International Conference On Indian History

[Bodhi]

<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+Jan 12 2009, 02:24 AM-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Jan 12 2009, 02:24 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bodhi- hope your presentation went off well.
[right][snapback]92976[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Thanks HH, yes it went off fine, although this session was eclipsed by two other parallel ones in which the presence of eminents had left not many takers of this one. the topic I presented was not new, on the origins and contexts of VK in skt literature.

[Guest]

Statesman has covered it today:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Breaking the myth</b>

NEW DELHI, Jan 11: Lashing out at colonial historians for creating a vicious myth that women were discriminated against in ancient India, noted scholar Dr S Ram Mohan today said scriptures such as Manu Smriti accorded a very high status to women and deprived sections.

Quoting slokas from the three major code books of Hindus to prove the exalted and enlightened status women enjoyed in ancient India, Dr Mohan, who is also additional member (finance), Railway Board, told the ongoing international conference on Indian history, Civilisation and Geopolitics 2009 said: “Women had no rights in ancient India is a vicious myth spread by colonial historians. The reality is that all the three ancient code books of Hindus ~ Manu Smriti, Narad Smriti and Yajnavalkya Smriti ~ have a common theme of social welfare and an egalitarian society, with a very high status assigned to women and the deprived sections,” he said.

Dr Mohan said the much-maligned Manu Smriti says the house in which women are not respected shall be soon destroyed. It directs that the daughter-in-law and pregnant women should be fed first and gives protection to women’s property from the law of adverse possession.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?...ess=1&id=239668

[Guest]

Witzel is having Pepto-Bismol time.
We should mail him one expired bottle. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Bodhi]

^ is the VK-quoting professor, who besides that shloka, also quoted the shloka of 'jananI janmabhUmishcha swargAdapi garIyasi', and when I asked from where he quoted, he insisted he had seen it in 'some' rAmAyaNa without being able to say which one!!

A saMskR^ita professor from Orissa, later confirmed to me that indeed that shloka is not to be found anywhere in any of the saMskR^ita rAmAyaNa-s, besides yet another shloka "from mahAbhArata", where duryodhana says 'I know the dharma but can not follow it' etc. nepAlI scholar likewise pointed out that the 'pa~nchAdhikam shatam' shloka is a hoax too.

For 'noted' scholars as the above, sole force of whose proposal is based on quotations from shAstra-s, they have to be double-careful about accuracy in what they quote and from where, and be able and always ready to provide precise & verifiable references and sources -- without which the whole value to their proposal is naturally reduced to second rate glorification of hindu history, and not only is easily trashed by the hindu-haters, but also used to brand even the serious Hindu scholarship with the same brush.

And yes, he concluded, by stating that the concept of the World Wide Web and Info Super highway is to be found in R^igveda, the proof of which is the famed statement, 'Let Noble Thoughts come to us from All direction'. Isn't that Info Super Highway!! That was something. Would you still blame anti-Hindus to be rediculing the Hindus?

[Husky]

Good stuff. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Waiting for the video/transcript/notes/summary/anything that will trickle.


Meanwhile, what's this:
<!--QuoteBegin-anjani+Jan 11 2009, 06:27 PM-->QUOTE(anjani @ Jan 11 2009, 06:27 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Dr. Vepa's conference has given major takleef to our friend Michael Witzel. This is what he writes:
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->...Baabaabaa x umpteen...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]92958[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Hör doch! Wie süß! Der Herr Wienerschnitzel spricht.
And yet all I hear is Blablabla. Or was it baabaa. Whatever.

Wait, my eye catches something amongst all the din of the usual cretinous whining (his English is some degree akin to Martin Luther's curse-laden German):
<!--QuoteBegin-anjani+Jan 11 2009, 06:27 PM-->QUOTE(anjani @ Jan 11 2009, 06:27 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
IER/Westerner-baiter Sandhya Jain (rabid
columnist in the chauvinistic paper, the Organizer)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]92958[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->You know, one can always tell someone's a Loozer when all he can do is bleat. "Baaabaaabaaa." Said WitSSel.
Barbaric sheep.

