What is 'Civilizational Continuity'?

[RAJPUTAANA]

ONCE MORE ............ WHICH CIVILLIZATIONAL CONTINUITY ARE WE TALKING

VEDIC CIVILLIZATION OR INDUS VALLEY CIVILLIZATION.........

since no one is answering to me let me take the case of both the civillizations....... i will base my arguement solely on what the west believes or the world believes NOT YOU AND ME..... INDUS VALLEY CIVILLISATION existed before the arrival of ARYANS (WESTERN THEORY) ...... now ARYANS ruined the IVC.... and the people IVC migrated towards the south india..... deity worship was common in IVC..... and the physical features of DANCING GIRL STATUE and THE PRIEST show the DRAVIDIAN FEATURES...... THE SCRIPT FOUND THERE POINT TOWARDS THE DRAVIDIAN SCRIPT..... THIS IS WHAT THE WORLD BELIEVES NOT U AND I..... if any one gets the credit to own IVC it points towards the DRAVIDIANS OF INDIA... i hope no DRAVIDIAN is found in PAKISTAN....

now coming to VEDIC CIVILLISATION it starts with the advent of vedas written by aryans which was along the banks of RIVER SARASWATI ...... now INDIAN CIVILLISATION is a mixture of VEDIC CIVILLISATION OR DRAVIDIAN OR IVC...... if u consider urself TAMIL OR DRAVIDIAN u can claim IVC..... and regarding VEDIC CIVILLISATION..... u cant even read a word of SANSKRIT and u claim of it ...... HINDUISM IS A ASSIMILATION OF VEDIC AND DRAVIDIAN CIVILLISATION.... and i am sorry to say my friend PAKISTAN IS CONTINUITY OF ARABIAN CIVILLIZATION..... yes u can relate to ARYAN BLOOD DNA BUT NOT CIVILLISATION... coz the DNA MAPPING of NORTH INDIANS AND PAKISTANIS is same..... INDIAN CIVILLISATION IS ALL ABOUT THE MIXTURE OF IVC (DRAVIDIAN) AND VEDIC CIVILLISATION..... HINDUISM IS THE RESULT OF THIS UNITY.... NORTH AND SOUTH INDIANS UNITE TO PRODUCE A COMMON INDIAN CIVILLISATION

 

[Sam_Bajwa]

Classical music is very much prevalent in the Punjab, and it is being preserved by the Sufi, which even the Punjabi's on your side acknowledge.

This classical Punjabi Virsa, is not as prevalent in your Punjab.

Even ethnically we have many Pashtun, Baloch, and other migrants who have become part and parcel of our landscape. Anyone can become a Punjabi or Sindhi - by just living there, in a couple of years no one will care who you are, or where you came from.

That's a false allegation the classical music is still prevalent on the Indian side.
but people on both side fail to acknowledge the fact that religion is a small part of any culture.

and no body become's a part of that culture by simply moving in.

 

[KS]

The basis for the foundation of a nation has nothing to do with civilizational continuity, unless you now wish to introduce such a metric into the debate, and explain why such a metric is relevant.

It has everything to do with it.

Pakistanis - as you are known world wide today is because you asked for a nation on the basis of Islam and its supposed incongruity with native faiths and on the premise that Islamic culture and non-Islamic culture [at that time referring to Dharmic culture] are two different civilizations in themself and there is no common denominator amongst them.

Bangalore and others have argued that the early 'Vedic Civilization' was atheistic/agnostic - if that was indeed the case, my argument is that modern day Hindu 'Religion' (as signified by the worship of deities and temples for worship) is distinctly different from the faith practiced by the majority of those in earlier civilizations. Therefore, those practicing contemporary 'Hindu Religion' would be 'converts' from the agnostic/atheistic faiths of civilizations past.

Vedic civilization as far as I know did not have widespread usage of deities - they just worshipped nature and I am not sure if the likes of Indra, Mitra, Varun etc [Vedic Gods] were represented as deities. So they were not entirely agnostic or atheistic. But also accommodated agnostic schools of thought in their civilization.

