TURNING POINT IN THE HISTORY OF INDIAN SUBCONTINENT

[Developereo]

Do not the Hindutva advocates scream that Islam fractured India??

It's not clear what the extreme Hindutva position is. As far as I can make out, they want to keep the land but not any trace of Islam. The Muslims can either leave India, leaving everything behind, or convert to Hinduism. Anyway, that's going way off-topic, so let's set aside that question for now...

 

[Joe Shearer]

Well I have been raised and educated here in the most influential Western country on the planet and the history books say just what I stated. That must be Pakistani madarsa brainwashing on Western education system though right??

I did not take anything personal from the psychiatrist comment, I have read a lot of your posts on this forum and actually respect you as one of the few Indian members who can have a genuine conversation. I hope you do not take my sarcasm offensively as well.

Umm...you might like to look up, being in New York and just around the corner, so to speak, the records of the UN General Assembly and the UN Secretariat on the subject of the successor state issue. Rather than depend on dumbed-down passing references in standard pablum text books. I assure you, when you check these records, you will find that things are exactly as I stated. This is with the confidence of having looked them up (on line, since there is no longer any money to go to New York).

About the sarcasm, which I honestly did not even notice, perhaps fortunately for my clogged arteries, I would accept it from a peer. You may notice that those who have come to the table with nothing to say but prejudiced sound-bytes from a bigots' forum and also have taken liberties have been told to get lost. When somebody serious engages me in discussion, as you and as Developereo are doing, I expect to get as good as I give, and most of the time don't notice it except for the occasional wince.

 

[KingMamba]

I could not disagree more.

It helps, of course, not to believe that Vedic culture is indigenous. For starters, Vedic culture is not shorthand for Indian culture, as some cultural fundamentalists seem to believe. Vedic culture was as starkly different from our contemporary culture as was chalk and cheese. We are not migratory people, measuring our wealth in heads of cattle, protected by our chieftain king and his trusty war-band, mounted on steeds bred on the steppes, armed with iron weapons superior to any that we might encounter with foemen other than our own kind, riding war chariots into battle, celebrating with feasts punctuated by draughts of soma and choice cuts from the pick of our herds, worshipping the great Thunder God, the bringer of victory, and revering our wise men, who compose hymns in lofty language for us to sing.

Nor are we the people of the later ages who survived domestication and the shock of taking to an agricultural life, and measured life in the number of cattle we lifted from our neighbours in wild, hard-riding raids, maintained royal courts where musicians, dancers, bards, and wandering holy men regaled the king and his boon companions, while the husbandmen and merchants went soberly about their business, building bonds of trade where there were bonds of tribe and kinship, a life where one gave up worldly care when the blood ran thin, and retired to a gentler life with one's life partner, under the spreading greenwoods near a pleasant river.

This kind of harking back to the past is so singularly phony that it hurts. The vision of these cultural Luddites compresses the life-style of the Vedic era, with that of Puranic times, with historical information about imperial India, and the early mediaeval ages, all into one mish-mash which makes singularly little sense, either as reconstruction or as a culturally coherent vision. On the one hand, there is the rich, civilised, sophisticated world of the nagar badhu, the merchant prince and evil kotwals, all dancing around a royal court famed across many countries, adorned by famous poets and playwrights, perhaps by great musicians, and reigned over by accomplished and learned kings or great war-lords, or both; on the other, there is the bucolic vision of the riders off the steppes, picking their way across the rivers to mount great attacks on neighbours of their own kind, when not attacking the settlements of the autochthones and bringing them to realise the great desirability of the new culture.

How can anyone, even these deranged idiots, compress around 2,000 years of cultural existence, punctuated by major wars towards the latter one-third, imagine that a homogeneous culture would inhabit it with no change? And if they acknowledge change, which part is the part that is Vedic, the earlier, or the later? For the two were so incredibly different, the difference between high noon and the early dawn.

On the other hand, the disagreement.