But the lovely Sandhya Jain should take it as a compliment: when the LittleFührer WitSSel turns his roving räubers-eye on someone and foulmouths them, that means they're on the right track. She pushed all his buttons and now he's crashing.


Ooooh, this is too cute: so not only is WitSSel's speech a constant embarrassment to others of his Bandit Association, he also made a helpful fatal mistake? The Hysteria!
Nice going Wienerschnitzel, soon the other cannibal sheep will have him for Frühstück:
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Jan 11 2009, 08:48 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Jan 11 2009, 08:48 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But how did he know what I said on a private group, I did not know he was a member of any group I am on? It is quite astonishing.

Warm regards
Sandhya <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]92962[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->First thing Sandhya Jain should do is work out whichever group it was where she made the statement, then look through the member list and (by a process of elimination) find the mole.

You know, I'm beginning to think Herr Professor WitSSel is a friend after all. An unwilling one, but his foot-in-mouth disease nevertheless makes him an ally of sorts. (Can't believe he holds a degree of any kind. Unless it was from one of those oxymoronic "christian universities" <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> )

[Guest]

Mid Day covers the event:

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2009/jan/12010...ian-history.htm

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>"Aryans Never Invaded Us"</b>

IF Pakistanis tampered cricket balls, the British seem to have surely tampered history.

We are still reading the history that they wrote to 'suit their purpose' of inculcating inferiority complex among Indians, felt historians at a three-day international conference in Delhi on Sunday.

According to modern Indian historians, the theory that India was invaded and conquered by nomadic light-skinned Indo-European tribes from Central Asia around 1500-100 BC who overthrew an earlier and more advanced dark-skinned Dravidian civilization was propounded by the British to "devalue the ancient Indian history".

"There is absolutely no proof that the Vedas were written in around 1200 BC and that the invading Aryans massacred the people of the Indus Valley. Unfortunately, these malicious distortions are still being taught in our schools," said Dr BB Lal, former Director General of Archaeological Survey of India.

The historians described the Aryan invasion theory as "demeaning condescension that many Western historians have bestowed upon India".

A historian said we should immediately correct the past mistakes in our books.

"Books on Indian history sold abroad deliberately neglect our ancient culture so as to minimize and sideline its contributions," said Dr Kosla Vepa, Director of the US-based Indic Studies Foundation.

"At the same time, they try to whitewash the horrors that the British rule inflicted on India, such as the large-scale famines triggered by colonial policies. Changing the content of the text-books worldwide and especially in the West to correct these distortions should be our goal," Dr Vepa added.

Shivaji Singh, former head of department, ancient history, Gorakhpur University, rejected the oft-repeated charge that Indians were attacked by outsiders.

"Ancient Indians had a robust historical tradition that originated in the Rig Veda times and continued to develop and proliferate till the end of the medieval period, this tradition has created a rich and huge mass of historical literature that is unparalleled in the world," he said.

"You have to understand that the Indian sense of history is grounded in Indian culture and it should not be judged by the yardstick of how the Westerners write their history," he added.

In another major development, historians, for the first time dated Mahabharata to 3067 BC. Though the epic has been variously dated from 5000 BC to 1000 BC by historians, this is the first time that Narahari Achar, leading physicist, took into account the movement of planets excluding the comets to reproduce by simulation the astronomical references given in the Mahabharata.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

Dr. Subramanian Swamy's valedictory address on the concluding day of ICIH-2009:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>De-falsification of Indian History</b>
<i>By Dr. Subramanian Swamy, Ph.D. (Harvard)</i>

<b>Introduction</b>

The identity of India is Hindustan, i.e., a nation of Hindus and those others who acknowledge with pride that their ancestors were Hindus.  Hindustan represents the continuing history of culture of Hindus. One’s religion may change, but culture does not. Thus,  on the agenda for a national renaissance should be the dissemination of the correct perception of what we are.  This perception has to be derived from a defalsified history.

However, the present history taught in our schools and colleges is the British imperialist-sponsored one, with the intent to destroy our identity.  India as a State is treated as a British-created entity and of only recent origin.  The Indian people are portrayed as a heterogeneous lot who are hopelessly divided against themselves. 

