TURNING POINT IN THE HISTORY OF INDIAN SUBCONTINENT

[Joe Shearer]

uurrrgh ... before running off you could perhaps try to understand what was written.



You can't talk about splits without assuming a common parent, which is purely a conjecture. One would also have to consider alternative mechanisms. If you start out by assuming something your conclusions aren't evidence for your assumption. And if your rules were derived on the basis of assumptions about the nature of relationships between languages then the rules also become suspect. Anyway, that potential house of cards may be looked into on another occasion.

You can't talk about anything unless you have an analytic framework, and a system for studying what you want to talk about. Alternative mechanisms have in fact been considered in depth, for the entire set of human languages that exist. The models used for Indo-European have not been found universally applicable; other language systems have been mapped onto other models, as was appropriate, and, needless to add, such alternatives have been tested on Indo-European for validity or possibility; the current model has been built on the basis of years of scholarly research and discussion. It is futile to even begin to explain what has gone into linguistics up until now; might as well explain the Boson to Tamerlane.

It is incredible to hear somebody say a thing like, "if you start out by assuming something your conclusions aren't evidence for your assumption." If one doesn't make an assumption and test it against the facts, how does one prove or disprove it? And unless one proves or disproves it, how does one come to conclusions about any alternatives that might exist? Conclusions are in fact the toosl for building which we gather evidence, for or against the assumption, that is determined by weighing the facts, not by a priori reasoning. This, in a nutshell, is the scientific method, which is not a phrase, but a process. Unfortunately, most a priori reasoners think that this means merely a license to display how brainy they are, as individuals, rather than going through the dreary discipline of searching for facts, demonstrating to one's peers that those are facts visible and discernible to others just as clearly as to oneself, testing an assumption about the model against those facts, and either accepting or rejecting the assumption, adopting the alternative if the model is rejected.

Your talked about rules. Rules are derived from observation of the facts, and determination of repetitive behaviour, behaviour that, again, like all other matters involving facts, need to be demonstrated before one's peers - in the discipline, not peers who appoint themselves your peers and sit in judgement with not the foggiest clue about the matter under discussion (broad hint). These rules may be overthrown in the light of subsequent and better observations, based on a greater volume of facts, or on a refinement of existing facts. All this goes into scientific studies, in the case of the natural or social sciences, and into academic studies, in the case of subjects relating to humanities, such as history. Rules are hardly ever based on assumptions, as you have airily supposed. In the case of linguistics, it is painfully evident that I am speaking to utter ignorance when I read,"...if your rules were derived on the basis of assumptions about the nature of relationships between languages then the rules also become suspect." How wonderful that a person can make a statement like that without the foggiest notion about the subject, in this case, about linguistics.

All in all, a breathtaking display of the extent of error to which a priori arrogance can take a person. I seriously think preserving this body of comment might be a good idea, for the instruction of future generations on how not to go about addressing an unknown subject.

 

[indushek]

@Joe u never answered my question even after ur breakfast not the present post but previous one . Do reply for this also.

@Developreo , Rusty, Joe

Instead of quoting ur posts, i just want to say this u and Rusty seem to believe that somehow the Aryan Invasion was similar to Islamic Invasion and Indians are being hypocrites by accepting the former and rejecting the later.

I am not even an amateur but a school kid in matter of archaeology and history, but think that what with no written records of the Aryan times and no mention whatsoever of pre vedic happenings in puranas or whatever other known "old" books to the knowledge of Indians everybody thinks that India till the attack of Yavanas and then Islamic invaders was free of such attacks.

You can't mistake them for this since education for all was a recent phenomenon and even then the best scientists or Technicians or other such learned definitely do not take interest in History and Archeology. The above thinking is what i have heard from the learned and uneducated alike. There are people who take interest in this for sure and they are odd man out.

The reason Islamic invasions are despised is simple, they are more recent aptly recorded and resulted in large scale massacres of persons property etc. Particularly the capturing of women and children and using the women as slaves is well noted by all. Only few can think with cold logic and accept this as a recurrence of Aryan invasion and consider at as natural course of history. I don't think anybody of us on this forum will speak so naturally of these events if we experience this and one makes certain that the stories do go down generations for their well being.

