Newton, Leibniz and Cauchy. But in the Indian case we are talking about an evolution that occurred in the distant past.

See also my previous post.

 

[KingMamba]

My own perspective is that you have a right over that heritage that is a living part your own life.

Thus I do accept that America has a claim over the heritage of Greece and Rome: Their language and laws, which are a part of their lives, are derived from that history.

As regards the Vedic culture - who would have a closer association: the Vedic Pundit residing in Kerala, or a Madrassa student memorizing the Quran in Pakistan?

But it is open to anybody and everybody to immerse themselves in Vedic thought, its subsequent developments in the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, and the Sanskrit language.

Anybody who does that would be a true successor to the Vedic Rishis, and there are have even been Westerners who can be considered to be in that category.

Your analysis is mistaken, it does not matter about the faith of the individual. I will give you an example, do the Muslims of the subcontinent not go through 3 day marriage ceremonies?? Is this not Vedic culture, Arabs have one day wedding ceremonies and this kind of marriage is foreign to them. So does not that madrassa student memorizing the Quran have some association to Vedic culture if he is married in this fashion?? Does one have to accept all of Vedic culture to be associated to it? America is influenced by Greek and Romans however American have never fully been enamored in Greek/Roman culture. They do not and have not ever been practicers of their religion.

 

[Joe Shearer]

When the Greeks, Romans, Persians, and Arabs used the word India they never referred to any people east of the Indus. Even their conquests never went East of this river so by what basis do you assume they were referring to any people other than the one of this river. Before you said the people of the subcontinent never referred to themselves as India, you admitted it in an earlier post and now you are contradicting your own post by trying to claim the Mauryas did so. You said this not me in post 367 so then if that is the case why do you object when Pakistanis say the same thing??

Please, please, please.

Are you seriously trying to catch me out in an apparent contradiction? While I admire your courage, it is not good strategy.

Never attack Russia.

Never take on old Joe on matters relating to history (not unless you are Bang Galore, drat his pesky hide).

Now, with the confidence of a large, well-made omelette and two crisp pieces of toast well slathered with peanut butter inside me, and with a large cup of coffee to shore up my intellect, lately under severe pressure from the paynim of the New York Regiment, I will take the liberty of pointing out that I said no such thing. Please take a close look at post 367; I don't need to, but I have peeked at it to be sure. Nowhere have I claimed that Indians called themselves Indians. I have said that from the time of Megasthenes, ambassador to the Maurya court, India was the name assigned to south Asia. Not Indians, a Seleucid Greek ambassador. And after him, centuries of Europeans.

As they say in jatra performances in my part of India that is Bharat, "Ha ha ha, Mohabbat Khan! Aabaar tor shob cheshta byartho holo!"

 

[KingMamba]

lekin unke cuurent condition ko dekhkar to aisa nahi lagta .

Dwah kiya kaare aap phir.

 

[Joe Shearer]

It depends on to what extent the IVC was Vedic. The Vedic settlements on the banks of the Saraswati were certainly contemporaries of the IVC.

I am prepared to believe that as the Vedic peoples expanded westwards, there was a certain degree of cultural mingling. Thus the IVC may have had Vedic influences as well as Elamite influences. The units of measurement used in the buildings do suggest a Vedic influence.

The Vedas are studied and chanted in Assam and Kerala even today (maybe more in Kerala than Assam) - so it could be said that there is an indirect link. But it's not that we are excessively obsessed with the issue.

One cannot entirely rule out this possibility of co-existence. The consequences on history would not be dramatic, but would revert to a British hypothesis that was shouted down long ago.

 

[RazPaK]

I want to say Call centers, but I think many Indians will think I'm trolling. However I am being genuine. It started with call centers.

 

[Developereo]

As regards the Vedic culture - who would have a closer association: the Vedic Pundit residing in Kerala, or a Madrassa student memorizing the Quran in Pakistan?

But it is open to anybody and everybody to immerse themselves in Vedic thought, its subsequent developments in the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, and the Sanskrit language.

I don't dispute your analysis, even though I feel it is veering a little bit into a side angle. I would go even further and say that, since Hinduism is the dominant cultural element (spatially, temporally and devotionally) within modern India, that it behooves all citizens to be conversant in it, at least minimally and academically. In the interests of communal harmony and secularism, it would be desirable to reciprocate that courtesy to other major religions in the land also, again purely academically.

The part where I disagree is the extreme position that other faiths need to be expurgated from India and their adherent brought back into the fold of the "native" faith.