Such a “history” has been deliberately created by the British as a policy.  Sir George Hamilton, Secretary of State for India, wrote to the Home Office on March 26, 1888 that “I think the real danger to our rule is not now but say 50 years hence….. We shall (therefore) break Indians into two sections holding widely different views….. We should so plan the educational text books that the differences between community and community are further strengthened”.

After achieving independence, under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru and the implementing authority of the anglicized ICS, revision of our history was never done, in fact the very idea was condemned as “obscurantist” and Hindu chauvinist by Nehru and his ilk.

<b>The Imperialist History of India</b>

What is the gist of this British imperialist-tailored Indian history? In this history, India is portrayed as the land “conquered” first by the ‘Dravidians’, then by the ‘Aryans’, later by Muslims, and finally by the British. Otherwise, everything else is mythical. Our history books today exhibit this obsession with foreign rule.

For example, even though the Mughal rule from Akbar to Aurangzeb is about 150 years, which is much shorter than the 350 year rule of the Vijayanagaram empire, the history books of today hardly take notice of the latter.  In fact the territory under Krishna Devaraya’s rule was much larger than Akbar’s, and yet it is the latter who is called “the Great”.

Such a version suited the British rules who had sought to create a legitimacy for their presence in India.  Furthermore, we were also made to see advantages accruing from British rule, the primary one being that India was united by this colonialism, and that but for the British, India would never have been one country.  Thus, the concept of India itself is owed to the plunder of colonialists.

In this falsified history,  it is made out that Hindus capitulated to Islamic invaders.  But on the contrary,unlike Iran, Iraq and Egypt where within decades the country capitulated to become 100% Muslims. India despite 800 years of brutal Islamic rule, remained 80% Hindu.

These totally false and pernicious ideas have however permeated deep into our educational system. They have poisoned the minds of our younger generations who have not had the benefit of the Freedom Struggle to awaken their pride and nationalism.

It has thus to be an essential part of the  renaissance agenda that these ideas of British-sponsored history of India, namely, (1) that India as a State was a gift of the British and (2) that there is no such thing as a native Indian, and what we are today is a by-product of the rape of the land by visiting conquerors and their hordes and (3) that India is a land that submitted meekly to invading hordes from Aryan to the English, are discarded.

Just because India did not have a nation state of the present boundaries, exercising control through a unified modern administration, does not mean that there was no India.  On the contrary, there was always as India which from north to south, thought of fundamentally as one country.  Just as Hinduism exists from ancient days despite a lack of a Church, Book, or Pope, Hindustan too existed from time immemorial but without the parameters of a modern state. The invading Muslims and the British on the contrary tried to disrupt that unity by destroying the traditional communication channels and educational structures.

Thus, on the agenda for National Renaissance has to be a new factual account of our history, focusing on the continuous and unbroken endeavours of a people united as a nation. This history of India must deal with the conscious effort of our people to achieve a civilization, to reach better standards of life, and live a happier and nobler  life.  Although the lamp of faith of the Indian people burnt brightly in  long periods, this history must also record when that faith dimmed and brought shame to the people. 

Such a factual account of our past is essential to the agenda, because we have to objectively disgorge and discard the foreign versions of our history.  It  is this foreign version that makes us out to be foreigners in our own land. The Aryan-Dravidian divide in the history taught in schools and universities is purely a conception of foreign historians like Max Mueller and has no basis in Indian historical records.  This fraudulent history had been lapped up by north Indians, and by south Indian Brahmins, as their racial passport to Europe. Such was the demoralization of the Hindu mind, which we have to shake off through a new factual account of our past.

<b>Falsification of Chronology in India’s History</b>

The fabrication of our History begins with the falsification of our chronology.
The customary dates quoted for composition of the Rig Veda (circa 1300 B.C.), Mahabharat (600 B.C.), Buddha’s Nirvana (483 B.C.), Maurya Chandragupta’s coronation (324 B.C.), and Asoka (c.268 B.C.) are entirely wrong. Those dates are directly or indirectly based on a selected reading of Megasthenes’ account of India. In fact, so much so that eminent historians have called if the “sheet anchor of Indian chronology”. The account of Megasthenes and the derived chronology of Indian history have also an important bearing on related derivations such as the two-race (Aryan-Dravidian) theory, and on the pre-Vedic character of the so called Indus Valley Civilization.

