+- Forums (http://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: Archives (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Library & Bookmarks (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=21)
+--- Thread: Miscellaneous Topics on Indian History (/showthread.php?tid=829)
Miscellaneous Topics on Indian History - Guest - 01-22-2006
<b>Excerpt #2 of 3</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='color:purple'>Suicide, not murder</span>
That in principle itâs about self-immolation and not murder, is apparent from many British testimonies. For that matter, these are in agreement that this practice only occurred among a few higher castes. They keep stressing that those present continually tried to make the woman give up on her resolve, and that there wasnât a single stigma associated with forsaking this resolution, unless it only happened after the ceremony had started (what might perhaps have been the case with Rup Kanwar).
In Bengal at the start of the 19th century, several cases have been mentioned where the sati was under pressure by the in-laws. A part of the cause was the British reforms of the law of succession, which suddenly made it of interest for the in-laws to not be left with a surviving daughter-in-law. This was therefore an aberration, partly induced by the colonisation, of the general practice where sati was completely voluntary. For that matter, itâs significant that such women did not become the object of worship, as opposed to the many non-suspect sati-women in Rajasthan.
The mentions of sati in mythological, judicial and historical texts of the hindus, are without exception concerned with voluntary self-immolation. The name actually cames from Sati, the beloved of Sjiva, who sets herself on fire in protest against the unjust treatment of her lover by her father, this story therefore has noting to do with widow-burning. It is quite possible that this might be a later-constructed myth to explain the name, and that the practice of sati is much older. Sati actually means âgoodâ or âloyal [woman]â, from <i>sat/sant</i>, âtrue, goodâ. The most famous mention is that of Madri, the favourite wife of Pandu, the father of the five Pandavas from the Mahabharata-epic: she climbed Panduâs pyre, while the other wife, Kunti, declined the honour. The Greek author Diodorus Siculus tells how in 316 B.C. the Indian commander of a hired-army in Iran is killed, upon which his two spouses argue about the privilege of becoming the sati.
From the middle-ages countless examples are known. The Arabian writer Albiruni writes that widows were treated badly and thatâs why they chose self-immolation. Marco Polo, on the other hand, states that they did this âout of love for their husbandâ. A special case is the <i>jauhar</i>, the collective sati of Rajput-women when a city besieged by Muslims no longer had a chance to be saved: the men did a prospectless sally in order to die heroically, and the women were kept out of the hands of the enemy by the fire-death. Much more recent examples are the voluntary immolation of Sjivajiâs wife Putalabai (1680), of Madhavarao Pesjwaâs wife Ramabai, and of the wifes of Ranjit Singh, maharaja of the Sikh-realm, in 1839.
Of more import for the biased westerner is rather, that also the not-to-be-suspected British shared the opinion that the widows involved carried out their sati voluntarily. Before the British rule banned this practice in 1829 on Lord Bentinckâs initiative, it had a report drawn up with the significant title: âThe Report on Hindu Widows and <i>Voluntary </i>Immolationsâ. H.T. Colebrooke, H.H. Wilson, Jonathan Duncan and other British authorities advised against a legal ban on sati, because this ritual does not occur under duress/coercion. A few citations from the in this report collected assessments, and also from other British testimonies, deserve to be heard.
Lord Mountstuart Elphinstone wrote in his <i>History of India</i>: âOn occasion it has been said that the relatives encourage the widow to immolate herself to obtain her possessions⦠People can however be sure that the relatives usually beg the widow not go through with it, and to this end also call in the intervention of friends and figures of authority. If she is of high rank, even the monarch will come to console her and to advise her against it.â
Lieutenant-colonel John Briggs in a letter stated: âWhoever has witnessed the self-immolation of hindu widows, and of their attitude/bearing towards this as I have seen them, will find it hard to free themselves of the idea that these devoted women have reached the highest grade of faith. The justness of the law that robs them of their only religious solace⦠is therefore at the very least doubtful.â When Lord Bentinck in 1829 issued the ban on sati, it was under rather general opposition from his (British) subordinates.
Lord Holwel, lieutenant-governor of Bengal, wrote: âIf we viewed these women in the correct light, then we would think more openly about them, and admit that they act out of heroic as well as rational and pious principlesâ.
As evidence for the involuntary nature of sati, people constantly refer to the mention of a forced immolation in F. Bernierâs <i>Travels in the Moghul Empire</i>, a travel-report from the pre-colonial time. Pointing to this professor Prabha Dixit said, short after the self-immolation of Rup Kanwar, that âsati is never a voluntary deedâ and âalways took place under brutal pressure/coercionâ. Well, the same Bernier, who stayed in India from 1656 to 1668, writes in the same book: âMostly it was the practice that sati was carried out voluntarily.â
He mentions several voluntary self-immolations, and gives among others this description: âwhen I left Surat for Persia, I witnessed the devotion and fire-death of another widow. Several English and Dutch {people} were present. The woman was middle-aged and not at all ugly. With my limited ability for expression, I do not expect to convey a complete idea of the brash courage or fear-inducing liveliness on the womanâs countenance, of her sure tread, of her freedom from all disturbance, with which she spoke and let herself be washed, of the look of trust or rather carelessness/insensibilty that she gave us; of her easy air, free of doubt, of her distinguished bearing, without any embarrassment, when she searched her seating place, which consisted of thick dry milletstraw mixed with small wood, and when she went to sit on the pyre, placed the head of her deceased husband on her lap, took a torch, and with her own hands set it on fire from the insideâ¦â
Contemporaries of Bernier, like Nicholas Withington, William Hawkins, Edward Terry and others, have left behind a few more eye-witness accounts, and they confirm that it practically always concerned voluntary self-immolation.
General Sleeman described in his <i>Rambles and Recollections of an Indian Official </i>(1844) the self-immolation of the widow of a rich landlord: âTowards the family I must show the correctness to mention that all family members exerted themselves to make her give up on her resolve. If she had remained living, she would certainly have been loved and honoured as the most important woman of the house. Because there is no people in the world among whom the parents are more honoured than the hindus, and the grandmother always even more than the mother.â
...
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Miscellaneous Topics on Indian History - Guest - 01-22-2006
<b>Excerpt #3 of 3</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='color:purple'>Right to suicide</span>
That the British forbade the practice of sati was not a measure against murder, but against suicide. As was known, suicide is forbidden in Christianity; in some countries there was even the death penalty for attempts at suicide. In India however, people have always judged it differently.
...
Another legitimate ground for suicide in the hindu-tradition is quite universal: just like a minister resigns as a consequence of his political responsibility in some scandal or another, in the same way people can take their lives to thus clean up their own guilt in a catastrophic development. In this way, king Jayapala of Kabul took his own life in 1001 when he had not been capable of protecting his people against the muslim-invaders. He made a pyre, climbed it and set fire to it himself.
...
<span style='color:purple'>Judgement of sati</span>
Around 1800, about thirty years before the British administrator Lord Bentinck issued a ban on sati in Bengal, the hindu governments in some princely states had already issued orders to discourage sati, in particular the Maratha government in Sawantwadi and the Brahman government in Pune. With this, they concretised the anti-sati policy of the Maratha-queen Ahalyabai who passed away in 1795. Even within the hindu tradition there has been, at least since Medhatithiâs commentary on the Manu-Smriti (900 A.D.?), always a stream that rejected sati. The sjaktic or tantric stream was very explicit in this. The Mahanirvanatantra says: âThe woman who in her delusion climbs the pyre of her husband, shall go to hell.â (This sentence itself has however made the philologists suspect that this text was written or was completed around 1800, when sati had become a hot point of discussion.)
The reason for rejecting the sati is mainly that a woman, in the middle of the crisis which her husbandâs passing after all represents, hardly has a dayâs time to think over such a grave decision. A monk who on his old day decides to refuse food, has had a whole life of developing a stance of equanimity and non-attachment. His decision does not happen hastily or under emotional pressure.
....
It is completely logical that sati was not general practice on one hand, and yet on the other was still completely accepted in the case of the martial castes, especially the Rajputs. With the lower castes, a widow could in every respect remarry, among the brahmans continuing to live on alone as a female ascetic conformed with the ascetic caste-ethos, but with the martial castes it was passion and heroism that counted as pre-eminently honourable. That sati was considered as the appointed way for some and not for others, conformed with the hindu-pluralism, that posits that everyone has their own duty or code of honour (swadharma), corresponding to the their own talent/ability (swabhava).
...
Even without blowing new life into sati as a practice, people can from within the modern culture bring up a more honest recognition of the historic truth about sati ....
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Note: in Dutch, there is no "sh" except in words of foreign origin that have entered the language. This appears to be why Shiva etc. has been phonetically spelled with "Sj" in the original article - for the benefit of the (Dutch) readers. The translator seems not to have corrected this in the translation. Or perhaps he is unaware of how Shiva is written in English.
Miscellaneous Topics on Indian History - Guest - 01-25-2006
Guys
I have moved all recent posts. If I made any error pls let me know. I have not been following this closely so might know the context etc.
Miscellaneous Topics on Indian History - Guest - 01-25-2006
tyvm.
the post just previous to your above post needs to be moved, and post number 7 (sherlock holmes) in the "netaji" thread, needs to be send back here or deleted.
Miscellaneous Topics on Indian History - ramana - 01-31-2006
I think it is useful to gain familiarity with this paper
Dying for the Dead: Sati in Universal Context- J. Fisch
Miscellaneous Topics on Indian History - Guest - 02-05-2006
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Scholars see Telugu, Mesopotamia link
Karimnagar, Feb. 4: Hurt by the Centre's refusal to grant ancient language status to Telugu, renowned scholars and historians have presented new evidence to prove that the language is at least 4,000 years old. The overlooked historical nuggets brought out by scholars would give added strength to the agitation by literary organisations and political parties to achieve ancient language status for Telugu.
Both Tamil and Sanskrit had recently been conferred ancient language status by the Union government. Apparently realising that this had hurt people's pride, the State government has decided to collect all relevant manuscripts to stake a similar claim for Telugu. Historians and literary scholars have made the government's job easier by drawing attention to forgotten facts that prove the long history of the language.
