India Unvarnished

Murad:

Only you can write a `brief essay` posing some questions that each merit more than one book in answer.

Your findings and conclusions based on responses to these questions would be illuminating. I would be interested in reading them.

rgds

t

Murad,

You are attempting to write as an expert. It will be appropriate if you start writing your references with each of your articles. I agree that we should not try to undue glorify the past. But here I again sense an attempt to de-glorify and redefine the past.

Way you have organized your questions also indicate a prejudice in your thinking. Here are some examples

26. ``Is the history of the Mahabharata equally uncertain?``

(You are already sure that Ramayana is other uncertain thing!)

38. Was there no Sanatan Dharma or pure Hindu philosophy?

(What is a pure philosophy?)

39. Why is there so much violence in the Puranic myths? Has this affected future generations in India?

( Will you also go into the extent of violence in Bible and Quran and how they affected future generations?)

32. Is practised Hinduism a religion of the Puranas?

33. Was the Vishnu of the Puranas different from the Vishnu of the Vedas?

34. Was Shiv just a tribal deity till raised to the status of a god in the Puranas?

35. Was Ganesh too a creation of the Puranas?

(All of these questions seem to originate from your belief that their has to be a single prophet or book that should be followed to the letter! Am I wrong here?)

58. Why have Muslims become so intolerant today and why has fundamentalism caused so much disruption in the world?

(That earlier muslims were very tolerant? What happened to original inhabitants of Madina and Mecca?)

Will read your article with great interest.

References for India Unvarnished.


Main sources.

Aggarwal, Vasudeva S The Heritage of Indian Art
Allchin, Raymond & Bridget - The Birth of Indian Civilisation
Anderson & Damle - The Brotherhood in Saffron
Ardrey. Robert - The African Genesis, The Social Contract.
Armstrong, Karen - A History of God
Baig. M.R.A - The Muslim Dilemma In India.
Barth. A - The religions of India.
Basham, A.L. - The Wonder that was India.
Bhargava, M.L. - The Geography of the Rigveda.
Boronowsky - The Ascent of Man.
Burger, Julian - First Peoples.
Campbell, Joseph - The Hero With A Thousand Faces.
Chaitanya, Krishna - Betrayal of Krishna
Chaudhuri, Nirad - Hinduism, The Continent of Circe.
Dahiya B.S - Jats, the ancient rulers
Chatwick, Bruce - Nomads and other essays.
Dawson, John - Classical dictionary of Mythology and religion.
Daya Krishna - Indian Philosophy
Debroy, Bibek - The 18 Puranas
Du Ry, Carel J - Art of the Ancient near and mid east
Dutt, R,C. - History of Civilisation in ancient India.
Elwin Verrier - The Baiga
Embree, Ainslie - Sources of Indian Tradition.
Frazer James George - The Golden Bough
Frykenburg R.E. - Delhi through the Ages.
Griffith, Ralph - Hymns of the Rigveda.
Harvard Oriental series: - Vedas and other Sriptures.
Hoffer, Eric - The True Believer.
Ions, Veronica - Indian Mythology.
Jain, Girilal - The Hindu Phenomenon.
Jayakar, Pupul - The Earth Mother.
Keller, Warner - The Bible as History
Ketkar, S.V - History of Caste in India.
Kinsley David - Hindu Goddesses
Kosambi, D.D. - An intro to the study of Indian History, Culture and civilisation of ancient India.
Kulke & Rothermund - A History of India.
Lal, P - Ramayana of Valmiki
Lannoy, Richard - The speaking tree.
Larousse - Encyclopedia of Mythology.
Mahajan V.D. - Sultanate of Delhi.
Max Mueller - Sacred books of the East.
Mujumdar, R.C. - Ancient India.
Nehru, J.N. - Discovery of India.
Oak, P.N. - Some blunders of Indian Hist research
Panikkar. K.M - Hinduism and the modern world.
Piggott. Stuart - Prehistoric India.
Pratt. James Bisset. - India and its Faiths
Radhakrishnan, S - Indian Religions.
Reade, Winwood - The Martyrdom of man.
Richards John F - The Mughal Empire
Richman Paula - Many Ramayanas
Sastri Nilakant - A History of South India.
Schwartz, J. H. - What the bones tell us.
Seth, Pepita. - Initiation of a temple Velichapadu. IIC Quarterly.
Sinari, Ramakant. - The structure of Indian thought.
Spear, Percival. - A History of India .
Stavrianos, L.S. - A Global History
Talageri, S.G. - Aryan Invasion theory and Indian nationalism.
Thapar, Romila. - A History of India, Past and Prejudice. Recent perspectives of early Indian History.
Tokaray, Sergei. - History of religion.
Toynbee, A.L. - A study of History.
Trautmann, Thomas R - Aryans and British India
Upadhyaya, B.S. - Ancient World.
Vettam, Manu. - Puranic encyclopedia.
Vishvanathan, Susan. - Legends of St Thomas...IIC Quarterly.
Zakaria, Rafiq. - Mohammed and the Quran.
BBC and Discovery TV channels