Megasthenes was the Greek ambassador sent by Seleucus Nicator in c. 302 B.C. to the court of the Indian king whom he and the Greek called “Sandrocottus”. He was stationed in “Palimbothra”, the capital city of the kingdom. It is not clear how many years Megasthenes stayed in India, but he did write an account of his stay, titled Indika.  The manuscript Indika is lost, and there is no copy of it available.  However, during the time it was available, many other Greek writers quoted passages from it in their own works. These quotations were meticulously collected by Dr. Schwanbeck in the nineteenth century, and this compilation is also available to us in English (J.M. McCrindle: Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian).

When  European indologists were groping to date Indian history during the nineteenth century (after having arbitrarily rejected the various Puranas), the Megasthenes account came in very useful. These scholars simply identified “Sandrocottus” with Chandragupta, and “Palimbothra” with Pataliputra.  Since Megasthenes talks of Sandrocottus as being a man not of “noble” birth who essentially usurped the throne from Xandrames and founded a new dynasty, the western writers took it as enough evidence to  suggest that Sandrocottus was Maurya Chandragupta, who deposed the Nanda (=Xandrames) dynasty, and founded the Maurya dynasty.

This identification, thus places Maurya Chandragupta circa 302 B.C.  However, Megasthenes also notes that Sandrocottus was a contemporary of Alexander, and came to the throne soon after Alexander’s departure.  With a little arithmetic on how many days it would have taken Alexander to cross the Indus, etc., the scholars arrive at c.324 B.C. as the date of Chandragupta Maurya’s coronation.  It is on this date that every other date of Indian history has been constructed.

The western writers constructed other dates of Indian history by using the data on the number of years between kings given in the Puranas, even though they have generally discredited this source.  For instance, the Puranas give the number of years for the reign of Chandgragupta and Bindusara as 62 years.  Using this period, Asoka’s coronation year is calculated by them as 324-62 =c 262 B.C.  This estimated year is then cross-checked and adjusted with other indicators, such as from the Ceylonese Pali tradition.  The point that is being made here is that some of the important dates of Indian history have been directly determined by the identification of Megasthenes’ Sandrocottus with Maurya Chandragupta, and Xandremes with Nanda.

The founder of the Mauryas, however, is not the only Chandragupta in Indian history, who was a king of Magadh and founder of a dynasty.  In particular, there is Gupta Chandragupta, a Magadh king and founder of the Gupta dynasty at Patliputra.  Chandragupta Gupta was also not of “noble” birth and, in fact, came to power by deposing the Andhra king Chandrasri.  That is, Megasthenes’ Sandrocottus may well be Gupta Chandragupta instead of Maurya Chandgragupta (and Xandremes the same as Chandrasri, and Sandrocryptus as Samudragupta).  
In order to determine which Chandragupta it is, we need to look further.  It is, of course, a trifle silly to build one’s history on this kind of tongue-gymnastics, but I am afraid we have no choice but to pursue the Megasthenes evidence to its end, since the currently acceptable history is based on it.

In order to determine at which Chandragupta’s court Megasthenes was ambassador, we have to look further into his account of India.  We find he was at Pataliputra (i.e. Palimbothra in Megasthenes’ account).  We know from the Puranas (which are unanimous on this point) that all the Chandravamsa king of Magadh (including the Mauryas) prior to the Guptas, had their capital at Girivraja (or equivalently Rajgrha) and not at Pataliputra.   Gupta Chandragupta was the first king to have his capital in Patliputra. This alone should identify Sandrocottos with Gupta Chandragupta.  However some 6-11th century A.D. sources call Pataliputra the Maurya capital, e.g., Vishakdatta in Mudrarakshasa, but these are based on secondary sources and not on the Puranas.