Another thing is the Islamic invaders were just looters and attacked India for its wealth (money, women etc etc), they haven't contributed anything to this country for sometime (i say this because Mughal dynasty came after or in between this events u people would know the timeline better) and the Mughals though settled down would be looked upon as foreigners. I hear that the courtiers were Persian mostly in their courts rather than Indian, don't know the accurate facts may be somebody can confirm or negate this. All i am saying is more or less barring one or two rulers the Mughals weren't much liked and Aurangzeb made sure of the hatred. In contrast the British (not out of some love for Indians but for themselves) gave lot of developments infrastructure, legal, political and most other presently known forms. So while they aren't loved exactly they aren't despised as the Islamic invasions.

Add to this the fact that the present world order where war and genocide are despised and no longer are such people as Timur or Ghazni or whatever considered as heroes of some sort, is very recent that is century old. So the hatred of Muslim Invasions will stay and whenever Pakistan glorifies the sorts of Qasim, Ghazni, Ghori, Timur etc "many Indians" cringe and the wheel of hatred continues.

Not many Pakistanis understand this, but most Indians have forgotten that the Muslim marauder'ers were Arabian or outside of sub continent due to Pakistanis. You by glorifying these dudes have made easier for millions of Indians that the "Murdering Moslem" is not in a desert but nearby. In a sense for TNT or whatever u have filled the place of those invading hordes killing people and piling their heads and carrying women off. Hardly can anyone accept that Muslim Invasions were natural "Aryan invasion" per se .

 

[vsdoc]

I agree.

It has become easier for Indians to hate Muslims and in fact Islam because of Pakistan.

No prizes for guessing who bears the brunt.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

@Joe u never answered my question even after ur breakfast not the present post but previous one . Do reply for this also.

@Developreo , Rusty, Joe

Instead of quoting ur posts, i just want to say this u and Rusty seem to believe that somehow the Aryan Invasion was similar to Islamic Invasion and Indians are being hypocrites by accepting the former and rejecting the later.

I am not even an amateur but a school kid in matter of archaeology and history, but think that what with no written records of the Aryan times and no mention whatsoever of pre vedic happenings in puranas or whatever other known "old" books to the knowledge of Indians everybody thinks that India till the attack of Yavanas and then Islamic invaders was free of such attacks.

You can't mistake them for this since education for all was a recent phenomenon and even then the best scientists or Technicians or other such learned definitely do not take interest in History and Archeology. The above thinking is what i have heard from the learned and uneducated alike. There are people who take interest in this for sure and they are odd man out.

The reason Islamic invasions are despised is simple, they are more recent aptly recorded and resulted in large scale massacres of persons property etc. Particularly the capturing of women and children and using the women as slaves is well noted by all. Only few can think with cold logic and accept this as a recurrence of Aryan invasion and consider at as natural course of history. I don't think anybody of us on this forum will speak so naturally of these events if we experience this and one makes certain that the stories do go down generations for their well being.

Another thing is the Islamic invaders were just looters and attacked India for its wealth (money, women etc etc), they haven't contributed anything to this country for sometime (i say this because Mughal dynasty came after or in between this events u people would know the timeline better) and the Mughals though settled down would be looked upon as foreigners. I hear that the courtiers were Persian mostly in their courts rather than Indian, don't know the accurate facts may be somebody can confirm or negate this. All i am saying is more or less barring one or two rulers the Mughals weren't much liked and Aurangzeb made sure of the hatred. In contrast the British (not out of some love for Indians but for themselves) gave lot of developments infrastructure, legal, political and most other presently known forms. So while they aren't loved exactly they aren't despised as the Islamic invasions.

Add to this the fact that the present world order where war and genocide are despised and no longer are such people as Timur or Ghazni or whatever considered as heroes of some sort, is very recent that is century old. So the hatred of Muslim Invasions will stay and whenever Pakistan glorifies the sorts of Qasim, Ghazni, Ghori, Timur etc "many Indians" cringe and the wheel of hatred continues.

