What is 'Civilizational Continuity'?

[Joe Shearer]

The preliminary comments, as well as the good Professor Dani's thoughts, cannot be readily addressed on an I Pad. It needs a keyboard, for no other reason than to be able to sub-divide it into sections and respond to each in appropriate manner. What we have under discussion is dense material, rich and complex material.

Atanz, I notice you are up and awake. Please read what I have to say with care; you will find it both nourishing and encouraging, since I am more or less aligned with your basic thesis. It is just the outriders with which I disagree. Expect to see it tomorrow, your time; there is no keyboard with an Internet connection readily available, and much gymnastics with a thumb-drive.

P. S. Atanz, there are errors in para 1, para 2 and para 7 of your preliminary remarks.

 

[Rig Vedic]

The verses in question are not on the subject of Agastya. They are suggested to have been composed by Agastya. Reading those verses will not help us find the author.

As already mentioned, Agastya is not in the Rg Veda Samhita, nor in any other.

Absent your proofs, the 'implications' vanish. Silly word to use about wrong conclusions drawn from wrong premises.

The point being made follows from the mention of Agastya in the Rig Veda. (In Book 1 - Rig Veda Index)

Given the fact that both the ANI's (ancestral North Indians) and ASI (Ancestral South Indians) had been in the subcontinent for tens of thousands of years, it should indeed be no surprise at all that the two groups had profoundly influenced each other, for thousands of years, since well before the time of the Rig Veda. (If we accept that the Saraswati dried up in 1900 BC, then some books of the Rig Veda were older than 1900 BC, and some newer than that date.)

What other feature of human culture comes as readily into your comments?

Everything originating in and rooted in India - music and architectural styles, e.g. But let's not get hung up over such quibbles of yours.

Genetic studies do, on the other hand, suggest an infusion of genes from 'outside', central Asia or Afghanistan, sometime between 3,500 to 1,500 or 1,000 years before now.

“The study effectively puts to rest the argument that south Indians are Dravidians and were driven to the peninsula by Aryans who invaded North India,” said Prof Singh, a molecular biologist and former chief of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad.

According to Dr Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Estonian Biocentre, Tartu, Estonia, who was another Indian member of the team ... “We have proved that people all over India have common genetic traits and origin. All Indians have the same DNA structure. No foreign genes or DNA has entered the Indian mainstream in the last 60,000 years,” Dr Chaubey said.

Dr Chaubey had proved in 2009 itself that the Aryan invasion theory is bunkum. “That was based on low resolution genetic markers. This time we have used autosomes, which means all major 23 chromosomes, for our studies. The decoding of human genome and other advances in this area help us in unraveling the ancestry in 60,000 years,” he explained.

New research debunks Aryan invasion theory - India - DNA

 

[Joe Shearer]

The point being made follows from the mention of Agastya in the Rig Veda. (In Book 1 - Rig Veda Index)

Given the fact that both the ANI's (ancestral North Indians) and ASI (Ancestral South Indians) had been in the subcontinent for tens of thousands of years, it should indeed be no surprise at all that the two groups had profoundly influenced each other, for thousands of years, since well before the time of the Rig Veda. (If we accept that the Saraswati dried up in 1900 BC, then some books of the Rig Veda were older than 1900 BC, and some newer than that date.)

Everything originating in and rooted in India - music and architectural styles, e.g. But let's not get hung up over such quibbles of yours.



“The study effectively puts to rest the argument that south Indians are Dravidians and were driven to the peninsula by Aryans who invaded North India,” said Prof Singh, a molecular biologist and former chief of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad.

According to Dr Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Estonian Biocentre, Tartu, Estonia, who was another Indian member of the team ... “We have proved that people all over India have common genetic traits and origin. All Indians have the same DNA structure. No foreign genes or DNA has entered the Indian mainstream in the last 60,000 years,” Dr Chaubey said.

Dr Chaubey had proved in 2009 itself that the Aryan invasion theory is bunkum. “That was based on low resolution genetic markers. This time we have used autosomes, which means all major 23 chromosomes, for our studies. The decoding of human genome and other advances in this area help us in unraveling the ancestry in 60,000 years,” he explained.