Pursuing Megasthenes’ account further, we find most of it impossible to believe.  He appears to be quite vague about details and is obviously given to the Greek writers’ weakness in letting his imagination get out of control.  For example, “Near a mountain which is called Nulo there live men whose fee are turned back-wards and have eight toes on each foot.” (Solinus 52.36-30 XXX.B.) “Megasthenes says a race of men (exist in India) who neither eat or drink, and in fact have not even mouths, set on fire and burn like incense in order to sustain their existence with odorous fumes…..” (Plutarch, Frag. XXXI). However, Megasthenes appears to have made one precise statement of possible application which was picked up later by Pliny, Solinus, and Arrian. As summarized by Professor K.D. Sethna of Pondicherry, it reads:

“Dionysus was the first who invaded India and was the first of all who triumphed over the vanished Indians. From the days of Dionysus to Alexander the Great, 6451 years reckoned with 3 months additional.  From the time of Dionysus to Sandrocottus the Indians reckoned 6452 years, the calculation being made by counting the kings who reigned in the intermediate period to number 153 or 154 years.  But among these a republic was thrice established, one extending…..years, another to 300 and another to 120.  The Indians also tell us that Dionysus was earlier than Heracles by fifteen generations, and that except for him no one made a hostile invasion of India but that Alexander indeed came and overthrew in war all whom he attacked.”

While there a number of issues raised by this statement including the concoction that Alexander was victorious in battle across the Indus, the exactness with which he states his numbers should lead us to believe that Megasthenes could have received his chronological matters from none else than the Puranic pundits of his time.  To be conclusive, we need to determine who are the “Dionysus” and “Heracles” of Megasthenes’ account.

Traditionally, Dionysus (or Father Bachhus) was a Greek God of wine who was created from Zeus’s thigh.  Dionysus was also a great king, and was recognized as the first among all kings, a conqueror and constructive leader.  Could there be an Indian equivalent of Dionysus whom Megasthenes quickly equated with his God of wine? Looking through the Puranas, one does indeed find such a person.  His name is Prithu.

Prithu was the son of King Vena. The latter was considered a wicked man whom the great sages could not tolerate, especially after he told them that the elixir soma should be offered to him in prayer and not to the gods (Bhagavata Purana IV.14.28). The great sages thereafter performed certain rites and killed Vena. But since this could lead immediately to lawlessness and chaos, the rshis decided to rectify it by coronating a strong and honest person.

The rshis therefore churned the right arm (or thigh; descriptions vary) of the dead body (of Vena) to give birth to a fully grown Prithu.  It was Prithu, under counsel from rshi Atri (father of Soma), who reconstructed society and brought about economic prosperity.  Since he became such a great ruler, the Puranas have called him adi-raja (first king) of the world.  So did the Satpatha Brahmana (v.3.5 4.).

In the absence of a cult of soma in India, it is perhaps inevitable that Megasthenes and the other Greeks, in translating Indian experiences for Greek audiences, should pick on adi-raja Prithu who is “tinged with Soma” in a number of ways and bears such a close resemblance to Dionysus in the circumstances of his birth, and identify him as Dionysus.  If we accept identifying Dionysus with Prithu, then indeed by a calculation based on the Puranas (done by D.R. Mankad, Koti Venkatachelam, K.D. Sethna, and others),  it  can be conclusively shown that indeed 6451 years had elapsed between Prithu and a famous Chandragupta. This calculation exactly identifies Sandrocottus with Gupta Chandragupta and not with Maurya Chandragupta. The calculation also identifies Heracles with Hari Krishna (Srikrishna) of Dwarka.

This calculation must be necessarily long and tedious to counter the uninformed general feeling first sponsored by Western scholars, that the Puranas spin only fair tales and are therefore quite unreliable.  However, most of these people do not realize that most Puranas have six parts, and the Vamsanucharita sections (especially of Vishnu, Matsya, and Vagu) are a systematic presentation of Indian history especially of the Chandravamsa kings of Magadha. 