Chowk Staff#3

When references are given, they are given against specific points.

Author is attempting to write an authoritative article that covers a very large canvass. Just publishing a list of books available in a library is not giving references. My advise is that he should add reference numbers at appropriate place that should lead to specific pages in the referenced material.

Regards

An unemotional examination of your mother`s love for you:

1. Is your mom the best mom in the world?

2. On what basis do you say she is the best mom in the world? Document the number of kisses and hugs, hot chappatis and daily effort, understanding smiles and every encouraging word and philosophy. The realism and objectivity behind your love for your mom and hers for you will be decided by us on that basis.

3. How does your neighbour Ramu`s mom compare, btw, on the above points? Do you think she is a better mom that yours, think unemotionally, now. Don`t be influenced by all those latenight stories or endless coaxings to get you to eat right.

4. Did your mom come with the right pedigree and birth certificate, is she legimately all she claims to be to you?

5. I am asking these questions `without any attempt to condemn, praise or pass judgement on them`, only to get to the bottom of mothers love, so important since its such a great motive force in this world, its benignness nothwithstanding.

In summary, a spurious attempt to fudge the boundary between the `objectivity` of historical facts and the subjectivity of religious belief, as if the first is important to justify the other. Religion is a connection between an individual and his own God, not the documentation of an Aryan or British invasion.

Sadhana

Re: Murad

Welcome to Chowk!

History has been always subjective. Its interpretations have been subjective and such, no nation`s history can be objectivly penned.

India is an experience; it is not an academic task to be conceptualized within an essay format! Indian history has been noble, infuriating, irritating, sad, pathetic, tragic and above all, too human.

The object of history is enliven the past with a sense of life and revive the echos of its former glories to make us understand its forgotten passions and not to itemize its experinces into a sterile lesson!

Still, more than the article, thank you for pointing the way to some interesting sources!

Ciao!

Murad,

While you are engaged in this task of explaining ``unvarnished India`` to us, please also make effort to counter the arguments presented by other scholars. One of such referenc eis given below

http://www.ignca.nic.in/nl_01102.htm

Faalsey used to grow in our house in Lucknow. Never in enough quantity though. For that we relied on the guy selling it door to door shouting ``faalsey hai kale kale..``

Thinking of other things we don`t get here, what about the good amrood (guavas)? I haven`t seen any since I came to the US, and I miss the juicy, unripe amrood like crazy! Also ``hare`` chane (or boot chane), which my whole family would eat sitting in the verandah in the hot winter sun.

-narain

PS: This must have been a really well written piece. Even Temporal could find no mistakes in it ;)

PPS: Its good to talk food and not Kashmir once in a while. Its sad though that the author has not yet aparked the onslaught he was anticipating. Maybe somebody wants to remedy that?

About the section on ancient history:

Just a regurgitation of tired old rot that was constructed by colonial indology and swallowed by the marxist `eminences` of ICHR (the history `establishment` in India.)

{Aryans came to India in 1200 BC and Dravidian in 3000 BC}

Keep your eyes and ears firmly shut and imagine that the following points do not exist -

1. The date, 1200BC, for the coming of `Aryans` to India was proposed by Max Mueller at a time when there was no science, and no archaeology worth the name in India. The main base for this chronology was the old testament! (World created in 4004BC, great flood of Noah in 2200BC, give some time for different tribes to be generated, so upper limit about 1800BC. All the vedas, brahmans, aranyakas, upanishads known at the time of Buddha, so give 200 years for each level of scriptures, goes back to 1200 BC, lower limit. Why to give the b`ards upper limit, give them the lower!) That is the type of science that generated the AIT. Of course later `linguistic` arguments were forwarded, but all those `proofs` that these arguments put forward, could be substituted with alternate hypotheses.