Why do you, and other apologists for Pakistan as a counter-weight to this Vedic vision, insist on taking the mistakes of the deluded Vedic visionaries and riding it on a pendulum swing in the opposite direction? Why, for instance, do you, all of you, with not many exceptions that I can name, obsess to the point of clinical extremism about the political entity named India that exists today, and insist that such an India never existed politically in the past? Why is it that you do not sit for a moment and think through the fact that India was the foreigner's name for us, never our name for ourselves? Why, because mediaeval raiders and marauders called this land Hind do you imagine that the people called themselves Hind? Or derivatives thereof? Why do you emerge flushed from these discoveries, exuberant about the fact that never in the past was there ever a Republic of India? What significance does this have? and what discoveries have you made by stating this?

Finally, what relevance does this have to the cultural unity of India, which allowed a traveller from Pragjyotishpur to know that he would be comfortable in Poompuhar or in Kusumapura alike, that he would have his vocation in life recognised and accepted, that he would get food that would be acceptable to him in terms of what he normally ate, that the exotic changes in clothing and attire were finally minor changes only, that the language that he would find might be comprehensible or not, but that he would be assured of finding those who could speak a common language, that the coinage he carried would be honoured and exchanged for local coin, and used for food, and drink, and clothes and shelter and transport?

I really don't 'get' what point you and your ilk are trying to make out of this India never existed before 1947 idiocy.

I have re highlighted what you wrote. Okay so you said the name India was used by the Greek ambassador when referring to the Mauryans, right? It is common knowledge that the Mauryan Empire was the one time the subcontinent was united under one political unit yes or no? Now when the Greeks used the term India they did so because of the association of the people with that river yes or no? Were those people not under Mauryan jurisdiction at the time? You said the indigenous people never referred to themselves as Indian so this name must not have been used in the presence of the sovereign of the time, would he not have corrected the Ambassador?? Surely he would have said we are not Indians we are Bharatis or whatever the people of the time used to refer to themselves as. Now if he didn't that means he approved of the name and then this above statement you presented in the long post I quoted was wrong. The point being if the Greeks used this to describe the subcontinent during the time of Mauryans then they were not wrong to do so as the people of the Indus were within their realm. Now maybe I am just posturing but I reckon it makes a difference if the name was used in front of the Mauryans or not because the Greeks set the precedent.

Umm...you might like to look up, being in New York and just around the corner, so to speak, the records of the UN General Assembly and the UN Secretariat on the subject of the successor state issue. Rather than depend on dumbed-down passing references in standard pablum text books. I assure you, when you check these records, you will find that things are exactly as I stated. This is with the confidence of having looked them up (on line, since there is no longer any money to go to New York).

About the sarcasm, which I honestly did not even notice, perhaps fortunately for my clogged arteries, I would accept it from a peer. You may notice that those who have come to the table with nothing to say but prejudiced sound-bytes from a bigots' forum and also have taken liberties have been told to get lost. When somebody serious engages me in discussion, as you and as Developereo are doing, I expect to get as good as I give, and most of the time don't notice it except for the occasional wince.

With all due respect Joe I do not have time to go to the UN for an argument on this forum. I was in a college level course in High School (known as AP level here in the states) for world history so our material was not as most people would say "dumbed down" for the average high schoolers here in the states. However I am not saying you are wrong, you may be right however the history books here are written the way I am saying and all who actually spend time to read them will come to the same conclusion that I have that the Dominion of Pakistan and the Dominion of India were the successor states of British India.

 

[Rig Vedic]

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.

Even in Europe there are rituals like Halloween that are supposed to be left-overs from the pagan era. Such practices have historically faced stiff opposition from the clergy there.

I am sure there are many relics of the pre-Islamic past in popular culture in Pakistan. However, I find that Pakistanis have cut themselves off from the philosophical foundations. It is like a tree that has been uprooted and has had its roots sawn off. I do hope that Pakistanis will, in years to come, be open and eager to also drink the waters that once nourished the tree.

 

[KingMamba]

It's not clear what the extreme Hindutva position is. As far as I can make out, they want to keep the land but not any trace of Islam. The Muslims can either leave India, leaving everything behind, or convert to Hinduism. Anyway, that's going way off-topic, so let's set aside that question for now...

They do however blame Islam, what they want is indeed another topic.

 

[Rig Vedic]

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.