In order to establish these dates, I would have to discuss in detail the cycle of lunar asterisms, the concept of time according to Aryabhatta, and various other systems, and also the reconciliation of various minor discrepancies that occur in the Puranas.  Constraints of space and time however, prevent me from presenting these calculations here.

However, on the basis of these calculations we can say that Gupta Chandragupta was “Sandrocottus” c.327 B.C.  His son, Samudragupta, was the great king who established a unified kingdom all over India, and obtained from the Cholas, Pandyas, and Cheras their recognition of him.  He also had defeated Seleucus  Nicator, while his father Chandragupta was king. On this calculation we can also place Prithu at 6777 B.C. and Lord Rama before that.  Derivation of other dates without discussion may also be briefly mentioned here: Buddha’s Nirvana 1807 B.C., Maurya Chandragupta c. 1534 B.C., Harsha Vikramaditya (Parmar) c. 82 B.C.

The European scholars have thus constructed an enormous edifice of contemporary foreign dates to suit their dating. A number of them are based on misidentification. For instance, the Rock Edict XIII, the famous Kalinga edict, is identified as Asoka’s. It was, however, Samudragupta’s (Samudragupta was a great conqueror and a devout admirer of Asoka. He imitated Asoka in many ways and also took the name Asokaditya. In his later life, he became a sanyasi).

Some other facts, which directly contradict their theories, they have rather flippantly cast aside. We state here only a few examples – such facts as (1) Fa-hsien was in India and at Patliputra c. 410 A.D.  He mentions a number of kings, but makes not even a fleeting reference to the Gupta, even though according to European scholars he came during the height of their reign. He also dates Buddha at 1100 B.C.. (2) A number of Tibetan documents place Buddha at 2100 B.C. (3) The Ceylonese Pali traditions leave out the Cholas, Pandyas, and Cheras from the list of Asoka’s kingdoms, whereas Rock Edict XIII includes them.  In fact, as many scholars have noted, the character of Asoka from Ceylonese and other traditions is precisely (as R.K. Mukherjee has said) what does not appear in the principal edicts.

The accepted history of no country can however be structured on foreign accounts of it. But Nehru and his Leftist cronies did just that, and thus generations of Indians have been brainwashed by this falsified history of India.

The time has come for us to take seriously our Puranic sources and to re-construct a realistic well-founded history of ancient India, a history written by Indians about Indians. Such a history should bring out the amazing continuity of a Hindu nation which asserts its identity again and again. It should focus on the fact that at the centre of our political thought is the concept of the Chakravartin ideal – to defend  the nation from external aggression while giving maximum internal autonomy to the janapadas.

A correct, defalsified history would record that Hindustan was one nation in the art of governance, in the style of royal courts, in the methods of warfare, in the maintenance of its agrarian base, and in the dissemination of information. Sanskrit was the language of national communication and discourse.

An accurate history should not only record the periods of glory but the moments of degeneration, of the missed opportunities, and of the failure to forge national unity at crucial junctures in time. It should draw lessons for the future generations from costly errors in the past.

In particular, it was not Hindu submission as alleged by JNU historians that was responsible for our subjugation but lack of unity and effective military strategy.

Without an accurate history, Hindustan cannot develop on its correct identity. And without a clearly defined identity, Indians will continue to flounder.Defalsification of Indian history is the first step for our renaissance.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Husky]

About this:
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Jan 11 2009, 08:46 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Jan 11 2009, 08:46 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sandhya Jain wrote to the above mentioned list, with a copy to vassel...

<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->[...]
On another list, friends revealed that <b>one Harvard Don is somehow connected to the Satyam Scam in India. PriceWaterhouseCooper</b> is already exposed.
[...]
Warm regards
Sandhya <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]92961[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2009/01/did...ink-satyam.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Did the Christist's sink Satyam?</b>
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/arti...965366.cms

the good professor R Vaidyanathan has already written about the politicians angle in the Satyam blow-up*

per the Economic Times report Samuel & Sons and Satyam could have colluded in a heap big racket in real estate - that caused Satyam to go down when the real estate market collapsed. I guess it was not enough to loot the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam eh - Old Sam was working extra hard to screw everyone over

* disclosure: I had disagreed with prof's conclusion, but I am prepared to eat humble pie - it would not be the first time the prof proved me wrong!
Posted by Ghost Writer at 1/11/2009 10:51:00 PM 0 comment<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[dhu]

<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Jan 12 2009, 04:47 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Jan 12 2009, 04:47 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
<b>Did the Christist's sink Satyam?</b>

[right][snapback]93005[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Stranger things have happened. Maybe they tired of seeing light after light of western industry getting extinguished and decided to do an equal equal.