Though conventionally Telugu is supposed to date back to the 11th century AD, scholars say that there is enough evidence to prove that it is thousands of years old. <b>Dr Sanganabatla Narsaiah, noted scholar and principal of the Government Oriental Degree College in Dharmapuri, points out that clay tablets belonging to 700 BC excavated from Mesopotamia (now in Iran and Iraq) contained traces of the primitive form of Telugu words. </b>
"Experts like Edward Thomas had established the link between Dravidian, Brahmi and Cuneiform scripts," he said. "Prof. James Edgar Swain had traced the trade ties that flourished between the Telmun region in India and the Babylonian and Assyrian kingdoms in Mesopotamia region since 300 BC."Â Â Sumerians claimed to be Telimans who had migrated from the Telivaha river banks. References made in the Buddhist epic Sheravaniya about Telivaha river lend credence to the belief that the river was Godavari.
"This proves that Telimans hailed from the region spread along the Godavari river in the Telugu heartland," he said. Excavations at Ur city in Mesopotamia and discovery of primitive Telugu words such as Abba, Ser and Aqqu in the cuneiform tablets corroborated this theory.
The Telimans who migrated from the Godavari belt carried with them another Dravidian language, Brahui. The language, similar to Telugu, is prevalent among migrant communities in the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan, he said.
Similarity of megalithic graveyards unearthed during excavations at Markuk of Manjeera valley with burial sites discovered at Kirkuk in Iraq substantiated the fact that Sumerians hailed from "Telugu land" and the language spread overseas thousands of years ago, he contended.
According to scholars, the criterion adopted by the Centre in granting the status was unfair. Instead of depending on manuscripts alone, the government should take a more comprehensive view, they feel.
Telangana Writer's Forum District President D. Narahari Acharya said that the Centre should also peruse ancient inscriptions found at at Godisala, Sanigaram and other places which gave valuable information on the evolution of Telugu script. Meanwhile, the Telugu Desam is also planning to spearhead a movement to achieve ancient language status for Telugu.
http://deccan.com/home/homedetails.asp#Sch...opotamia%20link
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Miscellaneous Topics on Indian History - Guest - 02-05-2006
how come dravidian languages have a connection with you-name-it??
from finno ugric, to japanese, to egyptian, to austronesian, to phoenician to mesopotamian ??
Miscellaneous Topics on Indian History - acharya - 02-13-2006
http://www.despardes.com/articles/feb06/20...ublic-india.asp
Feb. 12, 2006 Des Pardes
`Islamic Republic of India´ By Aftab Alam
All the narcissism the Bharat has been bragging thereon has mostly been Indian Muslims heritage. Right from their legendary drummer, namely, Allah Rakha Khan to the architect of her missile program, Abdul Kalam Khan, including the overwhelming number of the most celebrated Poets, Writers, Historians, Geographers, Architectures, sport stars, film Stars, Musicians, Singers have been Muslim. Similarly all their world fame fascinating architectural monuments have been brought about by Indian Muslims. So much so that Hindus do not have the name for their own country - they have swindled us of our name "India" - which had been ours exclusively.
Indian Muslims on either side of the border have never been 'Pakistanis' and Hindus on either side of the border have never been 'Indians' - We have been 'Indian Muslims' throughout and they have been 'Bharati Hindus' throughout.
Similarly Indian Muslims have never ever named their homeland as Pakistan during their 1000-year rule - and 'Bharati Hindus' have never ever named their homeland as India, before the Muslims rule.
During the entire Muslims Era, we the Indian Muslims had always named our country as 'Hindustan' or 'Hind' as a nickname, in the local languages and 'India' in the western languages, before the great divide. Similarly Bharati-Hindus have always named their country as Bharat even after the partition, in Hindi language - and still today their official name in their constitution is Bharat. Bharat has never ever been 'India' - and 'India' has never ever been 'Bharat' before the partition.
The name 'India' therefore has nothing to do with 'Bharat,' 'Hinduism' or 'Hindus.' Bharati-Hindus have, like so many other symbols of our highly prestigious heritage and of our great pride, plagiarized, stealthily and slyly - and have been committing the most serious and grievous misnomer in regard of her name. 'Bharati Hindus' always keep their real face, trick and task cloaked, for their 'realities' look much ominous and injurious. So simply for this reasons they have displayed, our owned name, 'India' - and have sent their real name, 'Bharat' in the background, for they know that they can neither throw away their real name 'Bharat' nor they can escape there from so openly - hence by applying their traditional duplicity, they resorted to display the stolen name 'India' on the forefront and kept their real name 'Bharat' dormant, hidden and behind. Their real name has been Bharat throughout - even in the period far before than Ashoka the Great, which falls far before the Christ - while a well known Rajah namely, Rajah Bharata (or Rajah Bherath), according to "Puranas" had united some seven regions (or continents) in the north of the now Bharat and was reigning thereupon with great pomp and show. The name of that very regions (or continents), much less than the now Bharat (being somewhat peninsular) was 'Jambu Dvipa' - and hence after the death of the aforementioned Rajah Bharata (or Rajah Bharat), the Hindus used to call the land as 'Bharth Varsh' or Bharatavarsha (i.e. land of the Bharata). In this way the present name of 'Bharat' is the corruption of 'Bharata' (or Bherath).
I quote the exact words of the famous researcher, Sri Swami Sivananda from his book 'All about Hinduism' as below:
"The classical name for India which is used in Sanskrit literature is Bharata -Varsha or Bharata-Khanda, after the name of Bharata who ruled over a large extent of territory in days of yore. Manus name for the whole central region between the Himalayas and the Vindhya mountains is Aryavarta, Abode of the Aryans. Another name for the whole of India is Jambu-Dvipa. The Greeks gave the name Indu to the whole of this country. It was on account of this India became popular as the name of this country throughout Europe".
Renowned Professor C.R. Mishra notes in his valuable research work; 'Comprehensive History and Culture of Orissa' that Bharata did not originally denote India: "Bharatavarsha, here is used in a general sense denoting the regions of northern India " (P: 121). Elaborating this, he states that Bharata is mentioned for the first time in the Hatigumpha inscription and that it denoted only a part of North India - " In the epigraphic records of ancient India, the name `Bharatavarsha' is mentioned for the first time in the Hatigumpha inscription. But the name denoted North India at that time." (C.R. Mishra, `Kharavela and His Times', P: 130, N:
79).
And it is for this reason that their ultra religious and orthodox political pundits have named their most rabid pack as 'Bharatya Janata Party' (BJP) - the name of one of their religious book is also "Mahabharata" a long poem narrating the long fight between Kurus and Pandus, the two clans of Bharata family. And Hindus have also been calling their country as 'Bharat Mata' ( i.e. Mother Bharat). And now they have named their first ever so called spaceship as "Bharateena".
The Muslims have ruled exclusively, the whole Indian sub continent for round about 1000 years - if the name 'India' had any link with 'Hinduism' or Hindus, the Muslim powerful rulers, particularly the emperor Aurang Zeb Alamgeer would have consigned it to the dustbin of the history. They have grabbed our exclusively owned entity and property, the name 'India' - as they have grabbed Junagadh, Hyderabad Deccan, Siachin, Kargil and Kashmir.
How they did it, I borrow the quotation from the famous book, 'Freedom at Midnight' of the two renowned co-authors, Mr. Larry Collins & Mr. Dominique
Lapierre:
"AT THE OUTSET CONGRESS CLAIMED THE MOST PRECIOUS ASSET OF ALL, THE NAME "INDIA". REJECTING PROPOSAL TO NAME THEIR NEW DOMINION "HINDUSTAN", CONGRESS INSISTED THAT SINCE PAKISTAN WAS SECEDING, THE NAME INDIA AND INDIA'S IDENTITY IN GROUPS LIKE U.N. REMAIN THEIRS".
Now let us trace the base of the name 'India'. There is no denying the fact that the Greek word 'Indos' and the Latin word 'Indus' have been the ancient names of the mighty River, 'Sindh' (i.e. Indus) respectively - and the 'Sindhus' as well as India have been derived from the words 'Sindh' and 'Indus' respectively. One of the world's most ancient civilizations has been the 'Indus Valley Civilization' which came out more than 3230 BC - flourished and cherished in the Indus Valley - and when it perished, after the intrusion of the Aryan settlers - it was buried also in its nativity.
Thus the Indus Valley Civilization was also native of the Indus Valley. And ergo it also derived its name from the very river, 'Sindh, (i.e. Indus) - whose Greek and Latin names were/are pronounced as 'Indos' and 'Indus' - and so that ancient most civilization is remembered in the history, as "Indus Valley Civilization" - though it had the most 'contemporary' features.
Its main 'Mausoleums,' the largest sites with citadels, have also been discovered in Pakistan; 'Moenjo-Daro' on the lower Indus plain in the South at Larkana District - 'Chanhu Daro' in Nawabshah District, (in Sindh
Province) - 'Harappa' on the upper Indus plain in the north, at Sahiwal (in Punjab province) â 'Shahi Tump' in the valley of Kej (Mekran) in the Baloch territory and 'Judeiro Daro' in the Pathan region of Balochistan.
Now let us go back a little more in time. The intrusion of the Aryans started in waves after waves in about 3000 BC, and continued for about 1000 years - those Aryans were not a single tribe or race but they were comprised of an assortment of tribes from the Central Asia. So in first instance, those Aryans settled in the upper part of the mighty river; 'Sindh/Indus'
namely, 'Sindh Valley' or 'Indus Valley' - which were then known as 'Saptasindhva' or 'Sapta Sindhus' meaning, land of the seven rivers (i.e.
Sutlaj, Bias, Ravi, Chenab, Jehlum, Sindh and the now extinct river Saraswati).
Celebrated writer, Bode Roy Punjabi quoting the illustrious researcher, Dr.
Abinas Chandra Das writes as under, "The land in which the Vedic Aryans lived is called in Rigveda by the name of Saptasindhva or the land of seven rivers, which includes the Indus or Sindhu with its principal tributaries on the west and the saraswati on the east. The Ganges and the Yamunas have certainly been mentioned once or twice but they have not at all been included in the computation of the seven rivers that gave the country its name."
Bode Roy Punjabi writes in his book, 'Saptasindhva' as under:
"Thus the area now forming Kashmir, the Punjab, the NWFP, Eastern Balochistan and Sind (h) was the area of Aryan Settlement".
Distinguished scholar, A.L. Bhasham writes in his famous Book, 'The Wonder that was India' - "Of the two river systems that of the Indus, now mainly in Pakistan, had the earliest civilization and gave its name to India. The fertile plains of the Punjab watered by the five great tributaries of the Indus had a high culture over two thousand years before Christ, which spread down the lower course of the Indus as far as the sea."
