View Full Version : Time to fix the History of India?

14 May 2013, 05:37 AM
In this long boring summer afternoon I decided to read a book about the ancient Indian History. I came across Edwin Bryant's "quest for the origin of vedic culture". It's a really good book and contains essays which briefly discusses the origins of the vedic cultures.
I would love to discuss with you guys the heavily distorted history of India and how to fix it. I will be mostly discussing the paradoxes proposed by the so called history of India written by the "great" western Indologists.
First let's start by Indus-saraswati culture as I like to call It Instead of Indus valley civ as it was mostly built around the long lost sarasvati river.
Based on satellite imagery and research, there is an apparent correlation between the dried up Saraswati river bed and most of the ‘Indus-Valley civilization’ archaeological sites.
So Let's come back to the rig veda -

"Saraswati is mentioned more than 60 times in the Rigveda. But, the Ganga gets only one mention – and that too, possibly a latter-day insertion. Saraswati, as the river is the “purest among the rivers, flowing from the mountains to the sea.” The sixth book of Rig Veda (6.61.2), describes the powerful Saraswati, in her course through the mountains, “slayeth the Paravatas.” In the Gritsamada verse (II.41.16), Saraswati is ambitame, naditame, devitame Saraswati. (“Saraswati, best of mothers, best river, best goddess.”).

As the river dried, Saraswati changed from being a river goddess to the goddess of learning, wisdom and music. Was it because most of the Indic texts and knowledge was composed along the banks of the Saraswati? Was the extinct river honoured by being elevated to ‘devi’ status!"

So After Drying up of the saraswati the People of IVC living along the saraswati basin had to leave their home. They have to either move toward the east (ganges plain) or west (punjab , baluchistan and afghanistan)
But we surely don't what happened to them.

Now the second phase- Coming of the beloved "Indo-europeans" or "Aryans".
Let's see Aryans were supposed to be the "semi-nomadic" and their culture to be proto-indo-iranian (wikipedia: There are strong linguistic and cultural similarities with the early Iranian Avesta, deriving from the Proto-Indo-Iranian times, often associated with the early Andronovo and Sintashta-Petrovka cultures of c. 2200 – 1600 BC) As the Aryans who composed the rig veda during the proto-indo-iranian time then their language must have been "unorganized" and pretty "proto" But lo and behold! one of the most archaic form of indo-european languages have most defined grammar. Grammar and structure good speech is the quality of a settled cultured civilization not that of a semi-nomadic culture.:cool1:
Dating of the rigveda- Most gora sahab's :p make the mistake of dating indic texts as they were composed during a span of few hundred years while indic texts were living documents, constantly updated. Moreover the vedas are known to be a single entity and ved vyas is credited to break them into rig, sama, yajur and atharva. There lies the problem. Vedas are dated according to western studies of comparative philology, according to them Rig veda is the most respected, then comes sama and yajur and then comes atharva. So it is foolish to consider the rig veda as the sole "most important" veda.
clay tablets from middle east ( Treaty between the Mittanis and Hittites) -In this treaty, Vedic Gods like Indra, Varuna, The Ashwini twins were invoked to bless and witness the treaty. The Hittites who had become past masters at treaties did not invoke these Gods with any other kingdom – except the Mittanis. This says that Hittites and Mittanis were both Indo-aryan with full presence in the middle east, this treaty was dated 1303 B.C considering the date of 1500 B.C for the "aryan invasion" and presence of Mitanni kingdom and Hittite kingdom in 1700 B.C leads to an undeniable paradox. If Indo-europeans came from pontic steppes entered punjab in 1500 BC, THEN composed the rigveda how do the Mitanni kingdom show full presence of Indic Gods? :headscratch: (wiki:"chariot-wielding Aryans appear in Mitanni by the 15th to 16th century BCE." -klejn and Brentjes)
I will post more later.
:feedback: I would love if anyone else would like to join me.