That is not a position I support. However I do believe in free flow of ideas, no censorship or blasphemy laws. No pandering to regressive elements. The fit will survive, the sick will perish.

 

[KingMamba]

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.

Developereo, the advocates for this position never argue for all other faiths to be removed from India. They single out Islam and only Islam, Black Widow on this forum is an example. He has frequently stated Muslims of India should convert back to Hinduism and/or Buddhism.

 

[KingMamba]

Even in Europe there are rituals like Halloween that are supposed to be left-overs from the pagan era. Such practices have historically faced stiff opposition from the clergy there.

I am sure there are many relics of the pre-Islamic past in popular culture in Pakistan. However, I find that Pakistanis have cut themselves off from the philosophical foundations. It is like a tree that has been uprooted and has had its roots sawn off. I do hope that Pakistanis will, in years to come, be open and eager to also drink the waters that once nourished the tree.

Yes Europe still has some pagan customs, and Pakistan still has some Vedic customs. I disagree, Pakistan has not cut themselves off from the philosophical foundations of anything. What Pakistan has done is much worse, they have cut off general education, without even the basics there is no way the population of Pakistan would be able to comprehend anything philosophical. To expect them to do so is foolish posturing and you cannot hold the average Joe responsible for forgetting his roots when he cannot even spell his name. The well privileged however is another story.

 

[RazPaK]

LoL. An Indian trying to explain philosophy to a Pakistani.

This is the height of ignorance.

 

[Developereo]

That is not a position I support. However I do believe in free flow of ideas, no censorship or blasphemy laws. No pandering to regressive elements. The fit will survive, the sick will perish.

Your posts starts out well but ends ominously.

Developereo, the advocates for this position never argue for all other faiths to be removed from India. They single out Islam and only Islam, Black Widow on this forum is an example. He has frequently stated Muslims of India should convert back to Hinduism and/or Buddhism.

That's because it is politically acceptable to bash Islam and Muslims. The other reason is the festering memory of the Mughal invasions, constantly exploited by the extremists.

But don't believe for one second that the Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs and others buy into the charade. They know that, once the Muslims go or it becomes socially acceptable, they are next in line. Also, open demonization of Christians would land India into hot water internationally.

Sadly, we Pakistanis have the "benefit" of first hand experience in what happens when extremism is allowed to flourish.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I fully accept that the place of Vedic culture in the broader Indian cultural context is debated. However, I was conceding the most extreme position for arguments' sake that Vedic culture is 100% indigenous to the IVC and that it forms the bedrock of Indian culture. Even with that concession, my point was to posit the irrelevance of a large scale physical "Aryan" migration (genetics) and to focus on the core question of what is "indigenous" and what is "foreign", since that is supposedly the big difference between Vedic and Islamic influences within modern Indian culture.

It is only faintly possible that there was some contemporaneity between the Vedic culture and the IVC; on the whole, they seem to have been orthogonal in nature, with little or no contact, and little or no exchange of cultural memes. If there was an inheritance into Vedic customs and religion from the autochthones, that could very well have occurred during the long centuries of cohabitation in the Gangetic valley. There is no need to desperately pull at the blanket and try to make it cover everything, when there is a perfectly good option right next to it. Ockham's Razor applies, I believe.

Second, your point about the large-scale ingress of Indo-Aryan speaking people is well put, and there is broad consensus that this is what really happened. It is an explanation which ties together most of the outstanding features.

Third, to argue about what is indigenous and what is foreign is a waste of time, in my opinion, if its only purpose is to disprove Islam being indigenous. Islam is not indigenous, as it was conceived, preached and propagated elsewhere, and came to India full-blown. Islam is certainly today a native element in the sub-continent, and to juxtapose foreign or exotic against the accepted feature of contemporary Indian culture.

Perhaps we are giving excessive importance to the word 'indigenous'.


That goes to the heart of the indigenous v/s foreign debate. I wrote "Indian" as a sloppy shorthand for the subcontinent; we could substitute the cultural, not political, entity Bharat instead and it wouldn't change anything.

Fair enough.

