Gaps/lacunae In Indian History

[ramana]

Thanks.

Could this help understand Harappa script?

CAVE ART AND THE ORIGIN OF SPEECHES

[Guest]

<b>Roman connection in Tamil Nadu</b>


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Dr. Krishnamurthy said: "There are so many proofs to show that the Romans had trade contacts with the Tamils, especially with the Chera country. From the later part of the first century B.C. there was a big trade contact between Romans and the Chera kings. This [coin] clearly establishes that the Roman soldiers had landed in the Chera country to give protection to the Roman traders who had come there to buy materials. A Chera king with a Roman helmet is important. This especially has bristles."

Dr. Krishnamurthy added: "Praetorian guards wore helmets with bristles.It was generally believed that the <b>Satavahanas were the first indigenous monarchs to issue silver portrait coins.</b> That has been disprovedby the discovery of Mak-kotai and Kuttuvan-Kotai coins belonging to the first century A.D. or a little later. But the coin under consideration may beearlier to the previous portrait coins already published. This coin maybelong to the first century B.C. and may be earlier to Mak-kotai andKuttuvan-Kotai coins."
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Ok, I am confused.. I thought Andhra Saatavaahana emperors of Magadha ruled for 506 years on the whole from Kali 2269 - 2775 or 833 B. C. to 327 B. C

[Guest]

INDIAN CULTURES,OTHERS THEN INDUS-SARASWATI

1-The black and red ware culture (BRW)
is an early Iron Age archaeological culture of the northern Indian Subcontinent. It is dated to roughly the 12th – 9th centuries BC, and associated with the post-Rigvedic Vedic civilization.
In some sites, BRW pottery is associated with Late Harappan pottery, and according to some scholars like Tribhuan N. Roy, the BRW may have directly influenced the Painted Grey Ware and Northern Black Polished cultures. [1] BRW pottery is unknown west of the Indus Valley.
It is reaches from the upper Gangetic plain in Uttar Pradesh to the eastern Vindhya range and West Bengal.
Researches and findings suggest that the Black-and-Red pottery flourished in Bengal around 1500 BC and continued to evolve, well past the Chalcolithic age, into the historical period around the 3rd century BC.
Use of Iron, although sparse at first, is relatively early, postdating the beginning of the Iron Age in Anatolia (Hittites) by only two or three centuries, and predating the European (Celts) Iron Age by another two to three hundred years. Recent findings in Northern India show Iron working since 1800 BC. According to Shaffer, the "nature and context of the iron objects involved [of the BRW culture] are very different from early iron objects found in Southwest Asia."
It is succeeded by the Painted Grey Ware culture.




2-The Painted Grey Ware culture (PGW)
is an Iron Age culture of Gangetic plain, lasting from roughly 1100 BC to 350 BC. It is contemporary to, and a successor of the Black and red ware culture. It probably corresponds to the late Vedic civilization. It is succeeded by Northern Black Polished Ware from ca. 500 BC.
B.B. Lal associated Hastinapura, Mathura, Ahicchatra, Kampilya, Barnawa, Kurukshetra and other sites with the PGW culture, the (post-) Mahabharata period and the Aryans in the 1950s. Furthermore, he pointed out that the Mahabharata mentions a flood and a layer of flooding debris was found in Hastinapura. However, B.B. Lal considered his theories to be provisional and based upon a limited body of evidence, and he later reconsidered his statements on the nature of this culture. (Kenneth Kennedy 1995).
The pottery style of this culture is different from the pottery of the Iranian Plateau and Afghanistan (Bryant 2001). In some sites, PGW pottery and Late Harappan pottery are contemporaneous.
The archaeologist Jim Shaffer (1984:84-85) has noted that "at present, the archaeological record indicates no cultural discontinuities separating Painted Grey Ware from the indigenous protohistoric culture."
According to Chakrabarti (1968) and other scholars, the origins of the subsistence patterns (e.g. rice use) and most other characteristics of the Painted Grey Ware culture are in eastern India or even southeast Asia.