IVC on the other had had widespread usage of deities like Pasupathi and as one posted pointed out, the modern faith structure called Hinduism is an evolution of both the Vedic and IV civilizations.

So term "converts to Hinduism" is absolutely fallacious.

Islam, as a religion, is the same in terms of having a single God as its basis, now and when it was first taught.

But by arguing 'atheism/agnosticism', a distinct difference comes up between Hinduism as a religion, and Hinduism (or Vedism or whatever). Those two, atheism/agnosticism vs polytheism/monotheism, are entirely different schools of thought.

I asked whether Islam as practised today is absolutely identical as to what was practised in 7th century Arabia. If it is not, can it called a distinct religion ?

Same holds for your argument, the faith structure that is called Hinduism today evolved from those early civilizations and is not a distinct religion in itself.

 

[RAJPUTAANA]

It has everything to do with it.

Pakistanis - as you are known world wide today is because you asked for a nation on the basis of Islam and its supposed incongruity with native faiths and on the premise that Islamic culture and non-Islamic culture [at that time referring to Dharmic culture] are two different civilizations in themself and there is no common denominator amongst them.




Vedic civilization as far as I know did not have widespread usage of deities - they just worshipped nature and I am not sure if the likes of Indra, Mitra, Varun etc [Vedic Gods] were represented as deities. So they were not entirely agnostic or atheistic. But also accommodated agnostic schools of thought in their civilization.

IVC on the other had had widespread usage of deities like Pasupathi and as one posted pointed out, the modern faith structure called Hinduism is an evolution of both the Vedic and IV civilizations.

So term "converts to Hinduism" is absolutely fallacious.




I asked whether Islam as practised today is absolutely identical as to what was practised in 7th century Arabia. If it is not, can it called a distinct religion ?

Same holds for your argument, the faith structure that is called Hinduism today evolved from those early civilizations and is not a distinct religion in itself.

bro really....... there claim for IVC is just very lame.... IVC is much more .... n i say much more related to DRAVIDIAN CIVILLIZATION

it is clearly a dravidian prototype..... most of the historian believes so..... IVC is clearly just out of the claim .... ethnically too.

now coming to VEDIC CIVILLIZATION.... it starts with vedas gets evolved but yes does not loses its identity..... vedanti brahmins still learn each n every verses..... yes i can say pakistanis have the NORINDID PHENOTYPE...... WHICH IS SAME AS THE NORTH INDIAN people phenotye..... but that is the end.... NO SIMILARITY AFTER THAT ...... BUT Y ARE WE EVEN DISCUSSING THIS.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

I would like to remind everyone that while the debate over the IVC was the subtext for initiating this discussion, I would like to avoid going in the direction of the earlier existing thread that was solely the subject of arguments on Pakistan/Indian ownership of the IVC.

Please try and keep the discussion more general, in terms of discussing broader civilizational continuity, though using the IVC and other civilizations as examples to argue a point is welcome.

I see your point Agnostic Muslim but the answer to the question posed by the thread has no dictionery meaning. It has no definitive, objective meaning. It is like asking what is a beautfiful women, the answer will be invariably subjective.

The term means all things to everybody and is so amorphous that it lends itself to those who wish to engage in retrospective engineering of history. Civilization continuity is the perfect vehicle for Indian's who are driven by patriotic zeal to make Mother India shine. It legitimizes what is in fact manipulation of history and deciept.

The only way to test out what it means is by looking to past history where this term is being used. Since IVC is major subject of Indian revisionist history we have to look at this case by case to try to define or pin what the practical meaning of this term. That is why IVC comes up again. It is going to be impossible to unravel history from this term.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

but people on both side fail to acknowledge the fact that religion is a small part of any culture.

and no body become a part of that culture by simply moving in.

And no body can be removed from a culture/civilization by merely adopting a new religion ...

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Pakistan is an unique experiment of history.

Those arguing that Pakistan has claim over any pre-Islamic heritage or did not suffer from any civilizational break just because of their location and by handing out examples of Egypt, Persia, Greece are fooling no one.