Similar is the account of the eminent research scholar, Sri Swami Sivananda in his research work, 'Origin and Significance of the term Hindu' in the following words:
"That part of the great Aryan race which migrated from Central Asia, through the mountain passes into India, settled first in the districts near the river Sindhu, now called the Indus, on the other side of the river. The Persians pronounced the word Sindhu as Hindu, and named their Aryan brethren Hindus. Hindu is only a corrupt form of Sindhu".
So merely as a common noun from the word "Sapta Sindhus" and simply for the reason of their new common nativity and to denote those Aryan settlers as
whole: they were first called as 'Sindhus' and 'Sindhi' in some of the local and eastern languages. And exactly for the same reason and as a common noun from the word 'Indus' they were called as Indians in most of the western languages. Thus none of those Aryans was neither Hindu nor that was possible, for Hinduism was not yet handcrafted.
Similarly the heartland of the Indus Valley Civilization, making a part of Pakistan is called even today as Sindh (i.e. Sindh Province) and its natives as 'Sindhi' because of the river 'Sindh/Indus' - exactly as natives of Punjab (i.e. land of five rivers) are called Punjabis, as a common noun.
Now how the erstwhile common noun 'Sindhus' transmuted subsequently into the
'Hindus'- the proper noun - that implied subsequently, one pertained to Hinduism. Or to simplify this question a little more, how the then simple common noun 'Sindhus' from the word 'Sindh', corrupted into 'Hindus,' the complicated noun - which turned into as a certain creed specific.
In fact the word Hindu has no link whatsoever with the subsequently developed creed, 'Hinduism'. Because the emerge of the word 'Hindu' was far more ancient than the surge of the creed, 'Hinduism'. And as a matter of fact the word 'Hinduism' have been coined far more later (i.e. round about after 2000 years) for the creed of the 'caste-rule' (i.e. Vern Ashram) by the western orientalists - and thus the word 'Hindu' had not been derived from Hinduism, for that could have not been done.
The word Hindu is admittedly a corruption of 'Sindhu' - a native of 'Sindh - Valley' (i.e. Indus - Valley). And today also the local natives of Sindh, in Pakistan, are called Sindhi, as a common noun from the word Sindh; the local name of the river Indus. Actually when the closest neighbors Iranians invaded the India, in about first half of the first BC millennium, they pronounced the word 'Sapta Sindhus' as 'Haft Hindus', for in Persian language the word 'haft' also denotes seven - and as such the word 'Haft-Hindus' is the Persian corruption of 'Sapta Sindhus' the then name of the Sindh Valley or Indus Valley. In this way if the word 'Hindu' is admittedly the corruption of 'Sindhu' - then the word 'Hindi' is obviously the corruption of Sindhi.
And this is the reasons that all Arabs even today call, all the Indian Muslims, including the Pakistanis as 'Hindi' - whereas the believers of caste rule specifically as Hindus - exactly and similarly the whole world call all the natives of India as Indians but the believers of the caste rule (i.e. Hinduism) as Hindus. Even the Hindus do not and cannot dare to use the word Hindu for other than them. The meaning of 'Hindu' and 'Hindi'/'Indian'
are so distinct right from the birth of Vern Ashram that in Arabic language the words 'Hindu' or 'Hindukki' are used simply for the believer of Hinduism
- and its plural has been 'Hindoos' or 'Hanadic' - whereas the plural of the word Hindi (i.e. Indian) has also been clearly distinct as 'Hanud' - from the former plural.
Now let us go a little deeper. Actually after about 2000 years of the Aryans mega migration, round about in 1000 BC, with the passage of time, some of the Aryan Settlers, like other ancient idol worshipers developed a 'sculpture based culture' and as such some of them first attracted to, then converted to and finally adopted that culture as a creed. So those were the circumstances, in about 1000 BC, when the metamorphosis of the 'sculpture based culture' into the Vern Ashram (i.e. Caste Rule) was underway - and the newly debuted 'sculpture based creed' thus started rising up and swelling up in the shape of Vern Ashram. But as yet, no one had ever called that culture or creed as Hinduism - they used to use the word 'Vern Ashram' (i.e. caste
rule) and subsequently 'Sanatan Dharma' (i.e. the Eternal Way) for the newly emerged creed, as evident from their basic most, primitive most and the sacred most, four religious books, the Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-Veda and the Atharva-Veda of Hindus. And it is for the reason of this most primitiveness - that they are also known as childhood of Hinduism.
Thus with the passage of further time, when some more extraordinary distinction in regard of the ethnicity as well as in beliefs, inter-se the Aryan Settlers, developed and protruded, then the common nouns, the 'Aryans'
and the 'Sindhus' or 'Hindus' lost its original sense and were therefore no more meaningful or conclusive, for all the Aryan Settlers did not adopt Vern Ashram (i.e. caste rule) or the sculpture based culture.
Those Aryan Settlers who adopted the sculpture based culture, as his/her creed, were called the 'Hindus' specifically as a proper noun and the rest simply the 'Sindhi'/'Hindi' in the local as well as in the eastern languages and the 'Indians' in the western languages, as a common noun. So one can say that as the 'Hindus' word is the corrupted form of Sindhus - similarly the 'Hindus people' are the corrupted (viz converted) form of some Aryans, who adopted the Vern Ashram (i.e. caste rule) as their creed. Thereafter when the Aryans Settlers spread throughout the whole sub continent, the whole subcontinent was also emerged as 'Barsagheer-Hind' in the eastern languages and as 'Indian subcontinent' in the western languages - and its natives as Hindis/Indians respectively - irrespective of their different religions, creeds and ethnicities, for the words Hindi/Indian simply denoted the native of Hind/India - and had nothing to do with any religion - whereas to denote believers of the 'caste rule' or 'Vern Ashram' the specific word 'Hindus'
was/are used for them, in all the languages of the world.
Exactly as the word "Asians" implies natives of Asia, irrespective of the creed of the Asians. Even today all the natives of India are called Indians but the believers of Islam in Bharat are called the Indian Muslims, the believers of Christianity are called the Indian Christians, and the believers of Sikhism are called the Indian Sikhs and so forth: as I said earlier that Aryans were not a single tribe but were multitude of tribes and were of multi-ethnical origin - hence after the mass exodus when the difference in their credos developed with the passage of time - then the word Hindu turned as creed specific and the word Sindhi/Hindi or Indian kept its originality, as nativity specific.
Actually Hindus never had any specific name for their creed. Now we must ask the question, why the Hindus creed had been nameless right from the beginning? In fact firstly, in the beginning the Hindus creed did not come out as a regular religion - secondly, unlike all other man-made creeds, Hindus never had any founder persona, neither in the sky nor on earth, as a founder of their creed. Hence no one was there to be attributed to their creed. Conversely, the grand spiritual leaders; Gautama Buddha, Confucius, Zoroaster, Lao zi (Lao Tzu) , Nataputta Mahavira, Joseph Smith, Guru Nanak Sahib, have been the Founder Personas of Buddhism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Jainism, Mormonism, Sikhism respectively.
Actually in the start the creed 'Vern Ashram' was simply a jumble of some rituals of the assorted peoples, in the shape of a culture. Subsequently and gradually it transformed into a larger blend of the available respective cultures, pertaining to the host of Aryan Settlers along with the host of the local Dravidians - which was emerged subsequently as Vedic Civilization, solely based on the Vern Ashram (i.e. the caste rule). And as such it was their native name Hindu, wherefrom the name of their creed was coined after about more than two millenniums of the surge of the creed.
A renowned Hindu scholar, Nirad C. Choudhry writes in his book, "The Continent of Circe":
"I am surprised to find how many people even among those who are well-educated think that we are Hindus because we have a religion called Hinduism and that word is comparable to 'Christian' or 'Muslim'. It had no such association for the Hindus or for their neighbors in former times. This crept in when Modern European Orientalists began to study the religions of India. They found that the Hindus had no other name for the whole complex of their religious feelings, beliefs and practices except the phrase 'Sanatan Dharma or the Eternal Way. They did not have even a word of their own for religion in European sense; and so the Orientalists coined the word Hinduism to describe that complex of religion. Actually we Hindus are not Hindus because we follow a religion called or understood as Hinduism; our religion has been given the very imprecise label 'Hinduism' because it is the jumble of the creeds and rites of a people known as Hindus after their country. On this analogy the Greek religion might be called Hellenism and Graecism".
Another renowned Hindu scholar, Pundit Shiv Kishan Kaul writes in his book, 'Wakes up Hindus':
"The word Hinduism derived from Hindu, a Corruption of Sindhu. The Punjab in Vedic times was called Sapta Sindhu (The land of seven rivers). This was pronounced by Iranians as, Haft Hindu and so the inhabitants of the Punjab came to be called Hindus by Muslims invaders."
To tell the truth, the Indus River is exclusively a 'Muslim River' (though I use this term as a phrase) -for, which has been as steadfast as a Muslim should have been. In spite of all the hurdles and the unjust divide of our owned India, this mighty, impressive and striking river after forming its identity as such has been flowing throughout in the now Muslim India (i.e.
the Pakistan) - and by hinting towards the destiny it ends its journey at the Arabian Sea, in the Ocean - the Ocean which itself is not only being contributed by the former with fresh water but has also been contributed with an identity and name (i.e. the Indian Ocean) by this splendid and refined river.
The phrase I have used for the Indus River can be judged not only from its nativity but also from its originality, openheartedness, cleanliness and candidness. This superb River has also given identity to many other entities, nations and regions, so openly - and none of them has any nexus whatsoever with Hinduism. For instance,
Indian Ocean: the ocean wherein the mighty river, Indus is emptied and has been swimming therein, since the time immemorial.
Indonesia; a Muslim country comprised of nearly 13000 islands, situated in the Indian Ocean.
Indochina; the now Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam etc. - once were comprised of a peninsula called Indochina, for its inhabitants had been or considered to be the cross-breed of Indians and Chinese.
West Indies; the chain of islands, Jamaica, Barbados, Dominica etcetera - which includes about 23 entities, situated in the Caribbean Sea, to the west of the Indian Ocean - given this reason the Indonesia along with Madura and south Borneo were once called East Indies, for they were located in the southeast of the Indian Ocean.