I suggest that the only way to claim indigenous status for anything is if it occurred within the same political unit at the time it happened. Not centuries later. Germans can not claim Zola and Voltaire as indigenous, even though they share some level of common culture with France; less so with Poles and Greeks. Going forward, one could arguably call future artifacts indigenous to the EU, but you can't apply this label retroactively to previous centuries.

Not the best example you could have chosen, but let me mount my attack on a front that you have not ruined for yourself already.

Would you have any difficulty in recognising as identical in inspiration the cathedrals at Koeln, Shrewsbury, Chartres and Toledo? Yet would you not agree that these belonged to different political entities while also managing to be indigenous? I feel that you are on a limb on this business of a cultural feature necessarily belonging to the same unit at the same time to be called indigenous. You went on to cite Zola and Voltaire and the possibility of their claim by Germany; I would argue that Erasmus was a fairer example, a pan-European who nevertheless belonged to no single political entity, or Abelard, or William of Ockham, or Tycho Brahe, or Copernicus. None of these are limited to their political unit; they belong to the entire wide culture.

Why would you deny this rather similar situation closer at home? Because it is closer at home and lacks the pixy-dust that foreign locations have? Or because it legitimises, you think, the decaying fringe of bigotry that we have?

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.

The IVC had nothing to do with it. Claims that it is integrated with mainstream Indian culture are so much poppycock, put about by the Indo-centric lobby that needs to rebuff all western scholarship in order to reclaim their lost cultural and intellectual monopoly. Why are you falling into their trap? And why are you allowing them to set the rules of the game? We haven't. And we have just as much as so called indigenous claim to our legacy as the revisionists have.

What is really annoying is when people like you abandon your positions in order to accommodate fanatics and bigots. In some recent exchanges on our private mailing list, a friend had posted a very nice piece on moderation and what it sought from individuals who wished to practice it It took me very little time to realise that I would not be able to adopt moderation, that on issues that mattered I would stay committed and firm, and inflexible with regard to views not yet proved academically. While I have nothing against KS, Rig Vedic or Voldemort, and indeed respect their patriotism, their views and mine are miles apart, and there can be little or no compromise. Other than when the facts dictate the matter;when recently it was postulated that an overlap between the Vedic culture and the IVC might have happened, it was difficult to deny the possibility, faint though it was.

Since, btw, I do not believe that Vedic influences were originated in south Asia entirely, the rest of your post is preaching to the choir. I do not know what to say without being redundant. Especially on the similarity between the spread of Vedic and Islamic influences, from a political and a cultural point of view.

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 aim is not to discredit Indian claims on the IVC or Vedic culture, since cultural India is a shared heritage between us all, but only to draw a parallel between the spread of Vedic and Islamic influences from a political point of view.

First, I vehemently disagree with others on key aspects of the premises that you have furnished as a foundation for your own argument. For my views, please see your post and my comments below it.

PS: The difficulty is, I believe, that both of us are saying essentially the same thing; more accurately, we have come to similar conclusions from two different directions.

 

[Iggy]

LoL. An Indian trying to explain philosophy to a Pakistani.

This is the height of ignorance.

Who is the ignorant here?? Indian or Pakistani??

 

[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?

The IVC is not.


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.

It becomes impossible.

As I feared, our views are convergent.

You really should take care not to let such things happen. I have a reputation to keep up, you know.

 

[vsdoc]

You hide your hatred for Islam better than most others in this forum, I will give you that. However you can mourn the loss of Persia to Islam all you want Doc but the fact remains that your ancestors RAN when the time came to stand up and resist. That is why the Persians of today do not even want to recognize your kind. As for the Persians that did stay they did not fall to Islam overnight as it took nearly 300 years before Islam became the dominant religion of Persia.

I have never hidden my dislike of violent Islam and the threat it poses to the civilized world order.

Whatever gave you that idea?

As for the rest, do you really think me a proud Mazdayasni Aryan is waiting for a certificate of approval from those who bent over?

 

[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.

While this cannot be ruled out, I doubt that there is any concrete proof of Vedic settlements on the banks of the Saraswati.

islamic super power(islam ka qila)=pakistan .

That is really too far-fetched. You cannot be serious about this, not without proving that you are completely frivolous or completely foolish.