Egypt, Persia, Greece etc were not formed on the sole basis of religion. Pakistan was. The only raison d` etre of Pakistan is Islam and it's supposed incongruity with the native faiths.Faiths that are inseparably intertwined with the civilizations that dotted this land. These are not my claims, but the reasons handed out by the father of Pakistan Muhammed Ali Jinnah.

The issue is not the name of Pakistan. The issue is the Indus Valley region and the people who have lived therein. At present they are called Pakistani. They might have been called Bakideshi or there might have been Peccavi North and Peccavi South. There was a Indus Valley region in the past, it is there today and it shall be there in the future.

You are alluding to the 1947 event and you draw some fundamental rationale to it that somehow we are bound by. I tell you as far as I am concerned that is just a blip in the past. If you want explanation then I will ask you how did the Indus Valley Region end up being part British India? As you know the British conquered Sindh in 1843 and Punjab in 1849. So what was the basis to us being forced to join the British colony?
Had we not been forced to join enslaved colony then the 1947 event would not have been necassary. So don't expect any fundamental or good reason for the 1947 event. Just look at it as our chance to piss on the British conquest of our lands in 1840s when we got dragged into a union with British India. We undid what the colonialists had enforced on us.


'Converts to Hinduism'. That is hilarious.

Hinduism or the way of life the Persians called 'Hinduism' evolved. It doesn't mean the faith itself changed completely. We still worship Pasupathi [another name for Lord Shiva, whose seals were discovered in IVC sites].Hinduism is not your average organized religion with one founder, founding place, founding date to ascribe those notions. It was a way of life which the Persians called Hinduism and that 'way of life' is most representated by modern day Dharmics.

If what your saying is true, great. That means our forefathers even gave you your religion. You don't have to lick our balls for that but you could say 'thank you' to us.
Is that statement of fact your making when you claim 'Lord Shiva Seals' were discovered in Harrapa? If so what is the proof? The eagle has been used by as a symbol by American's, German's, Russian and even Arabs. So don't jump on the fact that there is some animal, that was common in the region in the past. I suspect that your statement is nothing but conjecture, motivated to shoehorn the Harrapan finds into something that you can latch as Hindu or if it still does not 'fit' even after you have shoehorned then you add the suffix proto and you have 'proto Hinduism'. A case of bending the past and bending today to fit togather.

Do you think Islam in 21st century is practiced exactly the same way it was practiced in 7th century in tribal Arabia ? So does that mean people convert to a new Islam every few centuries and have no claim on the 7th century version of it ?

No, they don't but if the deviation reaches a point where many of original beliefs have been turned on their head than you would argue you have another religion. Like say Christianity which has evolved from Judaism.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It has everything to do with it.

Pakistanis - as you are known world wide today is because you asked for a nation on the basis of Islam and its supposed incongruity with native faiths and on the premise that Islamic culture and non-Islamic culture [at that time referring to Dharmic culture] are two different civilizations in themself and there is no common denominator amongst them.

Your argument only has relevance for Hindutva revisionists - it is a concoction of a 'religion metric' in defining civilizational continuity and placing overwhelming importance on religion alone, ignoring the fact that the modern day religion of Hinduism is, at best, has no more links to Vedic civilization than Islam does to Judaism - ancient Greeks practiced polytheism as well, and one could find similarities between their gods, or the worship of nature by Gauls, but that does not create a link between Hinduism and Greek mythology or Gaul beliefs.

Whether Pakistan was founded in the basis of religion or Mickey Mouse does not change the fact that the religion co-opted local culture and vice versa, and therefore, in the continuation of the indigenous blood lines and cultural practices lies the continuity of civilization from the IVC.

I asked whether Islam as practised today is absolutely identical as to what was practised in 7th century Arabia. If it is not, can it called a distinct religion ?

Same holds for your argument, the faith structure that is called Hinduism today evolved from those early civilizations and is not a distinct religion in itself.