New research debunks Aryan invasion theory - India - DNA

Taking the last point first, it is a horrible error to use the terms Aryan and Dravidian in a racial context, as Dr. Chaubey seems to be doing. These were languages, or language groups, no more and no less, and there is no need to bring in the archaic usage of Aryan as noble at this juncture. There is sufficient contrary reasoning, and I will come to those together with my responses on your first two comments (practically, your first comment, as it is my belief that you and those of your way of thinking use the term 'Indic' in opposition to Semitic. There is no grammatical reason to go away from Indian, other than this political orientation.

The first point is worth some attention, but I would to comment on the Dr. Dani opinion piece first. This will take the whole day today. Bear with me.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Joe I look forward to your comments. Take your time, there is no rush. My understanding of some areas of the subject in hand is very weak. I have almost no understandig of Sanskrit literature or various Hindu scriptures. What I do know is that you can always interpret ancient literature in the way you choose. I see that happen all the time with Mullah's who use their religious interpretation to cause so much mischief.

I brought up Prof. Dani because as a linguist he has knowledge of Sanskrit and I can rely on his understanding to buttress my case. I realize and cannot rule out that he might be partial. He was not treated too well at Hindu Banaras University and I am sure that would have gone on to inform his worldview but we are not going to get a impartial 'expert' in the field we are in given Pakistani - Indian rivalry. I guess at end of the day nothing is going to be absolute cast iron. We do have our common sense and we are going to have to rely on that to guide us. As long as we all understand that we should be fine.

On the subject of genetics the article posted by Rig Vedic appears to declare some profound discovery. I am not bought by it as Mr Gnani Shankar points out nothing has been debunked by this report. I am not a geneticist but I can make some conclusions when I see bunch of Koreans and bunch of Sub Saharan Africans. I can even see differances in a typical Tunisian and Nigerian despite the fact they both come from the same African continent.

In UK I have been exposed to various South Asian people ( other than Pakistan I no personal experiance of any other South Asian country ) and I can say that without a doubt I can see common link that defines us as South Asian. However to me it is also clear that are differances in various peoples of South Asia. There are differances in phenotype.

For example here in London there are many Punjabi's and Bengali's. There are clear differances in height, physique and to some degree pigmenation. Most of the Bengali's I have met here are Muslim ( Bangladeshi ) and the Punjabi are either Muslim ( Pakistani ) or Sikh ( Indian ). Asides the turban it is almost impossible to tell the differance between the Sikh and Muslim Punjabi's. However 90% of time I can differantiate betwenthe Punjabi and the Bengali. Ditto for Tamil's and I can on most occasions even differantiate betwen Gujrati's and Punjabi's.

I am excluding the Pashtun who are well outside of the common set. Even the Kashmiri's tend to be significantly differant but for now I will leave that alone. The point I am making is even as a lay observation it is possible to tell the differances and these for example, height and facial features must be underpinned by genetic differances.

Just from top of my head I adduce that South Asia shares a common base but over the centuries either through genetic drift or external influences some modification has occured within sub sets of South Asia. For example I often notice some Bengali's have facial features with smattering of Mongolian. It did occur to me that Burma and South East Asia are next door.

In the same way head westwards from Islamabad along the M-1 motorway and within 10 miles your into NWFP ( now KP ) the Hindkho speakers there seem to be a half way house of Pashtun-Punjabi begining from the Taxila area onwards. Another 25 miles west and as you go over the Indus River near Attock your clearly pass the South Asian-Central Asian fracture zone. This is not to claim superiority of one sub set from another but to accept that there are differances whilst at the same time there are commonalities to be found within South Asia.

Dhaka in Bangladesh is only a 100 odd miles from Burma and I would be surprised if there are had been no influence over the millenia from the Indo-China region. In the same way Islamabad ( only 10 miles east of Taxila ) is some 200 miles from Kabul, 400 miles from Dushanbe, ( Tajikistan ) 500 miles from Tashkent ( Uzbekistan ) and to put that in perspective Delhi is over 400 miles east of Islamabad. Dhaka is a whopping 1,200 miles from Islamabad.