[ramana]

Request to please take Satyam discussions eleswhere.

Thanks, ramana

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+Jan 11 2009, 04:40 PM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ Jan 11 2009, 04:40 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Whereas Kosal Vepa being of technical background is sharper and using scientific methods
[right][snapback]92975[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Witzel and his sidekick don't like us scientists-programmers-bankers since we use science and math to challenge conventional wisdom handed down by colonialist. It irks them to no end that "natives" can challenge their work and motives. This moron who's never ever visited India in his life supposedly an "expert" on India and only thing he's got to show for it his 'chair'. Guess bigger the a$$h***s, bigger the chair they need. Imported all the way from Wales!! By their standards, I should plant a chair under my posterior as I could be an expert in France (eat French fries regularly), am expert in Beligum (love Belgian waffles and fan of Belgian Hercule Poirot) etc.. you get the idea.

Back in good old days people when access to information or exchange of ideas was sparse, Witzels of this world would hoodwink herd. Too bad that people like Vishal, Kaushal, Dr K and thousands of parents in CA challenged this missionary tool and put a wrench on that lucrative $ book deal of his. Sour grapes for the wily fox.

[Guest]

Press release issued on the third and last day of ICIH-2009:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>“Distortions in Indian History Occur due to State Backing”
“Nobody in the world gave higher status to women than ancient Indians”</b>

January 11: “Willful distortions in writing Indian history have been occurring solely due to state support and patronage since the British times until today,” charged Subramanian Swamy, former union minister, at the International Conference on Indian History, Civilisation and Geopolitics 2009 (ICIH-2009) that concluded here today. “The British rulers wrote our history to divide and rule us. But what is the excuse of Indian governments after independence to continue with the same policy?” he questioned.

Swamy said that myths spread by biased historians have overtaken Indian history while actual events and places in our history have been declared as myths! “Not long ago, the Saraswati river, the submerged city of Dwarka and Ram Setu were ridiculed as myths. But their reality has been proved by archaeology and satellite imagery,” he added.

Swamy gave a call to reorient the policy of the Indian state to purge from history books false chronology of ancient India and myths such as Aryan invasion and racial divide of north and South Indians. “Indians are being cheated of their true history. The time has come to write an authentic and unbiased history of India free from ideological or colonial biases,” he said.

Earlier, well-known scholar Dr. S. Ram Mohan quoted dozens of slokas from the three major code books of Hindus to prove the exalted and enlightened status women enjoyed in ancient India. “That women had no rights in ancient India is a vicious myth spread by colonial historians,” Dr. Mohan said. “The reality is that all the three ancient code books of Hindus – Manu Smriti, Narad Smriti and Yajnavalkya Smriti – have a common theme of social welfare and an egalitarian society, with a very high status assigned to women and the deprived sections.”

He said that the much-maligned Manu Smriti says the house in which women are not respected shall be soon destroyed. It directs that the daughter-in-law and pregnant women should be fed first and gives protection to personal property of women from the law of adverse possession.

“All three Smritis have recommended lenient penalties for women compared to men and have prescribed death penalty for rape of a woman under police custody,” he added. “Such kind of enlightened status of women was not found anywhere else in the world during the ancient times.”<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

MetroNow newspaper (a joint venture between HT and TOI) published from Delhi has carried an interview of Dr. Vepa on January 12. Unfortunately, their website is not working so cannot give a link. It is there in the print edition.

[Guest]

In one of the books Dharampal writes..