If Islam had evolved from a polytheistic faith to a monotheistic faith, or vice versa, or incorporated 'atheism/agnosticism' at it origin, then yes, it would be a distinct faith.

A better analogy would be the evolution of faith in Middle East from Judaism (and earlier), Christianity through Islam.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Is this whole discussion not veering (ad nauseum given some of the usual participants from the other side) towards self-serving semantics now.

Personal pettifoggery drives me to use 'nauseam', but never mind.

"South Asian" civilization? LOL Give me a break.

If this is what it takes for us to sit around a crackling bonfire singing Kumbaya, with Lakhvi as the marshmallow, I'm for it.

Develereo, Agnostic Muslim and other studs: that song (Kumbaya) belongs to my generation, although it's a traditional hymn of greater antiquity than even I can claim, and until it's time for me to succumb to civilisational continuity, it stays that way.

Why?

Because we are NOT Indian and therefore while we want to reclaim our past (well, some of us at least per Dr. Vinod's WIP thesis) we abhor the fact that the past is still linked to its origins - which inconveniently (for us) is still alive and thriving and did not succub en masse to a foreign faith of a foreign invader.

Please. A little honesty would go such a long way in mending ties between us.

Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner, non? oh well, I thought I'd mention it.

IVC is ours you say. Convenient geographic dovetailing from thousands of years ago.

Did you perchance forget that India over its 8000 year recorded history had MANY such geographically discrete and overlapping pockets of mankind (often inclusive of and undifferentiated from the current political state of Pakistan) - but all linked by a COMMON thread?

Namely .....

BLOOD

FAITH

SOIL

If ever there was an event that challenged the above theorem of mine, it was the advent of Aryans on to the subcontinent, and the interplay over the next millenia between them and the native Dravidian race.

I am open to the idea that originally one civilization was displaced by another dominant one.

Are you open to the idea that the recent waves of invasion in contrast had very little cross seding in comparison and that you belong to the same stock?

Are you open to the idea that culturally and geographically and militarily the population of the present political entity called Pakistan has been traditionally the gateway to foreign invaders throughout history?

The first to fall.

The first to adopt a new and different faith?

IVC > Ancient Vedic > Hindu > Buddhist > back to Hindu > Islam.

Are you open to the idea that based on your historic propensity for the same, were a new dominant faith to be born in this world today, and spread inorganicaly via invasion, the chances of you falling to the same before us would be so much stronger?

These are all thoughts that need to be discussed when we talk about the continuity of civilizations.

Beause what is man without his faith?

'

Here I wish to comment initially on the small issue, the IVC, and India and Pakistan. Which is a pity: Agnostic Muslim's intentions in starting this thread were clear as crystal, and he deserves rather more thoughtful response on that larger theme. But if I may continue to oppress the French language, this present comment might be described as, "....recluler pour mieux sauter". Not that at a weight of 107 kgs., I can afford much saute.

VSDoc is right in pointing out that there have been other homogeneous cultural aggregations within Indian civilisation, otherwise called South Asian civilisation by the politically correct. This has never been denied by anyone. It is just that those claiming rights over the Indus Valley Civilisation see it as a unique civilisation, not connected with others.

It is perfectly true that the Mohenjodaro-Harappa civilisation was Sui generis, one of its kind. So far, so good. It lies within the present boundaries of Pakistan, and Pakistan has a perfect right to showcase it. Still good. The trouble starts after this point.

Why is Pakistan entitled to showcase the remains of this magnificent human effort? Because it is located within the territory of Pakistan. Period.

Claiming that the present residents of Pakistan are direct lineal descendants of those who built that civilisation is difficult to establish, and is speculative at best. As often happens, there is no direct link between the people who inhabit the region today and those who may have inhabited the same geographical locations 4,000 years ago. All that we know is that in genetic terms, the entire sub-continent is populated by a homogenous population, covering all the political sub-divisions and linguistic groups except the Pathans. Exclusive inheritance of that legacy due to lineally descent logically demands that we should be able to distinguish in genetic terms the people of the region in question from people from other parts of the sub-continent. This is not possible. Therefore, the people living in the IVC geography may (probably the case) or may not (less likely) be the same as those who were there earlier. We simply have no way of knowing.