I realize that in the real world distance is not the only factor but nevertheless it illustrates my point that you can't avoid not getting influenced by your neighbours. Prof. Dani makes this Central Asian link quite forcefully from the Pakistani perspective and states that even Turkmenistan has influences of IVC. This of course does not detract from the fact that South Asia does share the base. I find it rather irritating that Indian's here will either make two equally contradictory statement in referance to Pakistan. They insist on jumping from two diametric positions without considering the space inbetween.

Either that we are exactly like rest of South Asia or that all Pakistani's are from outside South Asia and were transposed in some monumental population tsunami that displaced the original people who conveniently shifted en masse to South India. Why can't we have the third, more nuanced approach? The one I am suggesting? Assimilation and evolution?

As an off topic comment I can't help thinking that those Muslim Leaguers who bamboozled poor East Bengal into Pakistan in 1947 must have been smoking more than tabacco in their pipes. How in the god's name did they expect to control and append a province, East Bengal which had larger population than all of West Pakistan put togather and, this best of all, was 1,200 miles away with a very 'friendly' India stretched in between? the mind wonders !!!

 

[Rig Vedic]

For example here in London there are many Punjabi's and Bengali's. There are clear differances in height, physique and to some degree pigmenation. Most of the Bengali's I have met here are Muslim ( Bangladeshi ) and the Punjabi are either Muslim ( Pakistani ) or Sikh ( Indian ). Asides the turban it is almost impossible to tell the differance between the Sikh and Muslim Punjabi's. However 90% of time I can differantiate betwenthe Punjabi and the Bengali. Ditto for Tamil's and I can on most occasions even differantiate betwen Gujrati's and Punjabi's.

Consider the case of a Hindko speaking native of Peshawar ... his language is a direct descendant of Sanskrit and as such has significant commonalities with Assamese or Marathi. But his next door Pashtun neighbour speaks something quite different. So there is a civilizational fault-line in that area.

Either that we are exactly like rest of South Asia or that all Pakistani's are from outside South Asia and were transposed in some monumental population tsunami that displaced the original people who conveniently shifted en masse to South India. Why can't we have the third, more nuanced approach? The one I am suggesting? Assimilation and evolution?

Till about 900 AD, India was an exporter of culture. The numerous Buddhist influences in Central Asia attest to this. Even today there is a Russian Republic, Kalmykia, that is Buddhist.

Nobody is denying the external influences on Pakistan post 1000 AD.

This ebb and flow goes on ... perhaps Indic influences are now beginning to spread again. But in the modern world geographical location is no longer such a determining factor.

An example of such trends in a geographically distant area - We Are All Hindus Now: U.S. Views on God and Life Are Turning Hindu - The Daily Beast

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Rig Vedic, with respect to you in any discussion there has to be some common referance point. It appears that there is precious little in common between me and you.

You have you have been involved in discussion in this thread and the the one I opened in regards to use of nomenclature in South Asian context. You should be aware by now that the region we are discussing, that is the sub continent, today has at least 5 political states. All sovereign and all equals.

So it would be unfair if a name was used that would favour any one of these states in the region. It is in this context that I mentioned before the use of the the label 'India' for the geographic region is now wrong because we also have a political state, the Indian Republic which has the same name as 'India' as in the geographic definition.

Therefore the continued use of the generic term 'India' ( as in region ) today can create confusion as well as discriminates against the other 4 sovereign states in that region that occupy the space that was historicaly referred to as 'India'. Say you want to buy oranges? Well you have choice of various brands, Maroc, Jaffa, Neferititi, Sun etc All of these are oranges from Marocco, Isreal, Egypt and the USA. Can you imagine if one country manged to copyright the generic name 'orange'?

Suddenly you would have a brand called 'Orange' and the rest of the producers would be discriminated against because every time they useded the word orange they would indirectly be sponsoring the brand name 'Orange'. I know your not stupid and you very well understand what I am trying to say.

So please when you make any referance to the generic region can you call it South Asia. India now only extends only upto Pak-Indian border because it is now a political state. So your sentance should have read 'South Asia' was a exporter' etc and drop that 'Indic' thing . Go ahead use Indic for your country but don't you dare use it in referance to my country or the region occupied by my country. Thank you !!!