Not many Pakistanis understand this, but most Indians have forgotten that the Muslim marauder'ers were Arabian or outside of sub continent due to Pakistanis. You by glorifying these dudes have made easier for millions of Indians that the "Murdering Moslem" is not in a desert but nearby. In a sense for TNT or whatever u have filled the place of those invading hordes killing people and piling their heads and carrying women off. Hardly can anyone accept that Muslim Invasions were natural "Aryan invasion" per se .

Major reason i feel we Indians have acrimony for Islamic rule is large scale iconoclasm, which no other previous invader had done so. Be it the Huns or Greeks. And these events were gleefully recorded by those who perpetrated it themselves.

We fail to see that religion were merely a tool to justify atrocities.

British were smarter however, rather than pursuing religious imperialism (like say Portuguese) they chose economic exploitation.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Two points: I am sorry for not having replied. Unfortunately, life is very turbulent just now, and my answers to these threads are getting more and more ragged by the day. My failing eyesight is another problem. If I remember correctly, your question was about Brahmins and their role. I shall try to answer today, in, say, two hours from now, after ensuring that my electric supply is not disconnected.

About the possible immigration of Indo-Aryan speaking tribes, groups or families, (=Aryan Invasion in politically correct speech), and its comparability with Muslim invasions, you have summed it up rather well. I agree that the earlier incursions are viewed differently from the second set, strangely, because circumstances were uncannily similar, even more strangely, because in between, there have been at least three, possibly four such incursions: the Scythians, the Pahlavas, the Kushana and the Ephthalite Huns. It is difficult to see why those should have not been viewed in the same light as the Muslim incursion (there was after all no one invasion). The amount of brutality that we remember from this last set was present earlier; look up Mihirkula the Hun.

I believe that Bang Galore has set a boundary to this discussion by postulating certain questions to which answers are being sought. We need to address the problem within these boundaries, and I think that your question goes into these boundaries fairly well. Into the area of cognate consideration, at least.

@Joe u never answered my question even after ur breakfast not the present post but previous one . Do reply for this also.

@Developreo , Rusty, Joe

Instead of quoting ur posts, i just want to say this u and Rusty seem to believe that somehow the Aryan Invasion was similar to Islamic Invasion and Indians are being hypocrites by accepting the former and rejecting the later.

I am not even an amateur but a school kid in matter of archaeology and history, but think that what with no written records of the Aryan times and no mention whatsoever of pre vedic happenings in puranas or whatever other known "old" books to the knowledge of Indians everybody thinks that India till the attack of Yavanas and then Islamic invaders was free of such attacks.

You can't mistake them for this since education for all was a recent phenomenon and even then the best scientists or Technicians or other such learned definitely do not take interest in History and Archeology. The above thinking is what i have heard from the learned and uneducated alike. There are people who take interest in this for sure and they are odd man out.

The reason Islamic invasions are despised is simple, they are more recent aptly recorded and resulted in large scale massacres of persons property etc. Particularly the capturing of women and children and using the women as slaves is well noted by all. Only few can think with cold logic and accept this as a recurrence of Aryan invasion and consider at as natural course of history. I don't think anybody of us on this forum will speak so naturally of these events if we experience this and one makes certain that the stories do go down generations for their well being.

Another thing is the Islamic invaders were just looters and attacked India for its wealth (money, women etc etc), they haven't contributed anything to this country for sometime (i say this because Mughal dynasty came after or in between this events u people would know the timeline better) and the Mughals though settled down would be looked upon as foreigners. I hear that the courtiers were Persian mostly in their courts rather than Indian, don't know the accurate facts may be somebody can confirm or negate this. All i am saying is more or less barring one or two rulers the Mughals weren't much liked and Aurangzeb made sure of the hatred. In contrast the British (not out of some love for Indians but for themselves) gave lot of developments infrastructure, legal, political and most other presently known forms. So while they aren't loved exactly they aren't despised as the Islamic invasions.