Before turning to counter-claims, let us take note of the fact that the geography of the IVC is not co-terminous with nation-state Pakistan. Wings extend outside, and we do not have to participate in geographical acrobatics to accept that small but minor portions of that civilisation lay within what is today the nation of India.

The point being? The point being that while Pakistan is fully entitled to proclaim from the rooftops that visitors to their country will get to see Harappa and Mohenjodaro, India can stand around within earshot making preliminary throat--clearing noises.

The counter-claim, then; what are we to make of it?

Please bear with me. Today is the 11th day. I have duties which call me urgently. In four hours, then.

 

[Vinod2070]

Islam, as a religion, is the same in terms of having a single God as its basis, now and when it was first taught.

But it was only a starting point. There is something that makes it consider other Monotheists as kaffirs.

What is that? What makes the different sects war on each other?

This is true to some extent in Christianity too, though at a much lesser scale.

The added paraphernalia is what makes Islam unique and different from other monotheistic religions and that differentiates the sects from each other.

Now, there is a tendency to reduce the religion to the bare bones (monotheism) when needed, it still doesn't take away the fact of the additional requirements made on the believer.

And those have evolved with time. Something that was never intended.

 

[Vinod2070]

Since IVC is major subject of Indian revisionist history we have to look at this case by case to try to define or pin what the practical meaning of this term. That is why IVC comes up again. It is going to be impossible to unravel history from this term.

Not true. For us, IVC is just one point in a long continuum. It may not be even the starting point for all we know.

It is not a jump in space time from the conveniently little known IVC to Mohammed Bin Qasim with nothing in between but darkness and ignorance.

BTW, the talkhi in your posts, the rage at Indians wearing "shalwar kamiz", even trying to appropriate Hinduism etc. is funny and yet expected at the same time.

I would elaborate but somehow my friend AM finds that elaboration offensive. My posts that presented data and facts that blows many of your pretensions to smithereens were deleted as he found them offensive in his infinite wisdom.

The fact remains that extreme positions on any side is devoid of reality.

And you are behaving like one would be expected to at this stage.

BTW, what do you think of your national language?

Which Pakistani province does that come from?

You want to say thanks to us for that?

 

[RAJPUTAANA]

Hinduism is a conglomeration of religious, philosophical, and cultural ideas and practices that originated in India, characterized by the belief in reincarnation, one absolute being of multiple manifestations, the law of cause and effect, following the path of righteousness, and the desire for liberation from the cycle of births and deaths...... Vedas say.

"All perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or
tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the Akasha or
luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life giving
Prana or creative force, calling into existence, in never
ending cycles all things and phenomena. The primary
substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of
prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force
subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears,
reverting to the primary substance."

AND WHEN U SEE THE CONCEPT OF REINCARNATION..... IT FOLLOWS THE SAME PRINCIPLE.... ALL ENERGY CANT BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED......... IT JUST CHANGES FORM..... CONCEPT OF ENERGY WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED IN VEDAS IS AGAIN SUPPORTED BY LORD KRISHNA IN BHAGWAD GEETA ...... WITH CONCEPT OF "REINCARNATION" AND "KARMA"- POSITIVE ENERGY ( GOOD KARMAS) AND NEGATIVE ENERGY (BAD KARMAS)..

while starting from vedas...... to mahabharata ..... to bhagwad geeta.... to puranas.....to deity worship....... hinduism has moved on but " THE CONCEPT OF ENERGY, REINCARNATION AND KARMA HAVE REMAIN STATIC, THEY FORM THE CRUX OR PILLAR OF HINDUISM OR SANATAN DHARMA" it is due to this reason that BUDDHISM, JAINISM AND SIKHISM... ARE GROUPED AS AN OFFSHOOT OF THIS SANATAN DHARMA.......