As far as Buddism goes I can tell you that it was my country that 'exported' that religion to Central Asia. In my previous post I even went into detail how modern Islamabad, Pakistan is closer to Tashkent, Uzbekistan, Ashkabad, Turkmenistan in Central Asia then to Chennai or Kolkatta. You might not know this but just outside Islamabad is Taxila ( I suggest should you ever come to Pakistan to make point of visiting ) which was capital of Ghandara a Buddist Kingdom.

It was from there that Buddism was 'exported' via the Silk Road to Central Asia and beyond ( Kalmykia?? ) although I am prepared to accept that it's export to Burma and beyond was from present day India but that is of no interest to me.

Pro. Dani in the article I posted before mentioned the strong Central Asian connection to what is now Pakistan, because of it's proximity to Central Asia. I even give various distances to drive home that point. Prof. Dani also brought up the possibility of the language link between IVC and Central Asian Altaic languages because of the agglutinitive connection.

Yes, I am aware of the Hindkhowans. Before you run way with thoughts that this is to do with Hindus, please take a grip. River Indus is bang in midlle of the Hindkho speaking region. That River as you know has been known as Hind and Khoh means hilly or mountains. The Hazara region of K-P province ( Taxila, Abbotabad included is hilly ) starts about 7 miles west of Islamabad. This is a zone where Punjab fades out and NWFP begins. So between the Pashto and Punjabi zones a buffer of Hindkho speakers exist. They are a mixed people, not quite Punjabi but not 100% Pashtun either. I like to look at them as mixed group and they extend north towards the Kashmir border.

And I can't see the relevance of 'Hindu's in US to this thread. According to some delusional Muslims, floating on their own hot air, Islam is the fastest growing religion in USA, what they don't mention is, that this is amongst the black prison population. So hopefully soon USA will be a Hindu country with a large Black African ex-con Muslim population. That should be fun. Bravo for you guy's !!!

 

[Rig Vedic]

As far as Buddism goes I can tell you that it was my country that 'exported' that religion to Central Asia..... I am prepared to accept that it's export to Burma and beyond was from present day India but that is of no interest to me.

You are imposing present day political boundaries, which were non-existent in the period of which we are speaking. Yes, I'm quite aware of your allergy to using the term India, despite the fact that historically Punjabis and Sindhis did think of themselves as Indians. I don't want to make a big issue of it, I do use the term "South Asia" time to time.

Yes, I am aware of the Hindkhowans. Before you run way with thoughts that this is to do with Hindus, please take a grip. River Indus is bang in midlle of the Hindkho speaking region. That River as you know has been known as Hind and Khoh means hilly or mountains. The Hazara region of K-P province ( Taxila, Abbotabad included is hilly ) starts about 7 miles west of Islamabad. This is a zone where Punjab fades out and NWFP begins. So between the Pashto and Punjabi zones a buffer of Hindkho speakers exist. They are a mixed people, not quite Punjabi but not 100% Pashtun either. I like to look at them as mixed group and they extend north towards the Kashmir border.

I see you are not disputing my point about the linguistic faultline inside NWFP. Punjabi has several branches - e.g. Gojri which is spoken by hill peoples in J&K. Hindko is one such branch.

And I can't see the relevance of 'Hindu's in US to this thread. According to some delusional Muslims, floating on their own hot air, Islam is the fastest growing religion in USA, what they don't mention is, that this is amongst the black prison population. So hopefully soon USA will be a Hindu country with a large Black African ex-con Muslim population. That should be fun. Bravo for you guy's !!!

It was just to illustrate a limited point - the reduced relevance of geographical location when it comes to modern day cultural trends. The ebb and flow of influences continues, but the patterns are different.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Rig Vedic if you think I am imposing political boundaries to the past then what do you think you do when you call our forefathers Indian? You are doing exactly what your accusing me.

Do you really think that the people of Ghandara called themselves Indian? Do you really think the people of Sindh in the past called themselves Indian? Do you really think the Punjabi's of yore called themselves Indian? No sir, they did not. You are imposing labels coined up only in the last few hundred years.

Even than if the term India was used in classic times it did not mean what it means now. If you say 'Indian' today it would be natural for people to think of modern Indian Republic with it's tricolur. I am quite certain that the 'term' India even as and when used in the classic times did not mean what it means now.Therefore it is you who is imposing today's meaning onto the past under the cover of the term'Indian'. Like the word 'gay' means one thing now and meant something else 50 years ago, the term Indian has gone from meaning a generic region to a political state today with its captal in New Delhi..