Red Indians; the Native Americans or the aborigines, inhabiting north and South America, they are considered as the Indians who crossed the now Bering Strait (in Atlantic) through the ice-bridge in the ancient ice age of Pleistocene epoch. So the main region of those Red Indians has been given officially, the name and status of 'Indiana State' as the 19th state of the USA. In this regard my reliance is on the following borrowed excerpts from the world class, the world's best selling and amazing Multimedia Encyclopedia; 'ENCARTA.' :-
"The Native Americans of North America are believed to be descendants of the Mongoloids, early hunters and gatherers who migrated from Asia to North America in waves possibly from as early as 30,000 BC. These Stone Age peoples crossed an ice-age land bridge across what is now the Bering Strait during the Pleistocene epoch". Furthermore, "Indiana entered the Union on December 1, 1816, as the 19th state. Three 19th-century US presidentsâWilliam Henry Harrison, his grandson Benjamin Harrison, and Abraham Lincolnâlived in Indiana for substantial periods.
Manufacturing became the chief economic activity in the early 20th century, but at the start of the 1990s the state was also a major producer of farm commodities, especially corn, soya beans, and pigs. The state's name, which refers to Native Americans ("Indians"), was coined in the 1760s and applied to a private tract of land in Pennsylvania; the name was officially adopted when Indiana Territory was formed in 1800. Indiana is known as the "Hoosier State". Its major cities are Indianapolis (the capital), Fort Wayne, Evansville, Gary, South Bend, and Hammond".
I also reproduce the opinions of the world-renowned geographer, Hecataeus
(550-476) of Miletus, an ancient Greek city of Ionia, on the west coast of Asia Minor (part of modern Turkey) - and of the world-renowned historian, Herodotus (484-425 BC), considered as "father of history" - in the following borrowed words:
'India was the country in the neighborhood of river Indus and this was the ultimate country on the face of the earth. Beyond this lay the "Deserta Incognita" unknown desert or "Marusthali" (i.e. place of death).
It shows that the now Pakistan was India and not the now Bharat.
When it is an established fact that Hind/India have been derived from the grand river Sindh/Indus - now even in the NWFP & northern regions of Pakistan, the name of this river has been 'Aba Sin (viz Aba Sindh) - meaning, father of rivers - then this name is exclusively our entity and property and hence amongst other prides, this also must be our sanctity and identity, not of others who has no right whatsoever upon it - and we alone have the right to snatch it back - and rename our country as 'Islamic Republic Of India' (viz Islami Jamhoria Hind)- or 'Muslim India' to be more appropriate.
The reasons for this urge and drive are very compelling and pressing, for
instance:
1.The foremost and the prime question has been that what is the nationality and what is our nationality? In my view every live nationality, in this world has two inescapable ingredients, the soul (i.e. the religion or I call it the religion nationality) and the body (i.e. the region - or I call it the regional nationality or identity or the nativity) - as these have been inevitable for a living being. The soul can't stay without corporeal body and a corporeal body can't move without soul - both have been concomitant inter se inexorably. The nationality shall be not robust if it lacks either the soul (i.e. the religion or religion nationality) or body (i.e. the region - or the regional nationality or identity). Religion has been optional, hence can be chosen and be changed any time - but nativity has been non-optional, hence can neither be picked out, nor can be replaced.
This is why that after embracing Islam, the soul or nucleus of nationality of the Arabs, Persian and Turks and many others, changed forthwith - and they all became Muslims - but so far their nativities or regional identities were concerned all of them have been intact and will be intact - hence they are the Arab Muslims, the Persian Muslims, the Turks Muslims and so forth.
So much so that the renowned Companions of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAW), Bilal (RA) has been Bilal Habshi, (RA) - (i.e. Bilal the Ethiopian, RA), Salman (RA) has been Salman Farsi (RA) - (i.e. Salman the Persian, RA), Suhaib (RA) has been Suhaib Rumi (RA) - (i.e. Suhaib the Roman, RA) - and one of the Ummahat-ul-Mu'mineen (RA), namely, Omul Mu'mineen, Maria (RA), Mother of Ibrahim (RA), the Prophet Mohammad's son, has been 'Maria Qibthiya' (i.e. Maria the Egyptian, RA) - and Malka of Saba, (also as Sheba) AS (i.e. Sabaean Queen, AS) has been 'Malka Saba,' AS (Queen of Saba) - even after they all embraced Islam. As such the 'Muslim Millat' or Muslim Ummah ( i.e. The Muslim Grand Nation) has been composed of Arab Muslims, Persian Muslims, Turk Muslims, Chinese Muslims, Russian Muslims, Berber Muslims, Tartar Muslims and so much and so forth. And when the reference is to be made to the 'Muslim Grand Nation' â 'Muslim Millat' or 'Muslim Ummah' (viz the universal Muslim Nation) - then the whole world is their 'Grand Nativity'. Because Islam, Qur'an, and the last Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) has not been a race, color, ethnic, region or nation specific but has been universal from the day one - and therefore second ingredient of nationality i.e. nativity for the Muslim Grand Nation shall also be universal, namely the entire world.
Faith specific name, Muslim is common noun; inasmuch region specific name (viz geographic specific name) is proper noun for a Muslim. This is one of the edges the Muslim Nation has got over other nations, for there is no conception of 'Millat' or 'Ummah' in 'them' - because in Muslims the nucleus of their nationalities is the same i.e. Islam - whereas in 'them' both the nuclei as well as the peripheries are different.
In seeking the answer of the question my reliance is on the Holy Qur'an: "O MANKIND! LO! WE HAVE CREATED YOU FROM MALE AND FEMALE - AND HAVE MADE NATIONS - AND TRIBES THAT YE MAY KNOW ONE ANOTHER. LO! THE NOBLEST OF YOU, IN THE SIGHT OF ALLAH, IS THE BEST IN CONDUCT. LO! ALLAH IS KNOWER - AWARE."
(SURAH AL-HUJURAT, 39-13).
By going through and thinking through this Holy Verse along with many others relevant to the subject - what I have gathered, as a petty student of the Holy Qura'n there from is that in classification of the humankind the inter se distinction among the nations has been emphasized more overtly while sorting out the various nations. Ergo the following are the criterions/yardsticks for the classification of the mankind:
A- Humanity; humanity has been used as the first criterion or the yardstick to distinguish the human race from all other beings, as evident from the addressee as well as from the discloser of the commonality of their ascendant, in the Holy Verse. And as such it has been established, firstly; that as human beings we all are one and the same entity - and secondly; that human being is second to none vis-Ã -vis other beings.
B- Loyalty to a faith; now to define and distinguish the humankind inter se, faith has been used as the second criterion or yardstick - and thus the believers of Islam has been declared as the "Muslims" - whereas the believers of Judaism are called Yehuda i.e. Jews - the believers of Christianity are called Nasara or Nazareth or Christians - and so forth were the nations of Aad, Thamud and Sab-i-een accordingly in the ancient periods.
C- Identity or Nativity; But as obvious from the day one that the humankind at variance in religions are found all over the world at variance in regions or nativities - so solely on the basis of the loyalty towards a particular religion without giving reference to the respective region or nativity, the inter se distinction could have neither been made in Muslims nor in the believers of other religions. Hence due to this reason, in the aforementioned Holy Verse as I have been referring to, the most emphasis has been given on the inter se distinction of the various nations and tribes.
Now so for the tribes are concerned even in them the inter se distinction cannot be established without giving reference to the respective progenitor or nativity thereto. Hence in the same way, nations of same belief all over the world could not be distinguished without giving reference to the respective region or nativity. And thus it is for this reason that the words nations and tribes have been used in plural, in the Holy Verse, which signifies that nations as well as the tribes have been more than one. Thus to distinguish the Muslims inter se as well as the Non-Muslims, the respective religion along with the respective region (i.e. regional identity or nativity) has to be used inevitably to consolidate the definition as well as the distinction of various Muslim nations as well as the Non-Muslims all over the world, for the foremost purpose of the aforementioned Holy Revelation has been stated as "THAT YE MAY KNOW ONE ANOTHER". To stress a little more I mean to submit that neither alone a 'religion' could be made the sole basis for a living and a distinctive nationality - and nor alone the 'regional identity' or nativity. And ergo both the definitions of nationality unleashed by the two most celebrated and great scholars, at the juncture of formation of this country; one on the sole basis of religion and the second on the lone basis of region (i.e. regional identity or nativity) with due respect were suffering extremely from extremism. Thus in my opinion both the religion as well as the region (i.e. nativity) has been as vital for a living and a distinctive nationality, as a nucleus and its periphery have been vital for a viable atom. And it is due to this cause that even today the people of Germany, America, United Kingdom, France, Sweden, and Russia etc are as different nations simply on account of their different nativities - as the Buddhists, Sikhs and Chinese have been, on account of their difference in religions as well as in nativities.
Now the next part of my question is what is our nationality?
1. In our case too of course Islam has been the Soul or Nucleus of our nationality and the 'Indian' nativity or 'regional identity' has been the natural body or the natural periphery of our nationality. We could choose the religion of our choice, that we have done well, but we can neither choose the nativity nor substitute, for that is not a matter of choice or substitution - it is always granted - and we have been bestowed upon, the 'Indian' nativity or Indian identity - the original most, the natural most, the ancient most, the magnificent most and the elegant most. We have been Muslims by religion and Indian by region/nativity. As such we have been 'Indian Muslims' - as others are Arab Muslims, Persian Muslims, Turks Muslims. Chinese Muslims, Russian Muslims, Tajak Muslims, Uzbek Muslims, Kazakh Muslims, Indonesian Muslims, Maldivian Muslims, Sri-Lankan Muslims, Moroccans Muslims, Bosnian Muslims, Albanian Muslims and so on. And if all the Muslim nations, the world over have retained and have been retaining their respective nativity/identity, they have had long before embracing Islam - why we the Muslims of this subcontinent could not retain ours?
Whereas in fact our nativity has been ours exclusively and has been more original and natural, as compared to others. But the funny thing has been that we were staunch and sturdy 'Indian Muslims' at 12.00 midnight, on August 13, 1947 and before - but a little after 12.01 AM, August 14, 1947, all of a sudden we became Pakistani Muslims - altogether a new brand and breed. And as such we stunned and shunned all the pride we had been the custodians thereto, for around one millennium. This is an unprecedented national tragedy and a comedy simultaneously.