Add to this the fact that the present world order where war and genocide are despised and no longer are such people as Timur or Ghazni or whatever considered as heroes of some sort, is very recent that is century old. So the hatred of Muslim Invasions will stay and whenever Pakistan glorifies the sorts of Qasim, Ghazni, Ghori, Timur etc "many Indians" cringe and the wheel of hatred continues.

Not many Pakistanis understand this, but most Indians have forgotten that the Muslim marauder'ers were Arabian or outside of sub continent due to Pakistanis. You by glorifying these dudes have made easier for millions of Indians that the "Murdering Moslem" is not in a desert but nearby. In a sense for TNT or whatever u have filled the place of those invading hordes killing people and piling their heads and carrying women off. Hardly can anyone accept that Muslim Invasions were natural "Aryan invasion" per se .

 

[indushek]

Two points: I am sorry for not having replied. Unfortunately, life is very turbulent just now, and my answers to these threads are getting more and more ragged by the day. My failing eyesight is another problem. If I remember correctly, your question was about Brahmins and their role. I shall try to answer today, in, say, two hours from now, after ensuring that my electric supply is not disconnected.

About the possible immigration of Indo-Aryan speaking tribes, groups or families, (=Aryan Invasion in politically correct speech), and its comparability with Muslim invasions, you have summed it up rather well. I agree that the earlier incursions are viewed differently from the second set, strangely, because circumstances were uncannily similar, even more strangely, because in between, there have been at least three, possibly four such incursions: the Scythians, the Pahlavas, the Kushana and the Ephthalite Huns. It is difficult to see why those should have not been viewed in the same light as the Muslim incursion (there was after all no one invasion). The amount of brutality that we remember from this last set was present earlier; look up Mihirkula the Hun.

I believe that Bang Galore has set a boundary to this discussion by postulating certain questions to which answers are being sought. We need to address the problem within these boundaries, and I think that your question goes into these boundaries fairly well. Into the area of cognate consideration, at least.

I was angry at u Joe u were asking somebody if u replied their post and forgot mine

 

[Bang Galore]

I hear that the courtiers were Persian mostly in their courts rather than Indian, don't know the accurate facts may be somebody can confirm or negate this.

You are correct & they were a racist bunch , considering Indian Muslims inferior & poking fun at them for copying Persian mannerisms. Everything about the Mughals except for the buildings (Akbar excepted) was foreign and had no real connection with the land. Which is why nothing much of the Mughal culture remains, unlike the British.

 

[indushek]

Major reason i feel we Indians have acrimony for Islamic rule is large scale iconoclasm, which no other previous invader had done so. Be it the Huns or Greeks. And these events were gleefully recorded by those who perpetrated it themselves.

We fail to see that religion were merely a tool to justify atrocities.

British were smarter however, rather than pursuing religious imperialism (like say Portuguese) they chose economic exploitation.

You are correct & they were a racist bunch , considering Indian Muslims inferior & poking fun at them for copying Persian mannerisms. Everything about the Mughals except for the buildings (Akbar excepted) was foreign and had no real connection with the land. Which is why nothing much of the Mughal culture remains, unlike the British.

In light of these along with the fact that according to Islam the 'other' were considered Dhimmis i.e. second class citizens, naturally the Islamic invasions or their ensuing rule is not liked by many here in India.

 

[Rig Vedic]

It is incredible to hear somebody say a thing like, "if you start out by assuming something your conclusions aren't evidence for your assumption." If one doesn't make an assumption and test it against the facts, how does one prove or disprove it? And unless one proves or disproves it, how does one come to conclusions about any alternatives that might exist? Conclusions are in fact the toosl for building which we gather evidence, for or against the assumption, that is determined by weighing the facts, not by a priori reasoning. This, in a nutshell, is the scientific method, which is not a phrase, but a process. ...