Moreover, Mueller himself withdrew this time frame in the later part of his life.

2. In all the extensive ancient literature that the ancient Indian civilization has generated, there is not one, repeat NOT ONE line that talks about any `Aryan Invasion`. There is not a single phrase that talks about any other homeland except the area occupied by present India/Pakistan. Colonialists tried to get some phrases out by mistranslating, but that has been convincingly belied. Doesn`t it surprise you that a literature that described the geography of the land in such a great detail, completely, absolutely forgot a homeland of only a few centuries past?

3. The river Sarasvati, of vedas (Ambitame, Naditame, Devitame : Great mother, great river, great devi) has been rediscovered, using satellite remote sensing techniques. Its dried channel is known by the name Ghaggar in India and Hakra in Pakistan. Geological studies indicate that the river dried up at about 1900BC, exactly at the time the Harappan culture ended. Of 2400 harappan sites, 1600 are on this channel, compared to only about 100 on Indus. The drying up of the river is continuously recorded in ancient Indian books. From the great river flowing from snow-clad mountains to the sea in Rgveda, it becomes a much reduced river in the time of Upanishads, and at the time of Mahabharata, it is not even able to reach the sea. And at the time of the later Puranas, it is lost in the sands. We still have the tradition of Sarasvati being one of our great river which is `Antah-Salila` (flowing underground). And they have recently got this `antah-salila` Sarasvati back!. Right there in the middle of the great Thar desert, they have found water at less than 30 feet depth along Ghaggar. The radio dating of this water using tritium analysis shows that this water is almost 4000 years old. So, for 4000 years, this water has not been replenished. Now, vedas could not have been written after Sarasvati dried up, and they could not have been written other than on the banks of Sarasvati. And there was a civilization very much on the banks of Sarasvati right then. What does that tell you?

4. Recently, Krishna`s Dwarka has been found, buried under the sea, exactly as described in Mahabharata. With Dwarka and course of Sarasvati known, the pilgrimage of Balaram from Dwarka to Mathura along Sarasvati can be convincingly explained.

5. As more and more objects are found from the Harappan civilization, it becomes more and more clear that there is a strong sense of continuity between that culture and the supposedly `Aryan` culture of the first millenium BC. Archaeologists have been shouting for years now that they can find no break at any point except that the civilization shifted over from Sarasvati to Ganga and Indus valleys.

6. A genetic mapping and bone analysis of people in Harappa and modern Indian populations show that the basic population of India has not changed for at least 10000 years. There have been no massive invasions, either of `Aryans` or of `Dravidians`.

7. The Aryan Invasion Theories of other countries have been completely discarded. Supposedly `Aryan` towns have been found in Greece, Anatolia, Egypt etc, which predate the so called `Aryan Invasion` period by a couple of millenia. So, why should Aryans reach India so late? And reaching so late, how did they build such an extensive civilization, with its literature so quickly, in a few centuries?

8. Then there is a matter of Occam`s Razor. If you have many explanations, chose the simplest one. Here we have a civilization great in area (The Indus-Sarasvati or Harappa civilization) with many towns and villages, well planned, neat. It must have taken a quite advanced sociopolitical structure to build it. But where is the literature? Where are the traditions?

Then there is another civilization, with extensive literature, traditions, culture, spirituality (The vedic civilization). But there is no archaeological remains! If they came from somewhere else, there must be very extensive archaeological remains there. Where is that place?

Now, if you give this problem to a scientist and tell that both the civilizations lay claim to the same time and space, it wont take him/her a minute to decide that they were one and same! If someone tells they were different, there have to be very very convincing reasons for that. So, where are the reasons?

In fact no ancient India book defines `Arya` as a racial term. It was used to mean a noble person, or a person supposed to be fair, just, honest etc. An Arya could easily become Anarya and vice versa. Ravana was the son of a rishi, a brahmin, but he became a rakshasa, an Anarya. Dasas and Dasyus were called Anarya, but they were not another race. They were tribes from Iran and though the Indian and Iranian tribes fought, they also had frequent intermarriages and many Anarya or Asur kings became great Arya kings. As far as Dravidians are concerned, the most ancient Sangam literature of B.C. period clearly shows the prevalence of vedic practices there, which you could have easily found if you just wanted. The north and south Indian cultures were not competetive, but they freely borrowed from each other. They were complimentary. In fact, Tamil tradition tells of rishi Agastya inventing the Tamil script. A lot of concepts in Indian culture came from Dravidian origins. Of curse I agree that humans may have originated in Africa and came to India at some time in past. But there is no proof that it all happened in last 5000 years, and there were two separate races that migrated at two distinct times. Rather, the boundaries were always porous and people continued to immigrate and emigrate, as they do today, but India even in 3000 BC, was as it is today, a melting pot with numerous influences, but a strong indigenous culture.