2. Every live nationality in the world has been comprised of a nucleus (i.e.
the religion) and the periphery (i.e. the identity/nativity). Hence we observe that there have been, Arab Christians, American Christens, Russian Christians, Bharati Christians and so forth.
3. The secular Turkey (or say with the feeble soul of religion) can survive easily but the most religious Chechnya and the Palestine (without the control of their respective regions) could not - or survive hardly.
<b>
4.We as Indian Muslims had no free homeland after fall of the Muslim Indian Empire and before the freedom - but yet we were a formidable nation, as 'Indian Muslims' and as such we had retained our identity and nationality, though we were in search of free homeland desperately. But the amusing thing is that the moment we seized a marvelous homeland - we left behind our 'religion nationality' as well as 'regional identity' and lost. And hence before the freedom we were in search of a homeland: but after the freedom, our homeland has been in the search of her nation. Simply because of the simulated and childish replacement of our natural nativity - and this is why, still we are bewildering in the search of identity and nationality.
5. By fabricating and calling ourselves as Pakistani Muslims, instead of Indian Muslims, we severed and cut off the root of the two-nation theory on one hand and admitted the 'Bharati Hindus' as 'Indian Hindus' and the left over Muslims i.e. the 'Indian Muslims' as Bharati Muslims, in Bharat, on the other.
6. As Indian Muslims we had played the most dominant, commanding and vital role as an impressive nation in the world history - but simply because of the concoction and impersonation in respect of our nationality, no one knows even today, what is Pakistan and who are Pakistanis? And all the historical pride belonging to the word India was bequeathed to the stingy Hindus, our bloodthirsty archenemy.
7.The word, Pakistan had never ever been a civilization, a culture, a creed or even a city, let alone a country.</b>
8.The word, Pakistan has no real historical meaning and had never ever been a word or entity that had been written or entered in any dictionary or encyclopedia in any part of the world.
9.All the Muslims on either side of the border admit with pride that they have been the Indian Muslims but none of them could understand to admit with pride that how they became Pakistani Muslims and the left behind Muslim brethren as Indian Muslims, hence an identity perplexes developed - and so due to the absence of natural nativity, the artificial locality has been contrived, retrieved and erected instead.
10.The word 'Pakistan' has been as alien for us as it has been for the rest of the world, hence some intentionally while others unintentionally pronounce it incorrectly - very important leaders even pronounce the 'Pakistanis' as the "Pakis" internationally, which is a nude slang.
11.The Bharati Hindus and the Zionists Jews in particular, because of their old roguish habits, have been mispronouncing it in a more offending way as "phukis" and as such throughout the internet they have been using the slang "pakis" as nickname for Pakistanis. Both the Hindus and Jews have the old genetic nexus and hence both have been the 'higher-ranking' slangy twins.
Hence once the Almighty Allah had to intervene when the elderly slangy Jews, by giving extra stress and strain malafidely to the word "Ra'ina" (i.e.
Listen to us) - while talking to the Prophet Mohammad (SAW), used to mispronounce the same as "Ra'aina" which was a slang - hence the Almighty Allah commanded the believers forthwith in these words; "o ye who believe, say not (unto the prophet): "listen to us" (ra'ina) but say look upon us"
(viz unzurna). (Surah Al-Baqarah 2-104). Thus one can gauge how much has been the offensive effect of the mispronounced words?
12.The Hindus were in a high dilemma about the name of the left over country, Bharat, at the time of partition - but it was the late Choudhry Rehmat Ali who answered their dilemma within no time on one hand and created a hitch for us on the other.
13.No one including Choudhry Rehmat Ali has/had the right to propose a name for the nation simply for entertainment and amusement - like a big Choudhry use to propose a name for the newly born baby in their outcaste, in 'pind'
(village) - they call them, 'kami kamin (i.e. base-born persons), as 'nathu'
or 'khairi'.
14.China, Germany, Korea, Yemen and many others have been mangled for centuries but yet none of the part has ever deserted its nativity.
15.Others introduce themselves by disclosing their nationality whereas we confuse others by disclosing ours (viz Pakistanis).
16.Many in us skip even today by saying that nothing lies there in the name
- and that a flower be a flower and a filth be a filth regardless of name - but it lacks any temptation for sanity to be subscribed thereto, for they do forget that it is always a certain name that sprouts the sense of the essence in the first instance - and this is why that name of a certain flower spring forth its pleasant fragrance in the first instance. A goodwill name does not come by overnight - it takes centuries and years that a goodwill name is established and recognized. And here I raise a simple question; can the names of flower and filth can be bartered inter-se?
17.The oneness of Allah Almighty is beyond doubt - but similarly His 99 names, He has preferred for Himself are also beyond question - this is enough to unfold the importance of name.
18.The Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAW) had always preferred to hide even his severe miseries but He (SAW) could not do so while He (SAW) was embarking upon the Hijrah (viz emigration) in 622 AD from 'Mecca the Magnificent' to 'Medina the Luminous'. His aching words even today can cause drooping. While leaving for 'Medina the Luminous' He (SAW) remarked in the throbbing words:
"O Mecca, I swear by Allah that you are the loveliest to me in the whole world and similar are you before Allah as well - had your natives not compelled me I would have not left you ever"
19.Religion has been the best rope to be tied with and to keep tight and unite a nation of course but still even a wise woodcutter never ties the bundle of the wood with a single rope, he usually apply three ropes, lest the one let loose, in the intricate journey.
20.Religion has been the greatest integrating force indeed but its fire (i.e.
warmth and excitement) needs constant fanning by a very fabulous, extraordinary and legendary pious leader - who does not come into being so frequently but rather very very rarely - whereas so far nativity is concerned, it has been self fanning and self fueling all the time, like the jungle fire.
21.Religion always needs nice and virtuous people to keep them blended together - but in case of nativity, even the beasts have been the most loyal and devoted followers. You may throw away a cat for hundred times but it will never leave her native home.
22.Every living being has been granted with two legs at least, no one, if normal has ever been seen as a single footed, for no one can stay at a single foot, like a Hindu jogi (i.e. Hindu ascetic) for longer - so how a nation could stay on a single foot for so longer, particularly when the nation has been surrounded by, with a little exception (i.e. of China, Sri
Lanka) - the evil most neighbors, which have been pushing the nation right from the very beginning. So this was one of the reasons due to which our country was dismembered by the over time pushing neighbor, the bulky and Brahman Bharat, which herself has been fastened foxily, simply with the rope of 'nativity' we left behind.
23.It was the region and not the religion who outfitted the poor Vietnamese to fight for 10 long years against the ruthless US Empire and put down their 30 million human heads, 15 % of its total population in the ordeal of Vietnam War.
24.Two nations at variance in religion can live with peace, provided none of them breaches the region of the other e.g. Egypt & Israel, Pakistan & China
- Iran & Bharat - Bangladesh & Bharat - but they can't live in peace if any one of them breaches the region of the other, despite the similarity in their religions - e.g. Turkey & Kurds - Iran & Kurds â Iraq & Kurds.
25.Religion has been but not always a strong source of convergence - some time it become the source of divergence, when it falls in the hands of illiterate fanatics, hence a nation must be always kept tied with the second rope viz nativity too, for none can leak out there from.
26.Muslims clerics have been successful to split up the Muslims nationhood even within a country by sowing the seeds of petty religious discrepancies amongst them - but has not been successful thus far to split up the nativity. For instance: Iranians Muslims have been bisected insofar as their religion (given the myth of Sunni & Shiite sects) is concerned - but none, including the vocal clerics have thus far been successful to move them a little from their nativity - the regional identity viz Iran. Thus they may be divergent in terms of outfits but convergent in terms of nativity. The same dismal is the case of nearly every Muslim state.
27.To re-catch, reclaim the image and maintain the lineage with the past glory it is the only way out to rename our country with reference to the context.
Now the mind haunting question, I know is; how I exclude the Hindus from the Indian nativity?
The reasons are so many but to cut short, I submit a few:
They have never ever named their country India before, even before the Christ and before Ashoka the Great.
Even today they believe the Indian Subcontinent as 'Bhartavarsha' right from the demise of their Rajah Bharata, far more before the Christ, so they must not be bashful to follow their belief.
In their constitution their official name has been Bharat, right from the beginning and never India so they must not feel embarrassed to follow their constitution.
The English translation for Bharat has never been India so they have no right to play with the syntax of an international language.
If they like antiquity then they should replace their country name by the oldest one viz 'Jambu Dvipa'.
The name "Hindustan" is purely a Persian word and the name "India" is purely its English version - and none of them has anything to do with Sanskrit at least - the suffix "stan" has always been used exclusively by Muslims as suffix with the names of Muslim countries, e.g. Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Daghistan, Kirghizistan, Afghanistan and hence were used by Muslims as well their rulers in the case of India during the 1000 years Muslim rule.
The same is the case of so many Provinces in Muslim countries: Balochistan, Waziristan, Tabristan Gharjistan, Khozistan, Arministan, Nooristan, Sajistan etc. Whereas both, the original name "Bharata" and its corruption the now "Bharat" have had its origin from Sanskrit.
They have neither any share in, nor any regard for the river Sindh/Indus - rather they have been jealous and envious towards it, hence they have no right to get share and regard there from.
Their own Hindu and the most sacred rivers have been 'Brahmaputra' (son of Brahma in Sanskrit) - (or Yarlung Zangbo) & her son rivers, the Ganges and Yamunas; hence they should borrow a name there from, if they like their own rivers.