Your talked about rules. Rules are derived from observation of the facts, and determination of repetitive behaviour

Proto-Indo-European (PIE) linguists have started by assuming a certain model (i.e. existence of a Central Asian ancestral language), have invented words for it, and have invented rules that purport to show how those invented words are the roots of actual words.

Appears to be a precarious exercise, in gross violation of the principle of parsimony in modeling.

Given that there is so much other evidence, from various sciences, against their assumed model, one should look for simpler models that better agree with the data.

 

[Developereo]

@indushek,

This earlier post of mine, where I outlined my conjecture about the Aryan invasion, answers your questions.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/centra...story-indian-subcontinent-37.html#post3589593

Just to address the specific points in your post again:

The Aryan invaders had a tiny footprint; once they took over a particular tribe/clan/kingdom and entrenched themselves as the priesthood, they became "invisible" since the rulers, soldiers and masses were all locals. The Aryans piggybacked their cultural conquest on the back of the internecine wars where both sides were locals, so there was no reason for anyone to record the wars as a foreign invasion.

As for Islamic massacres, what's worse? To kill a few thousand men, women and children, or to completely eradicate the cultural heritage of the conquered peoples? To conquer not just their bodies, but their minds and their children's minds and their children's to the point where all that remains, after millenia, is a faint, ancestral memory of a conquest? As Joe and others have pointed out, this Vedic cultural conquest is still underway in parts of India. The few remaining stalwarts -- scions of the IVC? --are the only link to the original culture of the subcontinent before the Aryan cultural invasion.

The Aryan priesthood was no more inclusive than the Mughal court The Aryans instituted a rigid caste system to keep the priesthood exclusive (initially) and to keep their racial line pure.

As for Mughals' contribution, it depends how you look at it. We consider Islam to be a contribution, just like the Aryans contributed Vedic culture. Materially, the Mughals led India to become an economic powerhouse and have 25% of the world's GDP. There were other cultural contributions which I will leave to historians, but your comment highlights the extent of revisionism going on within India to whitewash the positive aspects that accompanied Islam into India.

Finally, blaming Pakistan for Indians' hatred of Muslims is rich. That's putting the cart before the horse. While I agree that the political conflict with Pakistan gives oxygen to religious bigots on both sides, it would be wrong to dismiss it so easily. The Hindutva movement to restore India to its "natural" culture and "purge" it of foreign contamination is purely an internal matter, with internal dynamics. Blaming it all on Pakistan (or Bangladesh) may assuage some people's guilt, but it won't solve the problem of rising Hindu fundamentalism within India.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

The turning point in the decline of india was during the reign of harshavardhana,and late gupta age when the trend began to reward the officials of the bureaucracy with land grants instead of cash.Slowly these became hereditary positions and the efficiency of the bureaucracy and central authority was destroyed,leading to rise of feudalism.
If u notice the legacy of central authority was strictly maintained in earlier empires maurya and early gupta period and land grants were rare ,but from the late gupta this changed.Thus the legacy of a centrally controlled united indian empire was lost and all these feudatories when oppurtunity arose became independent small entities fighting among each other.Political unity was destroyed.
Unlike europe which too had its problems with feudalism they had a renaissance where they recounted the glory days of rome and the nation state concept was born,we never had our renaissance till after independence when we finally crushed feudalism.

Another was the growth of the caste system.Originally this used to be a profession based system mainly for convenience and intermarriage and changing castes was common.But gradually became hereditary and totally divided the indian people.

The feudalism and caste system which grew during early medieval era were the bane in the history of india i feel.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

What a North Indian has to say about this debate

13. Aryan
People in India come from two different races...the North being Indo-Aryan and the South being Dravidian.
People in the North tend to be lighter and people in the South are much darker, although some in the North are 'dark' and some in the South are 'light' they are two completetly different races...this is evident from their facial features...people in the South are closer to Black Africans. Northern Indians have some Persian ancestry which is why they have more Caucasian features (ie. broad) nose and light hair (straight or curly but not kinky like Southerns!) and eyes (ie.green/grey).
True Hindustani and Jai Hind, you both are fuckin morons who don't know ****...so don't fuckin say that all Indian are the same cuz believe me Northerns are not the same as Southerns!!!!
True Hindustani and Jai Hind are fuckers who think Indians are all one...you guys must be from the South who wish they had some relations to the North lmao. Shut the **** up cuz the Northern Indians have Aryan blood and have no fuckin resemblance to Southerns so get your damn facts straight!