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A great movement was initiated for the promotion in India of western science and technology nearly a century ago. The main centre of this movement was Calcutta itself. As far as my meagre knowledge goes those intimately associated with this movement, in its early phase, included such illustrious names as Mahendra Lal Sircar, Jagdish Chandra Bose, Prafulla Chandra Ray, Gooroodas Banerjee, Ashutosh Mukerjee, Taraknath Palit, C.V. Raman, and they were followed by J.C. Ghosh, Meghnad Saha, J.N. Mukerjee, S.N. Bose, and many others.2 While reasons of patriotism, devo-tion to swadeshi, etc., played major roles in leading Mahendra Lal Sircar and others to the promotion of the new science and technology, <b>men like Sir Richard Temple, the British Governor of Bengal around this time, felt that the teaching of science in India would help in curbing the ambition and self-confidence of the educated Indian. Writing to the then British Viceroy North-brook, Temple observed: ‘No doubt the alumni of our schools and colleges do become as a class discontented. But this arises partly from our higher education being too much in the direction of law, public administration, and prose literature, where they may possibly imagine, however erroneously, that they may approach to competition with us. But we shall do more and more to direct their thoughts towards practical science, where they must inevi-tably feel their utter inferiority to us.</b>’3 Temple wrote this in 1875. In 1876 Mahendra Lal Sircar and his friends established the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science at Calcutta.4 In 1885 J.C. Bose was appointed junior professor of physics at Calcutta Presidency College,5 while in 1889 Prafulla Chandra Ray was appointed as assistant professor in chemistry.6<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[dhu]

<!--QuoteBegin-anjani+Jan 13 2009, 01:57 AM-->QUOTE(anjani @ Jan 13 2009, 01:57 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->“The reality is that all the three ancient code books of Hindus – Manu Smriti, Narad Smriti and Yajnavalkya Smriti – have a common theme of social welfare and an egalitarian society, with a very high status assigned to women and the deprived sections.”

He said that the much-maligned Manu Smriti says the house in which women are not respected shall be soon destroyed. It directs that the daughter-in-law and pregnant women should be fed first and gives protection to personal property of women from the law of adverse possession.

“All three Smritis have recommended lenient penalties for women compared to men and have prescribed death penalty for rape of a woman under police custody,” he added. “Such kind of enlightened status of women was not found anywhere else in the world during the ancient times.”
[right][snapback]93029[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Common curse in hindi heartland: beti shall not be given to you (tinku gives this curse to bacchan in agneepath). Actually, betiyann are even exempt from touching feet in some traditions, and you will have elder brother touching the feet of his younger sister.

[Bodhi]

"betiyann are even exempt from touching feet in some traditions, and you will have elder brother touching the feet of his younger sister."

Dhu: While above is true for large parts of North East (UP, Bihar & Bengal), why is this a curse?

[dhu]

<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Jan 13 2009, 07:39 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Jan 13 2009, 07:39 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->"betiyann are even exempt from touching feet in some traditions, and you will have elder brother touching the feet of his younger sister."

Dhu:  While above is true for large parts of North East (UP, Bihar & Bengal), why is this a curse?
[right][snapback]93042[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I should have separated my sentences. Elder brother touching feet of younger sister is *not* considered a curse; rather, the tradition is that 'mahilas' are exempt from touching anyone's feet. such is not true for sons, who have to touch feet of even their sisters. mama's (mother's brother) feet are also never touched. nor will groom touch feet of anyone in the bride's household although exceptions invariably get made. actually in weddings, when situation gets extreme, a bride's householder will sometimes even take pratigya to make groom touch feet of the bride householders feet, and all sorts of tricks are devised to such an end. even very elderly will touch the feet of groom. it is considered shaguna to touch feet of newlywed couples.

[dhu]

actually, even father's brothers (chachas) will touch the feet of the father's daughter, while the father's son is always busy touching the feet of everyone in the family. I will look up scene where tinku anand curses bacchan.

[Guest]

In our house/culture, I was never allowded to touch feet or touch any male family member shoes or clean utensils of any elders. It is to give respect to unmarried girls in family.

[dhu]

International Forum for Indian Heritage:

full resources:

http://www.ifih.org/home.htm




http://www.geocities.com/ifihhome/