Hindus have been 99% in Nepal but they have never claimed the name India, for they know that they or their creed have no connection whatsoever, with the India or Indian nativity - and they have been proud of their own nativity namely, 'Nepalese' - which further cements the fact that Hindus, have nothing to do with the word India. *(The End)*
*Bibliography:*
1-'Tafheem-ul-Qur'an' by Maulana Sayyed Abul Aala Maududi
2- 'Tadabur-ul-Qur'an' by Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi
3- Tarjumamul-Qur'an by Maulana Azad
4- 'Massla Qoumiyat' by Maulana Sayyed Abul Aala Maududi
5- 'Kharavela and His Times' by C.R. Mishra 6-'Freedom at Midnight' by co-authors, Mr. Larry Collins & Mr. Dominique Lapierre
7- 'Saptasindhva' by Bode Roy Punjabi
8-'The Wonder that was India' by A.L. Bhasham 9-'The Continent of Circe' by Nirad C. Choudhry
10- 'Wakes up Hindus' by Pundit Shiv Kishan Kaul 11-'Indian Muslims - A political History' by Ram Gopal 12-'Evolution of NWFP' by Rai Bahadur DIWAN CHAND OBHRAI 13-'Dimension of Pakistan Movement' by Professor Mohammad Munawar 14-'The Emergence of Pakistan' by Choudhry Mohammad Ali 15-'India wins Freedom' by Maulana Azad
16- 'The Indian Musalmans' by W. W. Hunter 17-'Pathway to Pakistan' by Choudhry Qaliquzzaman 18-'The Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent' by Ishtiaq Qureshi
19- 'The Great Dived' by HV Hodson
20- 'Ancient India' by RC Dutt
21- 'The Meaning of Pakistan' by Sheikh Mohammad Ashraf
22- 'Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah -The Story of a Nation' by G. Allana
23- 'Hindu â Muslim Question' by Beni Prasad
24- 'The Muslim of British India' by P. Hardy
25- 'The Indus Saga' by Aitzaz Ahsan
26- 'The sacred writings of the world great religions' selected & edited by S. E. Frost, Jr., B.D, Ph.D.
27- 'Naqoosh-e-Iqbal' by Maulana Sayyed Abul Hassan Ali Nadvi 28-'A study of History' by Arnold J. Toynbee 29-'The Oxford History of India' by V A Smith 30-'History of the Ancient World' by Dr.F Korovkin
31- 'Early India & Pakistan to Ashoka' by Sir Mortimor Wheeler 32-'Ancient Pakistan' by Professor Ahmad Hassan Dani
33- 'Tarikh -e- Pak -wa- Hind', published by Talimi Adara Urdu Bazaar Lahore
34- 'Muhsan-e-Insaniyat' by Naeem Sadiqee 35-'Sirat Sarwar-e-Aalam' by Maulana Sayyed Abul Aala Maududi 36-'The Muslim Dilemma in India' by, M.R.A. Baig 37-'The Hindu-Muslim Question' by Professor Beni Prasad
38- 'Muslim Separation in India' by Dr. Abdul Hamid 39-'Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah: The Story of a Nation' by G. Allana
40- 'The meaning of Pakistan' by F.K Khan Durrani 41-'Last Years of British India' by Michael Edward 42-'The Menace of Hindu Imperialism' by Swamy Dharma Theerathaji Mahraj 43-'Know the Hindus, Jews of the Subcontinent' by Mian Amin-ud-Di44Hindustan on the Cross Roads by Professor Balraj Madhok 44-'Caste & Outcaste' by J E Sanjana
45- 'The Muslims of British India' by P. Hardy
46- 'Quaid-i-Azam As I knew Him' by M.A.H. Ispahani 47-'History of the Freedom Movement in India' by Dr. Tara Chand
48- 'Inside Congress' by Swami Shardhananda 49-'Loin Cloth-Laid Bare' by P.K. Dutt 50-'Mother India' by Katherine Mayo
51- 'My Country and My Rulers' by V.K Kulkarni 52-'The Sikh Demand Their Homeland' by Sadhu Swarup Singh 53-'A Warning to the Hindus' by Savitri Devi
54- 'Historical Role of Islam' by M.N. Roy 55-'Hindustan on the Cross Roads' by Professor Balraj Madhok.
56- 'Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan' by S M Ikram.
57-'India, a wounded Civilization' by V S Naipaul.
58-'Nationalities in India Politics' by M S Variranpillai.
59-'India â a Restatement' by Sir Coupland Reginald.
60- 'The Story of Civilization' by Will Durant.
61-'Verdict on India' by Beverly Nichols.
*The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily
reflect those of despardes.com* *Have Your Say
><despardes@optonline.net?subject=`Islamic Republic of India´>
* *Gajendra Singh, India*
Interesting and amusing piece. He (the author) is a good student. *Gary Rice, USA* India is a nation of people long before Moslems invaded. This is so funny because in 1947 the same people that allowed for the Modern Israel, one year later created Pakistan by carving out half of India for the Moslems. *Chappy Happy, India* Bharat is strong and will be strong all the time, you Pakistanis should know by now, how many times you have lost war with us. According to you, Muslims are top brand, they created historical sites, you forgot to add the barbaric acts Muslims commit all the time, Taj Mahal is one example. *William F. & Alice K. Mathews, USA* No comment on the text or politics of the article; just a strong sense that the point about "stan" being a term for Muslim lands is incorrect. It is my understanding that "stan" is old Persian for "Land of", and has no Muslim context; for instance Turks still call Greece "Yunanistan", and Greece is certainly not Muslim.
Miscellaneous Topics on Indian History - Bharatvarsh - 03-23-2006
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Alluri Sita Rama Raju (1897 A.D â 1924 A.D)
http://groups.msn.com/hindu-history/rawarc...564589679105743<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Miscellaneous Topics on Indian History - acharya - 04-03-2006
http://www.dewanand.nl/hindoeisme.htm
http://www.dewanand.nl/kampf61.htm
http://www.dewanand.nl/india.htm
http://www.dewanand.nl/wfor1028.htm
Miscellaneous Topics on Indian History - acharya - 04-14-2006
WRT: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/24215
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/24232
Making comments on history based on school level popular text and then
playing to gallery is a job of politicians. I refuse to be a party! I
posted a gist of analysis on
posting:
24176 (Sirajdoula: clarification from history).
So far I have not seen anybody contested the analysis or posted
anything that contradicts my major claims. So you need to explain
point-by-point where did you find 'pretension' in my posting. If you
fail to do so, it will be proven that you are just playing to the
gallery like a politician.
It is also a myth that history of this period can not be derived
accurately. Several communications between Nawab and French generals
in Chandan Nagar, communications between Krishna Chandra, Jagat seth
brothers, Gaseti Begam, Raj Ballavs, Clive's own communication to East
India company are documented history. If one goes through their
letters, most of the history will be crystal clear. At least I have
not seen any puzzle. So please do not try to mislead !
Second popular myth you want us to digest: British created
communalism among Bengalis which was non-existent before British
period.This is a complete bullshitting and brainwashing of school
childrens.
Communalism among Bengalis can be best understood through
Marxist analysis. Muslims were majority among Bengalis but all the
landlords were Hindues. By mid 19th century, most of the muslims
become landless labor. Endless exploitation by Hindu zamindars of
their muslim subjects become unbearable. Struggle of the landless
against the landlords become inevitable.
However every revolution needs some ideology and leaders. Since
, majority of the oppressed were muslims and oppressors were Hindues,
Wahabi version of Islam suited the need of the time. So Wahabi
character like Titumir was born who called for the freedom of muslim
farmers (Jihad) from the hand of Hindu zamindars and their master
British Govt.So which would have been a glorious class struggle,
unfortunately took the turn of Islamic Jihad. Bengali muslims were
originally follower of sufi version ( which was the biggest reason why
there was no major communal tension in Bengal ) but their conversion
to Wahabi version ( which is
still continuing in Bangladesh) due to exploitation of Hindu zamindars
marked the begining of communualism in Bengal.
Indeed it was clear order from East India company to their
Governor Generals that they should not interfare with the religious
practice of the local people. Lord Bentik was first to break this rule
in 1824 when he declared Satidaha system illegal. He had to write
several letters to company headquarter to convince that British needs
to interfare in this case and that British rulers have responsibility
to civilize local people. " ONE MUST GO THROUGH THESE LETTERS BEFORE
COMMENTING THAT BRITISH WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DIVIDE"
Thanks to Lord Bentik, East India company started introducing
weastern civilization into our culture. His contribution to Bengal,
is much bigger than any Nawab, any king or any ruler of Bengal for
last 2000 years!
However, before Bentik, most of the Governor generals were greedy
generals who took bribes from all the sources and exploited Bengal in
all possible ways.
That is ofcourse, if we agree that we want to analyze history like a
true historian and not like a politician to win cheap popularity.
Nationalist, Islamist, Hindu zealots, pseudosecularists are different
sides of the same dice.
-Biplab
Miscellaneous Topics on Indian History - acharya - 04-14-2006
WRT: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/24170
Some remark :
1) Aleya, as far I know is an imaginary charecter, not based on any
historical facts. Some moviemaker like Khan Ataur Rahaman
established Aleya as a mysterious charecter and well wisher of nabab.
However, in history I did not find any such evidences of aleya.
2) Sirajdullah has been portrayed as "Banglar shesh swadhin Nwabab".
However, you'll be astonished to know shiraj, "Banglar nawab" did not know
Bengali at all.
3) Siraj was no Bangaalee. I did not see any reason for a
Nawab of Turkish origin for being "Anto-praan" for fellow bangalee. He
tried to capture Bangla similar way just as French or Mughal
invaders did. Even though some school "history books" portray French
invaders are good, cause they tried to save our land aligning with
Nawab, from Benia British, i found this interpretation of "saving
Bangla" was funny. British invaders came to this land for the same or simillar
reason Frech, Portuguese, Mughal, Turkish invaders came. Indeed,
eventually it was the British who won and ruled Bangla. But that does
not make french and Mughal invaders as "great", just because they
were loosers. Neither they were the protector of Bengal. In fact, they are as
"evil" as "beniya Engrej".
4) Siraj did extreme cruelty on his countrymen. according
to "Siarul Mutakhkharin" of Golam Hosain, the authentic book
referred to in many books,
"The character of this Nabab was not any better than that of Nero,
the torturous king of Rome. And what says Jinn Law', the French
warrior, who himself tried to save the Nabab ? "His character was
the worstâ¦.famous for womanizing, â¦..everybody knew about his
extreme crueltyâ¦..used to drown the boats in the riverâ¦.with women
and childrenâ¦used to enjoy it sitting on the bankâ¦â¦.." (from Jinn Law's diary).
I wrote one piece 2/3 yrs ago in Bangla "Juktir Aloy Desher Bhab-
murti and deshperm" where I mentioned some facts on Siraj
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/DEASHPREMavijit.pdf
It will be highly appriciated if you or someone comment on this.
Avijit
Why is that? May I ask? Is that just because Bakhtiar Khilji came as an invador from outside? Was Lakshan Sen or Lakshman Sen a Bengali? He was not, they came from Karnatak and Lakshman Sen followed Ballal Sen, who came from Karnataka. Even Raja Adisur was not Bengali either. He brought in 5 Brahmins from Kanyakubja, who as per this logic, could not be Bengali either.