15 May 2013, 01:25 AM
How these things shaped up even in the most ancient books like the Vedas, and what could originally have been written is much a matter of debate. Problem is, one can vere be too sure.

Your points, however, do ring a bell. Why else would Saraswati get so much mention in the Rigveda and not Ganga? Had Saraswati not dried up, could it have been a picture that we see today? Or because Saraswati is the Goddess of learning and wisdom, and the RigVeda is all about knowledge and wisdom, so she finds more of a mention? Or as you say, is saraswati the Goddess of wisdom because a lot was discovered and written about along the banks of Saraswati?

Maybe, maybe not.

I really appreciate your efforts towards a topic, not much talked about in recent times. And yes, a further analysis may produce better results

18 May 2013, 12:24 AM
Thank you sapan for your reply.
Here is the 2nd part where I will look into the various contenders of Indo-european homeland-
1: BMAC - BMAC or bactria margiana archaeological complex has been thought as the indo-Iranian homeland after splitting from "proto indo iranian". It was postulated by Romila thapar, Asko parpola and Victor Sardini that Indo-iranians lived in the BMAC and migrated from there.
Drawbacks of this theory is quite grave as said by Archeologist B.B Lal -


Having failed to establish an ‘Aryan Invasion’ of India, Professor Thapar comes out (1989-91: 259-60) with a new theory, viz.: “If invasion is discarded then the mechanism of migration and occasional contacts come into sharper focus. The migrations appear to have been of pastoral cattle-breeders who are prominent in the Avesta and Rigveda”.

Following faithfully the footsteps of Thapar and amplifying her stand, Professor Sharma avers (1999: 77): “... the pastoralists who moved to the Indian borderland came from Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex or BMAC which saw the genesis of the culture of the Rigveda.”

Both Thapar and Sharma are even now labouring under the 19th century belief that the Vedic Aryans were nomads. But have they even once cast a glance at the make-up of the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex. As would have been absolutely clear by now, the BMAC is a fully developed civilization with all the trappings of urbanism. How can then Thapar and Sharma devalue the Bactria-Margiana people and call them ‘pastoral cattle-breeders’? Just to fit into their preconceived notion that the Rig Vedic Aryans were ‘nomads’?


In his paper, ‘Margiana and the Aryan Problem’, Asko Parpola states (1993: 47): “These excavations at Mehrgarh, Sibri, Naushahro and Quetta have conclusively shown that immigrants bringing with them an entire new cultural complex have settled in Baluchistan, with close parallels in Gurgan, south Turkmenistan, Margiana and Bactria of the Namazga V-VI period.”

Whereas certain parallels between the Quetta-Sibri finds and those from the Bactria-Margiana regions are acceptable, one is really baffled by the succeeding statement of Parpola, namely: “A newly found antennae-hilted sword from Bactria paralleling those from Fatehgarh suggests that this same wave of immigrants may also have introduced the Gangetic Copper Hoards into India.”
I am sure Parpola is aware of the fact that the Copper Hoards of the Gangetic Valley, as would be seen from the illustration that follows include many other very distinctive types, such as anthropomorphic figures, harpoons, shouldered axes, etc. which have never been found in Bactria.
Further, the overall cultural ethos, including the distinctive pottery, of the Gangetic Copper Hoards is totally different from that of the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex and that the former cannot be derived from the latter. But more strange is the argument that the occurrence of a single antennae-hilted sword in Bactria would entitle that region to be the ‘motherland’ of the Gangetic Copper Hoard people who produced these copper weapons and other associated objects in hundreds, if not thousands. If this logic is stretched further, I will not be surprised if one day Parpola comes out with the thesis that the Harappan Civilization too originated in Margiana, because in that region (at Gonur) has been found one steatite seal bearing typical Harappan inscription and motif, unmindful of the fact that such seals constitute an integral part of the Harappan Civilization.
If, following the footsteps of Parpola, I were to say that the find of the well known seal of the ‘Persian Gulf’ style at Lothal in Gujarat establishes that the Persian Gulf Culture (which abounds in such seals) originated in Gujarat or, again, if I said that the occurrence of a cylinder seal at Kalibangan in Rajasthan entitles Rajasthan to be the ‘motherland’ of the Mesopotamian Culture (wherein cylinder seals are found in large numbers), I am sure my learned colleagues present here would at once get me admitted to the nearest lunatic asylum.