SANATAN DHARMA or HINDUISM is all about PRESERVING THE CONCEPT OF ENERGY....RECOGNISING NATURAL FORCES..... AND KEEP ON EVOLVING..... BUT NOT CHANGING THE ESSENCE OF SANATAN DHARMA..... THIS IS THE REASON IT HAS STILL SURVIVED..... "ENERGY IS EVERYTHING".............. UNDERSTANDING HINDUISM IS A GREAT TASK.... A CHALLENGE IN ITSELF..... "HINDUISM IS A QUEST".... I CAN GO ON AND ON BUT THAT WUD DERAIL THE TOPIC..... I JUST WANT TO SAY.... ""HINDUISM OR SANATAN DHARMA IS A NEVERENDING QUEST OR EVOLUTION" AND IT HAS EVOLVED BUT THE CRUX IS STILL INTACT AND ALWAYS WILL BE.

 

[Developereo]

What is the boundary of IVC, do you have a MAP or something? Was it a physical boundary like Himalya which divides Indian civilization and Chinese civilization, wast it a political boundary like Republic of India and Islamic Republic of Pakistan has. How far a place has to be from say Harappa or Mahenjodaro for not being in IVC. And how do you know that the infulence of IVC hasn't been spread but constrained only inside the mythical boundary that Pakistanis propose for IVC.

The boundaries used are the ones accepted by modern historians using various metrics: similarity of artifacts, etc.

Yes you say the NW India shares IVC, but according to you NW India only can claim those sites which is now situated in Republic of India and not those which are in Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

If you are referring to the analogy with the Roman Empire and Britain/Middle East, that was a tongue-in-cheek remark in response to the Indian claims of exclusivity. I do not deny that both India and Pakistan share dibs on IVC.

That doesn't explain why people further migrated from fertile crescent.

There are always conquests and migrations, even as late as 20th century. However, in any context, actual evidence of migration has to be provided by people making the claim. If you are positing civilizational discontinuity, then you need to provide evidence to corroborate your claim of total population displacement in that particular instance.

Also according to your logic, just because Mekkah and Madina is situated in KSA, people from Qatar or UAE can't claim it's history as their own and soon Baharins will be able to claim it after it's union with KSA.

The concept of 'national heritage' is well established. That is why an Englishman in Leeds can still lay claim to Newton's heritage. Or are you suggesting that only Newton's town of birth or education can claim his accomplishments?

Once again, we are using internationally accepted norms, rather than cooking up ad hoc rules to include/exclude people based on some predetermined agenda.

 

[RAJPUTAANA]

That's a false allegation the classical music is still prevalent on the Indian side.
but people on both side fail to acknowledge the fact that religion is a small part of any culture.

and no body become a part of that culture by simply moving in.

Thanx for the suggestion ..... i will surely try to improve

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I would elaborate but somehow my friend AM finds that elaboration offensive. My posts that presented data and facts that blows many of your pretensions to smithereens were deleted as he found them offensive in his infinite wisdom.
)

As I indicated in the reason for post deletion, please spare us your pseudo-psychoanalysis of Pakistanis - I see no point in entertaining your prejudiced and derogatory generalizations about Pakistanis.

And no, this is not open for discussion on the forum, though you can PM me about it.

But it was only a starting point. There is something that makes it consider other Monotheists as kaffirs.

What is that? What makes the different sects war on each other?

This is true to some extent in Christianity too, though at a much lesser scale.

The added paraphernalia is what makes Islam unique and different from other monotheistic religions and that differentiates the sects from each other.

Now, there is a tendency to reduce the religion to the bare bones (monotheism) when needed, it still doesn't take away the fact of the additional requirements made on the believer.

And those have evolved with time. Something that was never intended.

Relevance?

I was pointing out the distinction between 'Hinduism as a philosophy supporting atheism/agnosticism vs Hinduism as a religion practicing the worship of deities' and 'Islam as a monotheistic religion from beginning to present'. Hinduism as a religion is different from Hinduism as a philosophy in the very basis of the two (a belief in deities vs no belief in deities), whereas Islam has always been a religion centered around one god, though it has evolved.