Icewolf get your useless racist rants out of this thread .Or go to your persian masters where they tell you how u ***** smell.

 

[bronxbull]

Quite simply, the advent of the British in India. I simply cannot imagine this India without them. Of all the chaps who invaded us, these were the only ones to leave a long lasting positive legacy. We were going to be invaded without doubt, we got lucky that the British were the ones who succeeded rather than the the Spanish or the Portuguese. Anyone who looks at South America will quickly understand why. The French might have not been much worse but we might all have been speaking french. The British were responsible for the rejuvenation of the intellect of the majority of people, especially Hindus & opened India up to the world of science & democracy(even if indirectly) & made possible significant social reforms thus allowing Indians to have a vision for the country, one that didn't live in the 13th century. What we are today, both as an united nation & our ability to use the international systems to our advantage have all been bequeathed by the British. I believe that of all the turning points (and there are many), this was the one with the most far reaching impact.

P.S.:like all invaders, they had their negatives & I'm not making light of those but in balance I believe that this was the turning point for the Subcontinent

Please dont suck up to them now,they are as much worse as any invader but they have some class in general.

And they tried to use us as mere clerks whereas we ended up getting 7 Nobel prizes,the credit goes both ways.

Funnily,all those whom they converted and gave education did nothing much but those who just became clerks went to do much more.

 

[vsdoc]

I just spoke to an Irani (Muslim) friend of mine who wants to introduce me to another Iranian (Muslim) who has made some documentaries (apparently they are on you tube as well) on how the Iranis literally walked across to India in the 1800s.

This wave was mainly from the areas around Kerman and Isfahan apparently. He is also making another documentary titled "Sugar in Milk" which is going to be about us Parsis. Fow which he is currently doing research.

Another Irani Muslim extremely proud of his Zoroastrian roots, like many here. I would like to share more insights once I meet up with this fascinating sounding dude post Diwali holidays.

 

[indushek]

The turning point in the decline of india was during the reign of harshavardhana,and late gupta age when the trend began to reward the officials of the bureaucracy with land grants instead of cash.Slowly these became hereditary positions and the efficiency of the bureaucracy and central authority was destroyed,leading to rise of feudalism.
If u notice the legacy of central authority was strictly maintained in earlier empires maurya and early gupta period and land grants were rare ,but from the late gupta this changed.Thus the legacy of a centrally controlled united indian empire was lost and all these feudatories when oppurtunity arose became independent small entities fighting among each other.Political unity was destroyed.
Unlike europe which too had its problems with feudalism they had a renaissance where they recounted the glory days of rome and the nation state concept was born,we never had our renaissance till after independence when we finally crushed feudalism.

Another was the growth of the caste system.Originally this used to be a profession based system mainly for convenience and intermarriage and changing castes was common.But gradually became hereditary and totally divided the indian people.

The feudalism and caste system which grew during early medieval era were the bane in the history of india i feel.

Good points, is this land granting approach a sign of the declining time of Gupta period where the kingdom in order to cling onto authority and gain acceptance in public has done?? corruption in the medieval age my...my . I am not aware of this so am asking.

Regarding Caste system i have heard something similar from Grand parents, that at first these were used for classification of population based on their occupation however later on the system became rigid and suffocating. I have read in some purana (don't know which and not exactly purana but Chandamama and Balamitra stories, in my child hood they used to publish puranas in short stories for easy understading in Telugu) where son of a Brahmin becomes a Shudra based on his occupation of meat selling and a Vysya or Shudra becomes Brahmin because of knowledge and education, something like this don't remember exactly. This shows there was moving up and down the ladder of the social strata.

May be these were one of the causes due to which our scientific and other achievements subsided??