3-The Cemetery H culture
developed out of the northern part of the Indus Valley Civilization around 1900 BC, in and around the Punjab region. It was named after a cemetery found in "area H" at Harappa.
The Cemetery H culture is part of the Punjab Phase, one of three cultural phases that developed in the Localization Era of the Indus Valley Tradition.
The distinguishing features of this culture include:
The use of cremation of human remains. The bones were stored in painted pottery burial urns. This is completely different to the Indus civilization where bodies were buried in wooden coffins. The urn burials and the "grave skeletons" were nearly contemporaneous.
Reddish pottery, painted in black with antelopes, peacocks etc., sun or star motifs, with different surface treatments to the earlier period.
Expansion of settlements into the east.
Rice became a main crop.
Apparent breakdown of the widespread trade of the Indus civilization, with materials such as marine shells no longer used.
Continued use of mud brick for building.
The Cemetery H culture also "shows clear biological affinities" with the earlier population of Harappa.
The archaeologist Kenoyer noted that this culture "may only reflect a change in the focus of settlement organization from that which was the pattern of the earlier Harapppan phase and not cultural discontinuity, urban decay, invading aliens, or site abandonment, all of which have been suggested in the past." (Kenoyer 1991: 56).
Remains of the culture have been dated from about 1900 BCE until about 1300 BCE. Together with the Gandhara grave culture and the Ochre Coloured Pottery culture, it is considered by some scholars a nucleus of Iron Age Vedic civilization.



4-The Gandhara grave (or Swat)
culture emerges from ca. 1600 BC, and flourishes in Gandhara ca. 1500 BC to 500 BC (i.e. possibly up to the time of Pa?ini).
Relevant finds, artifacts found primarily in graves, were distributed along the banks of the Swat and Dir rivers in the north, Taxila in the southeast, along the Gomal River to the south. The pottery finds show clear links with contemporary finds from southern Central Asia (BMAC) and the Iranian Plateau.
Simply made terracotta figurines were buried with the pottery, and other items are decorated with simple dot designs. Horse remains were found in at least one burial.
The Gandhara grave people have been associated by some scholars with early Indo-Aryan speakers, and the Indo-Aryan migration into India, that, fused with indigenous elements of the remnants of the Indus Valley Civilization (OCP, Cemetery H), gave rise to the Vedic civilization.
The Ghandara Grave culture people shared biological affinities with the population of neolithic Mehrgarh, which suggests a "biological continuum" between the ancient populations of Timargarha and Mehrgarh.
Asko Parpola (1993: 54), argues that the Gandhara grave culture is "by no means identical with the Bronze Age Culture of Bactria and Margiana". Tulsa (1977: 690-692) argues that this culture and its "new contributions" are "nevertheless in line with the cultural traditions of the previous period", and remarks that "to attribute a historical value to ... the slender links with northwestern Iran and northern Afghanistan ... is a mistake", since "it could well be the spread of particular objects and, as such, objects that could circulate more easily quite apart from any real contacts." Antonini (1973), Stacul and other scholars argue that this culture is not related with the Beshkent and Vakhsh cultures of Tajikistan
The Ochre Coloured Pottery culture (OCP), is a 3rd millennium BC Bronze Age culture of the Ganga-Yamuna plain. It is a contemporary to, and a successor of the Indus Valley Civilization. The OCP marks the last stage of the North Indian Bronze Age and is succeeded by the Iron Age black-and-red ware and painted-gray ware cultures. Early specimens of the characteristic ceramics found near Jodhpura, Rajasthan date to the 3rd millennium,this site of Jodhpura is in district Jaipur and must not be confused with the city of Jodhpur, and the culture reaches the Gangetic plain in the early 2nd millennium.
H. C. Bharadwaj in his work Aspects of Ancient Indian Technology, Motilal Banarsidass, New Delhi 1979 had established that copper hoards, being found in the same layers as Ochre Coloured Pottery by B. B. Lal, belonged to 1100-800 BC, but K.N. Dikshit in: Essays in Indian Protohistory, 1979 suggested a date from 2650 to 1180 BC based on thermoluminescent method.
On the other hand R. C. Gaur excavations at Lal Qila gave also a thermoluminiscent date for OCP in time bracket of 2030 and 1730 BC with a mean date of 1880 BC.
There are even a claim of earlier dates by M. D. N. Sahi: "...settlements of the OCP-Copper Hoards culture, datable between 3700-3000 B.C., as discussed by the present author elsewhere, are found existing in the districts of Allahabad (Sringaverapura and Mirapatti) and Varanasi (Kamauli)." (Sahi's paper "Neolithic Syndrome of the Ganga Valley" at National Seminar on the Archaeology of the Ganga Valley, December 2004).
It is worth to mention the work of archaeometallurgists R. Balasubramaniam, T. Laha and A. Srivastava who analyzed a copper hoard piece along with an Ahar culture copper one at the Department of Materials and Metallurgical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur in 2003, publishing their conclusions in the paper "Long term corrosion behaviour of copper in soil: A study of archaeological analogues".
Also Deo Prakash Sharma published a work called Newly Discovered Copper Hoard, Weapons of South Asia, Delhi, 2002 in which he establishes a time between 2800 and 1500 BC for copper hoards based on analysis of copper implemets in the National Museum, New Delhi: "Till today around 5031 copper hoard implements have been reported from 197 sites mostly from Gangetic plains among which 193 are in National Museum collection. We have fixed date of copper hoards from circa 2800 to 1500 B.C. and these could be divided into two groups as follows (A) North Eastern Indian (B) Ganga-Yamuna doab and Western India. The technology of western group B is of a distinctive and advanced type and is influenced by the Harappans...The anthropomorphic figure of copper hoard is a cult object and a symbol of good omen. The lugged shouldered axes and weed chisels are a new type in copper hoard implements. The shouldered axes show their origin from South East Asia via North-East India and Middle Ganga plain. The copper hoard implements and OCP ceramic are present in stratified deposits of Ganeshwar, Jodhpura, Mithathal, Madarpur, Saipai and Khatoli...Copper hoard implements of western group show genetic relationship with Harappans" (Deo Prakash Sharma 2002).