And it is about time the rot generated by the colonialists goes to its right destination: the junkbins of history.

No simple answeres, we can only guess from dearth of contradictory evidence, the scientists have been collecting for last few centuries (especially since Darwins theory).

Though scientists suspects homo sapiens sapiens began their journey out of Africa about 50 thousand years ago, but they also have found mining tools in Pennsylvania and Swaziland that dates back to 100,000. Scientists have also found modern human skulls in Brazil dating 100,000.

Archeology is full of discrepencies that cannot be easily explained. For example, scientists say that red Indians came to America over twelve thousand years ago through a bridge connecting America with Alaska that went under water twelve thousand years ago, but there are very similarties between Indian civilizations like Aztec, Mayan and Eastern civilization that cannot be just coincident.

There is no scarcity of theories on alternative history of humanity from professional archeologists and hobbyiest. Some authors like Zecharia Sitchin, Alan Alford Graham Hancock and Erin Von Deniken have theories about human contact with aliens. Some says humans were genetically enhanced to create slave race for mining operations. And old gods of indians and egyptian, and other civilizations were aliens.

satish #9:

Very convincing arguments. A lot of times,I wonder why they taught the AIT in school, as if it was a well established fact of history. Colonial residue, I guess.

Anyways, why do u think is that

1. on an average the upper castes are fairer than the dalits, in any given region of India ?

2. on an average the North Indians are fairer than the South Indians?

3. a lot of South Indian Brahmins are extremely light complexioned, very much in contrast to the other castes there?

Thanks.

Satyavadi

Chowk Staff:

Can you put the number of interacts against each of the question that the author raises in the body of his article. Now, we have to go to the question and then its interacts. If you put the number of interacts (with possibly a direct link to the interacts) it would save readers several mouseclicks.

Thanks.

While you are at it, you might want to put a date against the interacts in the list that one finds on the right-hand side; it would tell readers whether there is anything new.

satyavadi #: 11

Anyways, why do u think is that

Your three questions --

1. on an average the upper castes are fairer than the dalits, in any given region of India ?

2. on an average the North Indians are fairer than the South Indians?

3. a lot of South Indian Brahmins are extremely light complexioned, very much in contrast to the other castes there?

- Skin color is due to Melanin, a pigment. It protects skin from Sun. People who had to work in sun slowly got adapted to that and Melanin content grew in those people. You must have seen only city people of north India or Brahmin/business man etc who don`t have to work in open. Farm workers in north India are also very dark. South Indian Brahmin were also traditionally not involved much in farming and outdoor vocations. That is reason behind their color remaining fair.

If they stay in sun for few years, they will also turn brown.

friend #13:

``- Skin color is due to Melanin, a pigment. It protects skin from Sun. People who had to work in sun slowly got adapted to that and Melanin content grew in those people. You must have seen only city people of north India or Brahmin/business man etc who don`t have to work in open. Farm workers in north India are also very dark. South Indian Brahmin were also traditionally not involved much in farming and outdoor vocations. That is reason behind their color remaining fair.

If they stay in sun for few years, they will also turn brown.``

Melanin does determine skin color. But the amount of melanin in a person is not solely determined by his exposure to sun. The most, excessive exposure to sun can do is, make a person`s skin a shade or two darker and the original color returns, once the exposure comes back to ``normal``.

But the amount of melanin in the skin that a person is born with is determined by his GENES.

So sun-exposure could be only marginally responsible for the darker complexion of a certain group of people.

Like,a white man will only be tanned by too much exposure to sunlight. Whites orginally from Europe, have been living in South Africa for like four centuries, and despite all the heat and some genetic mixing with blacks there, are still very much white, like their European cousins.

I understand, that this analogy is not entirely appropriate. But, it does have some significance.

If all the Indians belong to the same or very similar gene-pool or a mixture of several of them, then the difference between the complexions shouldnt be this pronounced. Specially when you compare the upper castes with the lowest ones, the dalits, the difference in average complexion IS striking.