So it is disingenous of you to continue to use a term that obfuscates what is a complex subject. That might work on some but not on me. I know I can be difficult sometimes, once when I was about 10 years old in a discussion with my dad I insisted that we split off from East Bengal. My dad insisted East Bengal split from us.That discussion lasted couple of hours until I had worn out my dad. I agued that when something breaks off it is always the smaller piece that breakes off the whole. If a saucer handle breaks off nobody says the saucer broke off the handle. Even today my dad and me have not settled that one

So Rig Vedic you know what India means today and you know that non of those people we are talking about, for example residents of Ghandara of the past do not fit within the meaning of what is understood as 'India' today in 2012. So why impose todays meaning on a people in the past?

And yes, I am ware that punjabi has differant branches, I happen to come from the region we are discussing. Hazara is between NWFP, Punjab and Kashmir. If you have ver been to Hazara you will see that the peopole appear to have a mixed heritage in tyerms of culture and genetics. There is a strong Pashtun infusion in names like Tanoli, Kakar etc. Once you cross over the Indus river Pashto becomes dominant. There is also strong Gujjar presence also. This is perfectly normal, Change is never abrupt. This area is a fracture zone so you are going to get that mixed , graduated change before the total cross over to Central Asian peoples take place.

And for god's sakes man don't bring religion into this. I said before for a people from a secular country at a drop of the hat you bring religion into everything. This is a complex subject not one dimention theological discussion. I have to now to break off from the discussion. It is very late here.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Do you really think the Punjabi's of yore called themselves Indian?

They certainly did.

Same applies to other groups mentioned.

Even than if the term India was used in classic times it did not mean what it means now.

That is true, the India of ancient times was a civilization extending beyond the boundaries of the present day nation state India. It was sometimes a united political entity and sometimes not.

When I use the term India in reference to ancient times, it means the India of those times, not the India of today.

This is perfectly normal, Change is never abrupt. This area is a fracture zone so you are going to get that mixed , graduated change before the total cross over to Central Asian peoples take place.

It is quite abrupt, a transition from one linguistic group to a completely different one within the space of a few tens of kilometers. At Attock, you get more change over 50 km North-west, than you get over 2000 km south-east.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Joe.

A issue has arisen out of my conduct in another thread and as a matter of principle I have elected to take leave from these forums until or if the matter is resolved. I had some good discussions here and I can say I respect your maturity and thinking even if you are a Indian! No offence intended. You might know I can't reply to you on the PMs.

However I would like to say I feel a man ought to be measured by what's between his ears rather than the distance between his ankles and head. I am 6' and probably taller than you but without a doubt what you have between your ears is greater than what I have.So there really was no need to say what you said about Prof. Dani and his shoelaces.

The issue that has arisen was probably going to happen anyway, I have a tendancy to say things and then regret them later. This is source of so much trouble to me in real life as it is in cyberspace. I might have said things that were inapropriate, if I did please accept my apology. I will be coming back time, to to see what's cooking here.

I had some good discussions with some Indian's here, including Rig Vedic even if he annoyed me by his damned refusal to see my side of the argument but that's how these thing are.

Rafi.

I know me and you thought on similar lines so keep up the good fight. We all need to develop a alternative narrative of Pakistan that is wedded in our soil and take into account our past, our present and therefore we can move forward on solid ground. It begins by accepting and taking pride of all our past history from pre Indus Valley Civilization, to Alexander, Porus, Ghandara, Panini and arrival of Islam and all the events since. We need to get out of that 1947 mould. Time changes, we evolve.

I would suggest you read up on roadruner's excellant effort. We need to continue that effort inspired by Aitzaz Ahsan who shares our views. This in time will snowball and one day I hope our narrative will prevail in Pakistan. It will take time though but it will happen. No people can stay estranged from their past for ever. We will one day be free from the vice of the Mullah who has almost snuffed our ability to be rational. Marx might have been on a winner when he said something about religion and opiates.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Joe.