5-Copper Hoards
refer to different assemblages of copper-based artefacts in the northern areas of the Indian Subcontinent. These are believed to date largely to the 2nd millennium BC. Few derive from controlled excavations. Different regional groups are identifiable: southern Haryana/northern Rajasthan, the Ganges-Jumuna plain, Chota Nagpur and in Madhya Pradesh, each with their characteristic artefact types. Initially the copper hoards were known mostly from the Ganges-Jumuna doab and most characterisations dwell on this material.
Characteristic hoard artefacts southern Haryana/northern Rajasthan and include certain, flat axes (celts), harpoons double axes, antenna-hilted swords etc. The doab has a related repertory. That of the Chota Nagpur area is far different and the finds seem to be ingots.
The artefacts seem to be votive in character.
The raw material can have derived from a variety of sources in Rajasthan (Khetri), Bihar/West Bengal/Orissa (especially Singhbhum) as well as Madhya Pradesh (Malanjkhand). Some scholars regard the OCP culture as late or impoverished Harappan culture, while other scholars see the OCP as an indigenous culture that is unrelated to Harappan culture. V.N. Misra (in S.P. Gupta 1995: 140) regards the OCP as "only a final and impoverished stage of the Late Harappan culture" and designates this phase as "Degenarate Harappan".
Together with the Cemetery H culture and the Gandhara Grave culture, the OCP is considered by some scholars a factor in the formation of the Vedic civilization.



6-The Northern Black Polished Ware culture (NBPW/NBP)-
of the South Asia (ca. 700 BC–200 BC) is an Iron Age culture, succeeding the Painted Grey Ware culture. It developed beginning around 700 BC, or in the late Vedic period, and peaks from circa 500 BC - 300 BC, coinciding with the rise of the Mauryan Empire.
Malik and other scholars have noted similarities between NPB and Harappan cultures, among them the ivory dice and combs and a similar system of weights. Other similarities include the utilization of mud, baked bricks and stone in architecture, the construction of large units of public architecture, the systematic development of hydraulic features and a similar craft industry. There are however also important differences between these two cultures, e.g. in the NBP culture rice, millet and sorghum become more important. The NBP culture may reflect the first state-level organization in South Asia.

[ramana]

From Deccan Chronicle, 20 June 2007
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Fossil 225 mn years old found
 

Hyderabad, June 19: <b>A new mammal-like reptile has been discovered for the first time in the country from the upper Triassic formation in the Pranahita-Godavari valley in Adilabad district. The fossilised remains of this animal are 225 million years old and will provide vital information to scientists on the evolution of early mammals. It belongs to the order Cynodonts and its remains are recorded for the first time from upper Triassic formations.</b>

The animal has been identified as a new genus/species and named as Deccanadon maleriensis (Deccan because it was found in Deccan plateau and maleriensis after the Maleri sedimentation).