Now, you could argue that around 3000 years of difference in environment (as far as exposure to sun is considered) could cause genetic alterations in the respective communities. Then my questions are:

1. IS 3000 years a long enough period to cause such genetic differences.

2. Also, can we assume that during this entire period and specially from the begining of this 3000 year period- when the caste related occupations were not so well-defined; all the people belonging to a particular group have been involved in distinct and mutually exclusive occupations, which caused significant differences in their exposure to sun.

If this is accepted as true, even then what explains the striking difference in complexion of the Brahmins of the South from the other castes there. There sure would have been other castes in

the South (like for e.g. traders) who didnt have to toil in the sun, like the farmers for e.g. Their exposure to sun, was probably not significantly more than that of the Brahmins. Then why this enormous difference?

3. In North India, there are a lot of upper and middle caste farming communities (Patels in Gujarat in e.g.). Even fo these communities, though they are darker than the Brahmins on an average, the complexion seems to be much fairer than the lowests on the rung, the Dalits, the former untouchables. What caused that?

4. Castes involved in similar occupations in the North and South are equivalent. And still there is some difference, in the complexion. Why?

5. The population of Punjab and Sindh is quite fairer and better built than the rest of the North Indians. What does that say?

Though, I think its easier to expalin this difference. Its due to more exposure to invaders and settlers from Arabia, Central Asia and Europe- mostly the Greeks.

Anyways, thanks in advance.

Satyavadi

Skin Color:

Well Many Indians look like Mexicans. We should see if we are related. (Can only laugh at the thought). Seriously, In my family, there are both dark and fair people. Surprisingly, one of my cousins was fair as a child. After 7-8yrs. when I saw him, he was dark. I could not believe it. I asked, he said he has to move so much in the sun. May be my memory was wrong but I don`t think so. My cousin sister did not show those changes. Even the southern Europeans and northern europeans skin color is different enough. Some Indians if left in cold countries enough, will look like southern europeans but not Northern Europeans. On a web page I read, an American judge said about Indian ``It is so disconcerting to see a dark white man``.

Objectivity:

``Many Indians have a strange craving for unqualified praise and flattery about everything that is Indian``.. This itself shows the objectivity with which this is being done. I am not saying the above is wrong or right, just saying that an objective study will not make that assumption. That is such a subjective observation. It needs comparision of Indians with others to see if they have a ``strange`` craving or ``normal craving``. If the others also had this ``normal`` craving the history is distorted in the first place.

I might be wrong, but the people who visit chowk and their postings, does not show me enough knowlegde about India to be objective about it. (One said I.S.Johar when I asked did he know about ``johar``, women burning themselves to save.) This does not mean all are ignorant.

Second choosing chowk for objective study of Indian History is only laughable. Hey but I would be glad to be proven wrong. You need to be in university or someother place.

It is surprising that, it is assumed that the current theory is right. Why not pose theory like, ``Civilization begun in India and then spread to west``. I know people will laugh at it, but it shows that the question you ask is in a way, is the assumptions and bias you are starting with.

I don`t know the credentials of the author, but it is surprising that he has not included the recent excavations.

It is again foolish to discuss history with people like me. It is like the rocket scientists trying to discuss how to build rocket in chowk.com. He can convince me of almost anything.

I will be glad to find myself wrong, but I doubt I will be wrong.

Vijay

I think,as writer is asserting, that books written in olden times have more myth, and some truth and cannot be taken at face value.

Scientific enquiry is based on facts which can either substantiate or refute a claim.

As far as races are concerned, there are definitely North of Pakistan people who look more Greek than Asian. Tall height,blue eyes some crooked nose etc. Then there is probably some Arab, Persian Infuence on Punjab, Sind and Baluchistan. There are also some remnants of African trade.

As far as Brahmin, I have seen a few. I agree that they are fair colored, but not as heavily built. Then there is South Indians, short dark complexion with good wit.

Depending upon the tracing back and intermarriages, we can probably trace human heritage from an Adam and Eve of science. But how much common and how much different will depend upon how far we want to go back.

Oldest archeological record in Pakistan are probably from Moenjodaro where a great civilization existed probably 5000 years back, I think at the Indus valley.

At the same time there was also a great civilization in Babel (Current Iraq) and Egypt.

Since it is a high school thing, we read, trade among these with ships.