A issue has arisen out of my conduct in another thread and as a matter of principle I have elected to take leave from these forums until or if the matter is resolved. I had some good discussions here and I can say I respect your maturity and thinking even if you are a Indian! No offence intended. You might know I can't reply to you on the PMs.

However I would like to say I feel a man ought to be measured by what's between his ears rather than the distance between his ankles and head. I am 6' and probably taller than you but without a doubt what you have between your ears is greater than what I have.So there really was no need to say what you said about Prof. Dani and his shoelaces.

The issue that has arisen was probably going to happen anyway, I have a tendancy to say things and then regret them later. This is source of so much trouble to me in real life as it is in cyberspace. I might have said things that were inapropriate, if I did please accept my apology. I will be coming back time, to to see what's cooking here.

I had some good discussions with some Indian's here, including Rig Vedic even if he annoyed me by his damned refusal to see my side of the argument but that's how these thing are.

@Atanz,

If you happen to be reading this, I do hope you come back - soon. Your posts were always very readable, perhaps precisely because they were expressed with intense feeling. It has not been an easy time for me, with personal losses, the struggle to cope with the aftermath, and the killing 40 degree heat all taken into account. As a result, it has not been possible to share with readers my personal view, which seems to lie somewhere between yours and those of that old codger, Rig Vedic. There is an entire section of people in India which seeks to convert societal and personal feelings of deprivation and loss into theories of denial, denial of academic work which does not sufficiently align with their sense of grievance. Going into that is an elaborate exercise, so suffice it to say that this is a reality today, and will remain a real phenomenon for some time to come. There is no way out except patient presentation of the facts, again and again and again.....this may not change anybody's views, more so as in this case, these views become tenets of faith, beyond rational questioning.

I hope you can work out your differences with the moderators amicably, and hope to read your comments soon.

And, yes, I still do not feel fit to tie Dani's shoelaces, even though I disagree strongly with some of his findings.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Joe mail sent.

 

[punit]

Some of pakistani argument is 4 A BIG LOL. All their claim is based on territorial possession. As per their logic Ex Eastern pak Population were also inheritor of IVC but after 1971 they can no longer claim it.

On a serious note. IVC is too vogue to be claimed by any one. AS far as vedic civ and its legacy is concerned modern Indian/hindu society is the only heir. Modern day pakistani/afghan can claim blood relation but not spirituality and legacy .

 

[niaz]

It is a historical fact that the subcontinent has constantly been infiltrated by the people from across the Hindu Kush. For example:

Scythians (Sakas or Shakas in Sanskrit) invaded the subcontinent around 100 BC and settled in the current Pakistan and Northern India replacing the Indo Greeks. Saka rule was later replaced by the Kushans; Central Asian people who ruled Afghanistan, Pakistan and most of the Northern India. I read about the great Kushan King Kansihka who ruled India during the 2nd Century A. D in the history books.

Hephtalites or White Huns, also Central Asian nomads related to Kushans invaded Indian around 450 AD. They were initially defeated by the Guptas but later managed to conquer most of Northern Pakistan and Punjab, their Capital was at Sialkot.

Gandhara civilization was at its peak around 600. Capitals were Kabul and Kapisa in Afghanistan, the empire (also known as Kabul Shahi/ Hidu Shahi who were initially Buddhists but later converted to Hindus) controlled lands down to most of Indian Punjab. These were the last Hindu rulers of Punjab and eventually replaced by the Muslim Ghazanvids.

What happened to the all these people? It is obvious that most of them amalgamated with the indigenous population in the melting pot of the subcontinent.

We are not talking about ancient history and the above can be proven from the coins that exist in the British, Indian and Pakistani museums. I have personally seen Hunish and Gandhra coins with a Numismatist (Coin Collector) friend.

Aryan invasion may be a myth, but it is difficult for me to accept Dr Chaubey’s assertion that no foreign genes have entered in Indian mainstream for the last 60,000 years. Perhaps the sample was not representative or most of his research is based on the Indian population south of the Vidhyachal Mountains.

 

[curioususer]

some of the posters in this thread have divided indians into indo-aryans and dravidians. it is unbelievable for me to think that india is made up of only these ethnicities. what exactly are indo-aryans and dravidians? are there any scientific proof for their existence?