We therefore rightfully consider all those as Bengalis, who have settled down in Bengal and considered this as their own country and did not repatriate profits and wealth elsewhere or went back to retire elsewhere as in "home". IT was the English who first did that.
BTW, those who now harbour the idea of being a "Hindu" here in bengal would do much justice and would make much sense to trace their roots from Puran and other histories. The Brahminical doctrinaire imported in Bengal was the act of first invasion, when the first 5 Brahmins were given Jaigirs at their request and were allowed to marry as many local women as they would wise and would procreate [and not fathering] as many times as they could. All these procreations merely borrowed the surnames and the Kulin stamp, though the surnames are all concocted and the history is redoubtable. Within a few generations the entire Bengal got flooded by these surnames through polygamy of the highest order[ talk about mythical muslim procreation]. This invasion is simply institutionalised rape and if that is considered as sons and daughters of the soil then a history does not need the word "invasion".
The act of "snatching Hindu brides" may not be seen as the sufficient proof of a
communalistic behavior. "Hindu brides" could be attractive for some other
reasons. Mohanlal was his commander-in-chief. He had a mysterious, but very much
human, relationship with Aleya who found a safe solitary shelter in one corner
of his palace. She used to sing "bhajans" from his little corner. No protest
came from any side. True, lack of restraint was a black spot in his character.
That made him unpopular in certain quarters. Conspirators (vested interest
groups irrespective of religious identity ranging from profit seeking "benias"
to the ambitious power hungry army officers) used this loophole in his character
as a capital. The cunning officers of the East India Company extended full
cooperation to these conspirators. He and his comrade Mohanlal tried hard to
defend the freedom of "Bangla, Bihar, Orissa." This "lompot" non-Bengali Nawab
did not compromise. That's a great pride for us. That's a
pride because at least we had a ruler who shed his blood to protect the country
from foreign invasion. Generally, these are all historical facts. We should see
him and his period (we were in there!) from a broad perspective. Loose moral
character of his young life should not eclipse our rational judgement. More
importantly, the myth that has been created over a couple of centuries inspired
us in our struggle for independence at various periods of time. That's a great
asset for us. Why do we throw it away?
-----SC
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/24170
WRT: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/24134
Some Remarks:
Not knowing your own land's history could be a deterrent in one's progress and development towards a positive future. But pretensions of knwing it poses even a greater danger. It allows present day ideologies and communal politics to freely color the history any which way that fits the history-narrator's agenda.
For us Bangalees, the task of retrieving our real history has been rendered most difficult, almost impossible, by several factors. The most immediate hurdle is communalism which in turn was introduced by the British. After a lot of research and study, I realize that the British were oblivious that they were planting the seed of communalism that did not exist in the Indian or Bengali communities in the way THEY thought there must have existed. We simply swallow the European racism and evaluate each other (within our own land and our own race) from their point of view.
Siraj-ud-Dowla is indeed the "shesh swadhin Nawab" of Bengal. The significance of "swadhin" has to be understood in two ways. First, because Alibardi, his grandfather had the enormous courage, guts and intelligence to declare himself the Sultan of Bangla, Bihar and Orissa independent of the fealty to the Imperial Mughal rule of Delhi. There was an economic side, as there is always in all history. He knew his portion of the land was the richest revenue payer of the Empire, and he decided to keep it for the provinces, in the provinces, and not send it out to Delhi.
This was an infuriating action, and Delhi's Imperial wrath at Alibardi's insubordination was unforgiving and inconsolable. It conspired with the Maratha mercenaries to raid Bengal with the "borgi" raids and struck a monetary deal with them. It even gave East India Company the Dewani to collect revenue in Bengal (in 1765). So, it was the desperation of the Mughal Empire of losing Bengal that brought down the woes upon Bengal.
Siraj-ud-Dowla is the last ruler of Bengal who was independent BEFORE a foreign mercantile Company took over by armed force. It was not an "invasion" by any standard of the old rules of the "war" game. There was no such thing as "British invasion" of Bengal. The East India Company simply overthrew a weak government with some hired fire power in order to establish its commercial interests in rich Bengal without the impediment of any established commercial code of behavior.
<b>We should celebrate the demise of the last great ruler of independent, pre-colonial Bengal with all the dignity, pride, and honor it deserves.
</b>
Farida Majid
Siraj-Ud-Doula , as history reveals, was highly
communal. He was fond of snatching Hindu brides
( He snatched beautiful daughter-in-law of Jagat Seth
brothers and tried to abduct daughter of Maharani of
Natore).
Akabar was true secular Muslim empire in India.
So was Maohammad Bin Tughlak. Akbar should be the
icon of secular India not Siraj Ud Dulla, who was
highly communal and a lewed sex maniac.
-Biplab
Miscellaneous Topics on Indian History - ramana - 04-14-2006
PTI reports
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Manuscripts open new vistas of medieval India
New Delhi, Apr 14 (PTI) The medieval Indian manuscripts relating to Tantras, restricted only to its practitioners till now, have been brought into the public domain by the National Manuscripts Mission (NMM).
Of the 12 lakh manuscripts documented by the NMM during the last three years, 50,000 are on Tantras -- giving detailed descriptions of the rituals meant for "satisfying" spirits and supernatural elements.
"These manuscripts are the exact texts of mantra/scripts chanted during the tantric practices prevailing at that time in various parts of the country -- Kaula in Kashmir, Bhairava in western India and Yamala in Central India," says Dilip Kumar Rana, Assistant Mission Director of NMM.
<b>The NNM has found nearly 16 lakh manuscripts across the country. It has also digitalised 40,000 of the 12 lakh documented ones. Written on palm leaves, paper and birchbark, these manuscripts show the traditions, ranging from mythology to magic, music, dance and arts.</b>
<b>"During documentation, NMM found texts of manuscripts relating to various areas like Vedas, Vedantas, tantras, religion, history, philosophy, mythology, medicine, economics, art, drama, yoga and agriculture," reveals Rana.
"We have over one lakh manuscripts on the religous epics like Mahabharata and Ramayana," he adds.
Manuscripts on religious subjects like Smriti, Dana, Abhiseka, Upanayana and Vrata have also been found. Puranas like Buddha Purana, Sthalapurana and Jaina Purana constitute the text of manuscripts documented by the Mission set up by the Culture Ministry. </b>PTI
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If any one recalls there was drive a couple of years to recover manuscripts and digitize them so that they are not lost. Seems that effort was fruitful.
Miscellaneous Topics on Indian History - Guest - 04-16-2006
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>AP search yields epic treasure </b>
http://www.deccan.com/home/homedetails.asp...%20by%20Gujarat
Hyderabad, April 15: A miniature Bhagawad Gita has been discovered at the house of a priest in West Godavari district.<b> It was the month-long National Mission for Manuscripts which brought to light this rare manuscript which was gathering dust in the cupboards of his house. The Gita in Devanagiri script is written on a thin strip of paper, one inch in width and one metre in length. It is at least 250 years old</b>.
It contains all the 18 chapters of the Holy Book, besides illustrations from the Mahabharata including Lord Krishna talking to Arjuna on the battlefield. Many of these illustrations are in colour. âThis is perhaps the smallest Gita in manuscript form,â said Jaidheer Tirumala Rao, director of the Andhra Pradesh Oriental Manuscripts Library and Research Institute. <b> âWe are planning to publish a photocopy of the manuscript and market it as a collectorâs piece.â</b>
The manuscript has been preserved and digitised at the Institute for the benefit of posterity. According to the Limca Book of Records, the smallest Bhagawad Gita in Sanskrit has 169 pages of 2 cm length and 1.7 cm width. This was created by Diploma Engineer A.B. Rajbansh of Himachal Pradesh. The family of Jyostnaben Shah in Bajwada (Gujarat) also possesses a Gita, which is 2.5 cm long and 2 cm wide and just one cm thick. It is 150 years old.
But the manuscript found in the State last month is older, weighs less and is just a single strip of paper. The search for ancient manuscripts in the State also brought to light a very rare copy of the Holy Quran inscribed on deer skin. It is more than 300 years old. Another rare manuscript found was a palm leaf pictorial script on the Ramayana, which dates back to the 17th century.
âWe also came across some interesting artifacts and sculptures,â said Mr Tirumala Rao. âA temple priest from Annavaram had 250 rare manuscripts with him.â More than one lakh manuscripts have been collected so far. In the second phase of the drive, experts will select some of the more priceless manuscripts for preservation.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Miscellaneous Topics on Indian History - Guest - 04-17-2006
This is an interesting paper by David Pingree with lot of original source material. the subject is the explosion of Sanskrit knowledge Materials in the two centuries prior to the arrival of the british. I was not aware that it was a period of noteworthy intellectual ferment. The last contribution to this explosion was in 1750 ce.Coincidentally, the date is in congruence with the start of British domination in India
Miscellaneous Topics on Indian History - Guest - 04-17-2006
Kaushal,
If you check participants and author's of books and article, all are Indic haters. they are from round table.
Miscellaneous Topics on Indian History - dhu - 04-17-2006
hindunet:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Vedic Astronomy of David Pingree
Below is an amusing note on the 'methodology' of David Pingree, whose pronouncements are quoted with approval by numerous Eurocentric Indologists. Bibliographic reference is at the end. The post is an example of how every achievement of ancient India is attributed to an 'external' source or stimulus.
*********
QUOTE
âOne rather disturbing aspect of Pingreeâs method must be pointed out. He first introduces a notion very tentatively as a suggestion. He repeats the same in a number of articles, each time asserting a little more and exaggerating a little more, without a shred of further evidence. Finally, his statement looks like it is based in well established facts. For example, (a) about the concept of tithi: he says in his 1963 article, âit seems likely that the Indians borrowed the concept from Mesopotamia, though the exact origin of tithi still remains obscure.â He repeats in several articles that the Indians borrowed the concept of tithi. Finally, what was âa concept whose origin still remains obscureâ in 1963, becomes in his 1978 article, âtithi, a Mesopotamian conceptâ; (b) about the age of Vedanga Jyotish: in his 1963 article, it was âprobably composed in the fifth century BCâ; in the 1973 article it had changed o âprobably between the fifth and fourth century BCâ, but in the 1978 article it is declared as âfourth century B.C.â; © finally, the Pingree hypothesis that is being refuted in the present paper: it was introduced as a hypothesis in 1963, as just a âplausible guessâ; this hypothesis had changed to the status of a theory in 1973, by what he calls âhypothetical reconstructionâ, with the assertion that âsome elements of
early Indian astronomy being derived from Mesopotamiaâ. The assertion had changed from mere âsome elements of early Indian astronomyâ to the âwhole system of Lagadha being not indigenous to Indiaâ in his 1978 article. What was just a âplausible guessâ arrived at by âhypothetical reconstructionâ has, now-a-days, he declares in every article, âsince most fundamental concepts of astronomy in India can be traced to Mesopotamiaâ¦.â
UNQUOTE
Reference:
Note 16 on p. 108 of ACHAR, B. N. Narahari; âOn the Vedic Origin of Ancient
Mathematical Astronomy of Indiaâ; Journal of Studies on Ancient India, vol.
