TURNING POINT IN THE HISTORY OF INDIAN SUBCONTINENT

[vsdoc]

Can you share some insight over the Historic sites destroyed by Hindus recently??

Let me lessen his effort.

Babri Masjid.

 

[Iggy]

Let me lessen his effort.

Babri Masjid.

That is only one site.. He said sites.. That was what I am wondering about..

 

[vsdoc]

He also said "precious" and "historic" in the same breath, if we must split hairs.

 

[neokautilya2]

Yaar u took my post in an entirely different way, yes Britishers were cause but certainly not the main one responsible for this unity 'instilled'.

You see by the time of our Independence already Kingdoms were in their dusk, nation states gathered good momentum and people were seeing the use of education for all. One can call it all round enlightenment. The British might have left us for various reasons but there was no confirmation that this country unified would survive. The princely states had to be integrated and then a constitution was to be framed, lot of hurdles etcetc. These were done by us not anybody else. Infact by partitioning British made sure we stayed weak.

i did not say that britishers were good or bad

like all invaders they were also interested in exhausting our resources and reaping the benefits

but jus see with arrival of britishers at least our ppl came out of dark ages

the education system at that point of time was very backward, same goes for the scientific development during the muslim period

 

[Lyrical Mockery]

IMO, the turning point in the history of Indian subcontinent in the last millenia would be the partition of the subcontinent. I won't comment about the AIT.

 

[Bang Galore]

The whole Saraswati business is such a defective and ill-advised theory that it is best to read up thoroughly once again before answering.

Defective why? Because it's troublesome? Would you rather believe that we were still talking about some river in Afghanistan instead ? I find this approach to a theory, bewildering! It's a theory, not a bad one in my opinion but even if you disagree, what is the point of labeling it such & such.... Dismissing a theory just because one questions the motives of the proposer is a poor way to demonstrate objectivity.... Whether proposed by Hindu nationalists or by anyone else, it deserves consideration & on the face of it, is certainly much better than some of the theories that have come out from the AIT camp. As you are aware, that theory has been modified substantially, so would it be correct to attribute motives to everyone who ever supported/proposed the now disproved/discarded parts? This theory deserves a hearing & if necessary, rebuttal by providing evidence, not by dismissing it without bothering to examine or refute it.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Defective why? Because it's troublesome? Would you rather believe that we were still talking about some river in Afghanistan instead ? I find this approach to a theory, bewildering! It's a theory, not a bad one in my opinion but even if you disagree, what is the point of labeling it such & such.... Dismissing a theory just because one questions the motives of the proposer is a poor way to demonstrate objectivity.... Whether proposed by Hindu nationalists or by anyone else, it deserves consideration & on the face of it, is certainly much better than some of the theories that have come out from the AIT camp. As you are aware, that theory has been modified substantially, so would it be correct to attribute motives to everyone who ever supported/proposed the now disproved/discarded parts? The theory deserves a hearing & if necessary, rebuttal by providing evidence, not by dismissing it without bothering to examine or refute it.

I have to point out with the utmost sadness that I have given myself one full day to run through all the findings and evidence to date.

My main objection is that this was not a hypothesis that suggested itself, it was one that was defined, then sought and found. Is it totally irrelevant to consider who is pushing a particular point of view, considering that we are discussing history, and that it does have an entire, full-fledged discipline called historiography. If we considered every proposal on its own merit, we would have no need whatsoever for historiography to guide us through the maze of contesting theories. It is absolutely necessary not merely to consider the hypothesis on its own merit, but also to see its historical, and then its social and cultural conntext.

Coming to the hypothesis itself, it is receiving consideration, and that is why I withdrew my original comment. As you know, the AIT itself has benefited from being forced to be reviewed, and it has been modified. Whether motives should be attributed to those responsible for the discarded portions of that theory really lies in the eyes of the beholder; there is no general rule applicable.

I am surprised at the reaction with which you ended. it was precisely to examine it, whether to refute it or not I cannot yet say. If rebuttal is required, it will be issued; at the very least, I am going through all the evidence that I have been able to gather, and should be able to form an opinion shortly.

 

[vsdoc]

But are we not getting waylaid in this intellectual masturbation?

It was a simple question.

Turning point of history of Indian subcontinent.

And 30 pages later I still do not know where either of you mental giants stands!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Joe Shearer]

But are we not getting waylaid in this intellectual masturbation?

It was a simple question.

Turning point of history of Indian subcontinent.

And 30 pages later I still do not know where either of you mental giants stands!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Very easy answer, once one thinks about it. It was the foundation of an empire by the Mauryas, by which act the idea of all-embracing empire travelled from Persia to India, and offered an administrative framework for the first time which could accommodate the cultural framework already in place.

Unless, of course, some genius insists that those who are reported to have been chakravartins by various accounts should be taken to be the first true emperors.

 

[vsdoc]

Bang bhai aap?

 

[Bang Galore]

I am surprised at the reaction with which you ended. it was precisely to examine it, whether to refute it or not I cannot yet say. If rebuttal is required, it will be issued; at the very least, I am going through all the evidence that I have been able to gather, and should be able to form an opinion shortly.

That actually wasn't a reference to you, more a comment on general attitude towards any theory thought to be coming from anyone questioning the AIT. Having said that, when one starts with the idea that a theory is ill-advised & defective, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what kind of consideration the theory may receive. Would be glad to be proved wrong, not necessarily by a sudden reversal of your position but by giving this explanation some consideration. I'm not talking about the OIT but whether the Sarasvati is an understudied factor in dating the "Rg vedic" civilisation.

 

[Sashan]

Bang bhai aap?

He already expressed his. I remember becoming a self appointed judge to vote his as the best response.

 

[vsdoc]

Acha the puranic stuff and the descent in decadence.

Yes I agree.

But that was the precursor for me.

The weakening.

The turning point was the advent of Islam into an India floundering in dogmatic and divisiv Hinduism.

 

[Rig Vedic]

There is a very seminal and, if I may add, spectacular contribution that establishes continuity between the units of measurement used in the IVC, those used by Kautilya in the Arthashastra and those used in Varahamihira’s Brihat Samhita.

New Insights into Harappan Town-Planning, Proportions and Units, with Special Reference to Dholavira by Michel Danino - http://www.iisc.ernet.in/prasthu/pages/PP_data/paper2.pdf

Abstract:

Dholavira’s elaborate town-planning rests on the conscious use of specific proportions for its successive enclosures. Those proportions combined with the city’s dimensions allow us to calculate precisely the unit of length used for the fortifications, to relate it to the Lothal ivory scale, and to work out potential subunits. Both proportions and units receive overwhelming confirmation from structures of Dholavira and other Harappan sites. Units are finally refined to a dhanus of 190.1 cm and an angula of 1.76 cm, the former being 108 times the latter. The Dholavirian scheme of units is then shown to be related to historical unit systems in several ways; in particular, the Arthashastra’s scheme of linear measures conclusively has Harappan roots. Finally, the paper attempts to outline some of the abstract concepts underlying Dholavira’s geometry, taking a peep at a hitherto neglected component of the Harappan mind.

 

[Leader]

when locals and masses were declared untouchables and declared shudars !!