One finds yet another amusing example of a similar kind of unbridled imagination when Parpola calls the ground-plan of the palace at Dashly-3, datable to circa 2000 BCE, “the prototype of the later Tantric mandalas / yantras”. He then goes on to add: “That the religion of the Dasas [who are mentioned in the Rigveda and whom he identifies with the Bactria-Margiana people] was an early form of Ýaktism is also suggested by the ground plan of the palace of Dashly-3 in Bactria closely agreeing with the later Tantric mandalas...”(ibid.: 52). For the sake of unambiguity, I reproduce now the drawings of the Dashly-3 Palace and the Mahakali yantra, as published by Parpola himself (ibid.: 62), and leave it to the learned scholars to decide whether they too would like to accompany Parpola in crossing this 4000-year-old and 4000-kilometre-long bridge along with Parpola.

It very much clarifies the grade of scholarship in India. Historians like Romila thapar who are considered great Intellectuals blindly follow the footsteps of western sayings, no matter how flawed they are.
Those Interested to read the full article of the Inaugural address given by B.B lal can read it here-

21 May 2013, 06:24 PM
So, what is the fix?

The suspense is getting to be too much.

Eastern Mind
23 May 2013, 10:11 AM
Vannakkam: This book http://thapas.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/the-history-of-hindu-india-free-online-book-a-must-read-to-know-your-hindu-identity/ came about as a response to the California textbook controversy. I highly recommend it.

Aum Namasivaya

23 May 2013, 08:35 PM

So, what is the fix?

The suspense is getting to be too much.
The reason for bringing the issue to the forum is so that YOU can find a fix and implement it. ;)


24 May 2013, 03:29 AM

The reason for bringing the issue to the forum is so that YOU can find a fix and implement it. ;)

Exactly! :D
Just kidding. I realised that I have given a wrong title. The correct one should be - "My take on the ancient history of India" or the "severely distorted Indian history".
Anyways It will be too long to point to each and everything that is wrong with current version of history of India. I will just give links to you guys to do own further reading on the subject, of course if you want to. :rolleyes:

date of mahabharata on the basis of astronomy - subhash kak
These are good blog with seemingly legit sources -
These blog posts though seemed to me as interesting and some of the facts given there SEEMED legit. I am not saying they are, but these posts are quite fun to read.
An excellent book to see of development of AIT through 18th and 19th century- http://www.scribd.com/doc/117852726/The-Quest-for-the-Origins-of-Vedic-Culture

Papers by nicholas kazanas -

I think this should do.

24 May 2013, 11:34 AM

The reason for bringing the issue to the forum is so that YOU can find a fix and implement it. ;)


I am humbled.

Btw, about a decade ago, the Buddha's date was revised by historians to a later time - from 600 BC to ~400 BC. No hue and cry about conspiracies yet, but it is coming down the pipe. They are still figuring out how to connect this revision back to Max Mueller.

27 May 2013, 10:06 AM
I am humbled.

Btw, about a decade ago, the Buddha's date was revised by historians to a later time - from 600 BC to ~400 BC. No hue and cry about conspiracies yet, but it is coming down the pipe. They are still figuring out how to connect this revision back to Max Mueller.

what do you mean? Please I don't get you. It looks like you mean to say buddha was recently dated to a later time but hindus don't care since it offers no means for them to prove their indigenousness? I think I am getting it wrong.

They are still figuring out how to connect this revision back to Max Mueller.
can you please care elaborate on what you mean to say by this?