2, nos. 2-4 (1998), 95 - 108 <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Miscellaneous Topics on Indian History - Hauma Hamiddha - 04-17-2006
Below is an essay I was working on. Because it is precisely on the topic Kaushal has brought up I am pasting it below eventhough it is incomplete. Acharya- it may be important from the point of your research.
-----------
When I was going through the erudite works of the illustrious scholar and kaula tantrik from the Southern country, bhAskara-rAya makhIndra, it struck me that he was clearly a lineal descendent of that great tradition of encyclopaedic Sanskrit scholars and innovators. Just before the principal Mohammedan deluge, came the great tradition of kShatriya scholars such as rAjA bhoja deva and someshvara deva of manasollAsa fame, and of course various brahmins like bhAskara the astronomer, hemAdri the polymath. This period just before the Islamic ravages had several other good scholars that certainly deserve detailed consideration to understand Indian intellectual activity in that period. For example, we have shArangadeva and the kShatriyas jagadekamalla and harapAla, both chAlukyas, who wrote extensively on music and laid the foundations for the modern phase of Indian classical music. The kshatrIya jayasenApatI of the kAkatIya kingdom, wrote the nR^itya-ratnAvalI on classical Hindu dance.
The kShatriyas faced the main blow of the Islamic rampage, and it is not surprising that the kShatriya tradition declined greatly, though it did not die out entirely. In the kShatriya tradition lingering after the Islamic assault, we even have erudite Sanskrit poetry composed by kShatriya women such as ga~NgadevI, the wife of kumAra kampaNa the heroic vijayaNagaran prince and the daughter of pratAparudra gajapati of Kalinga, the wife of kR^iShNadeva. We also have the Sanskrit scholarship of the shUdra rulers in Andhra, such as kumAra-giri and kAtayavema reDDi in this period. Though the fall of the kShatriyas after the initial Islamic blow resulted in an overall decline in Sanskrit scholarship , we observed that as the Hindu revival started occuring in many places all over India there was a remarkable new productive phase of scholarly literature in Sanskrit. This phenomenon appears to have also independently caught the attention of American Indologists spear-headed by Sheldon Pollock, however, it is clear that they want write about it with the intention of creating an appropriate historical fantasy-narrative that matches Leukospheric political ambitions vis-a-vis India (to be discussed further).
The phenomenon of mideaval Sanskritic revival was clearly pan-Indian though its intensity and focus differed across parts of India. The one part of India that despite once being its most glorious intellectual center never revived from the Islamic assault was Kashmira. Here Sanskrit scholarship and productivity declined greatly and its results are apparent in the modern tragedy of the Hindus of Kashmir. In North India the revival was not as vigorous as the south but it was definitely active in several places. It began in Rajasthan with rANA vIr hammira's reconquest of the Mewar from the invading Turks. This followed through the reign of rANA kumbha. However, with the ravages of Akbar the Rajasthan front declined. Ironically the coming of Akbar resulted in a let up in vArANasi that started returned to its pre-eminent position as one of India's premier scholastic centers.
However, the south was clearly the base for the revival and this can be traced back to the greatest Hindu revival against the Mohammedan tide in the form of Vijayanagara. One of the first acts of the founding Vijayanagaran rulers, harihara and bukka was the assembly of a scholarly work-force under mAdhava vidyAraNya (later Acharya of the Shringeri maTha) and his brother sAyaNa. It was the first time such a large-scale complete commentarial work on the foundational texts of the Hindu religion was produced. This event evidently spawned a tremendous amount of scholarship throughout the Vijayanagaran kingdom and seeded scholarship amongst the brahminical communities of the Andhra, Karnata and Dravida countries. The foremost of these communities in scholarly output were the vaidiki brahmins of Andhra and the smArtas of the Dravida country (especially vaDadesha vaDama). appaya dIkShita, the smArta scholar of the Dravida country may be easily considered one of the prime moving forces of this effect. Representatives from the Andhra country also journeyed North and seeded scholarship in those regions extensively. For example the traitorous and fallen brahmin scholar jagannAtha paNDita and his clansmen were located in the court of the great Mogol of Dilli.
The ripple effect of Vijayanagara also spread to its north and initiated vigorous scholarship amongst the brahmin communities of Maharashtra. The deshasta brAhmaNas especially, and the koNkanasthas to a lesser degree produced a long line of scholars who played two important roles. Firstly, they were the main force behind the revival of the vArANasi school of Hindu scholarship that served as an integration center for Hindu scholars throughout India. Secondly they provided the intellectual background for the rise of shivAji bhosle's hindavi svarAjya. The insulation offered by Vijayanagara against the Moslems also allowed the nambUthiris of the Chera country to develop another remarkable effloresence of Sanskrit scholarship. Interestingly, in the far away Vanga country there was the remarkable coeval explosion scholarship on nyAya in the form of the nava-nyAya school of nava-dvIpa.
Many of the works of the period were original and pathbreaking, like the mathematics and astronomy of the nambUthiris and the atomic theory of the nyAya-vaisheShika synthesis of gadAdhara, the smArta scholar from the Dravida country. In medicine too there was innovation shown by the maharaTTa kings of Tanjavur.
This ended Sanskritic scholarship ended with the British conquest of India. The American scholars of the Pollock school note this too, but they want to shy away from any direct connection. Most importantly, they recognize the important features of brahminical scholarship, but in their political activities take anti-brahmin and more generally anti-hindu stances. This suggests that they have recognized the true potential of the brahmin/kShatriya elite of Hindu society to adapt to extrinsic challenges and smoothly effect transitions without the need for cataclysmic revolutions as seen in Europe. This is not in the interest of their Leukospheric masters and they accordingly are taking steps to counter the Hindu progress. The California books case, where these very American scholars participated in anti-Hindu activities is a case in point. We need take note of the fact they are also aggrandizing Hindu manuscripts and making their access difficult for Hindus themselves in the guise of making them available to scholars only. Michael Witzel and his henchmen are known to be notorious for this and are tightly linked to Pollock's group. Thus, the key idea is to keep Hindus themselves ignorant of their Sanskrit heritage, while using it anthropological study material for their careers and the large geo-political ambitions of the leukosphere.
Miscellaneous Topics on Indian History - Guest - 04-17-2006
HH
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This phenomenon appears to have also independently caught the attention of American Indologists spear-headed by Sheldon Pollock, however, it is clear that they want write about it with the intention of creating an appropriate historical fantasy-narrative that matches Leukospheric political ambitions vis-a-vis India (to be discussed further).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Article relevant to this : Prakrits (vernaculars, des'i), Sanskrit and Samskriti of Bhratam Janam
Miscellaneous Topics on Indian History - Guest - 04-17-2006
My surprise was that there was any degree of revival at all In my site i make reference to the fact that there were 2 prerequisites for intellectual output to occur
1.Physical and emotional needs have been met and there has been a degree of material affluence in the society at large (Maslow hierarchy)
2.there must be royal patronage in the form of a retainer from a 'Chakravartin' , (the Indian ideal of KIngship) the modern equivalent of this would be a grant from the government.
My impression was that neither of these conditions were present to any appreciable extent by the time the middle ages arrived (the period in question here is 1500 -1750). However the spirit of inquiry in the human spirit can never be extinguished and even under relatively adverse conditions sanskrit scholarship must have prevailed in pockets of India. In contrast both these conditions were present in the ancient era over a geographically more dispersed area. (or at least such an induction can reasonably be made since we do not have direct economic data)
In the separate matter of precedence of Babylonian scholarship over Indian Pingree is probably a victim of his own prejudices and hence the facile conversion from assumption to attested fact.
The reasons for such a widespread presumption are not far to seek. One is the common failing amongst western scholars (even those who are not racially motivated and are relatively honest intellectually speaking) to associate intellectual effort with misplaced criteria for material well being.They were misled by the general (though not universal) tendency of the Brahmana for simple living (and not as visible high thinking ).Ergo , a person in a loin cloth, without sandles could hardly be capable of intellectual effort.IOW, while India is no exception to the Maslow hierarchy, the criteria for material well being in a warm country with abundant rivers and a regular rainfall are different from those of a cold country with a need to keep warm and where the growing season is limited.
the other major reason being the well known (at least to us) hegelian (racist)assumption that whatever intellectual effort was there , it was a drect consequence of infusion of european genes (cleverlycamouflaged as Aryan).
I am marshalling facts (and inferences) to counter these presumptions (of precedence of Babylonian astronomy and mathematics ) on a couple of grounds,
one being our bastardized chronology delineated recently in the last two centuries, by the colonial overlord (in the process he destroyed all sanskritic scholarship while at the same time spending vast sums of money on western scholars to study the same) which makes a mockery of the written record in the puranas. They get around this obvious inconsistency of selecting data they like and ignoring the rest by maintaining that those records that they dont believe may not necessarily be authentic
The other ground based on plausibility and the fact that Babylonian mathematics was more cumbersome (base 60) and did not lend itself to mental manipulation as quite as easily as the decimal system (where you can easily memorize the properties of the numbers 1 to 9) . Georges Ifrah takes this approach (he has clearly done a monumental job of scholarship), but even he cannot resist the temptation of ascribing these discoveries to the mythical Aryan..see my summation of his conclusions in my sections on FAQ on Vedic mathematics and in the Linquistics section.
Furthermore, the oral tradition perfected by the ancient Vedics was non pareil in the ancient world, a facility that persists even today amog the majority of the practicing Brahmanas (those schooled in the vedas and apara vidya).
I am rambling but you get my drift.