<b>Though Cynodonts were discovered  elsewhere in the world, no such animals were ever found in India. The Pranahita-Godavari valley is one of the few places on the earth where Triassic period sedimentation are found. So far only three groups of cynodonts are reported from Europe.</b>

Deccanodon malerienseis cannot be compared with Indian specimens, as no cynodont teeth are reported. The discovery was made by palaeontologists P. Yadagiri and T.T. Nath of the Geological Survey of India. “The discovery of this animal from older stratigraphic horizon assumes importance as the study will help to evaluate the origin and evolution of early mammals from upper Triassic (Carnian) to early Jurassic period,” Mr Yadagiri told this correspondent.

The GSI team collected five well preserved specimens of post canine teeth from Lakshmipuram village in Adilabad district. The collection includes five well preserved specimens of post canine teeth. The teeth closely resemble that of Microdon if one goes by the shape of the crown, separation of cusps, absence of a constriction between crown and root, and incipient division of the root. Interestingly, the early mammals were nearly microscopic, of the size of a big ant.

“The post canine tooth is well persevered except part of the distal root portion. The enamel is smooth. The specimen measures 20 mm in height and 13 mm in length. The width is narrow. The crown part is larger than the preserved root portion. The crown part is laterally compressed, six cusps are arranged in a longitudinal row. The crown and root are not separated by constriction,” Mr Yadagiri said. <b>The find of Maleri cynodont teeth has opened a new vista to search for cynodonts along with early mammals in the Pranahita-Godavari valley</b>.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Dont know what it implies but could be significant.

[dhu]

Approximate worldwide distribution of monkeys.
<img src='http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Monkeysdistributionmap.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->New_World_monkey
About 40 million years ago the Simiiformes infraorder split into parvaorders Platyrrhini (New World monkeys - in South America) and Catarrhini (apes and Old World monkeys - in Africa).[2] <b>The Platyrrhini are currently conjectured to have migrated across the Atlantic Ocean to South America on a raft of vegetation similar to the vast pieces of floating Mangrove forest that storms occasionally break off from the tropical African coast. </b>At that time the Atlantic ocean was circa 4,500km wide.[citation needed]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[dhu]

Ice Age effects on speciation and biodiversity:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Climate Change May be Responsible for Madagascar's Biodiversity
Why does Madagascar have so many unique animals?

...  Using an analysis of watersheds in the context of paleoclimatic shifts, the authors provide a new mechanistic model to explain the process of explosive speciation on the island. Existing data show that substantial climatic shifts took place during the end of the Tertiary, as well as more recently during the Quaternary. The latter period is also known as “The Age of Man.”

<b>When the climate was dry and cold, considerable portions of the Earth were covered by glaciers. </b>On Madagascar, habitats at higher elevations would have remained more humid, as compared to the drying-out of more lowland areas. Therefore, groups of animals tended to “retreat” to higher elevations along riverine habitat that would have remained relatively humid during these periods of climatic change. The animals that did not “retreat” tended to be left behind in small, limited geographic areas where river sources commenced at relatively low elevations. Since they were isolated, those populations that were able to survive were more likely to develop into new species.

<b>“River catchments with their sources at relatively low elevations were zones of isolation and hence led to the speciation of locally endemic taxa,” </b>the authors explain in a paper to be published as the cover story of Science on May 19, 2006. ...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The series of ice ages that occurred between 2.4 million and 10,000 years ago had a dramatic effect on the climate and the life forms in the tropics. During each glacial period the tropics became both cooler and drier, turning some areas of tropical rain forest into dry seasonal forest or savanna. For reasons associated with local topography, geography, and climate, some areas of forest escaped the dry periods, and acted as refuges for forest biota. <b>During subsequent interglacials, when humid conditions returned to the tropics, the forests expanded and were repopulated by plants and animals from the species-rich refuges.</b>
Ice Age and Biodiversity<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[dhu]

Talageri excerpt

To give just a glimpse: in climate, we have the hottest place in the
world, Jacobabad (in present-day Pakistan), but also, as per the
Encyclopaedia Britannica, we have, outside the Polar regions, “the
largest area under permanent ice and snow”. We have dry arid regions in
the west, which receive no rainfall at all, and at the same time the
area, around Cherapunji in the east, with the highest rainfall in the
world. And we have, in different parts of the land, a wide range of
shades of climatic conditions between these extremes. The topography of
India, from the most intriguing and diverse mountain system in the
world, the Himalayas, in the north, through the plains, plateaus,
mountains and valleys of the peninsula down to the Andaman-Nicobar and
Lakshadweep island clusters in the south, also seems to leave no
topographical feature unrepresented. India’s forests and vegetation
also cover every range and variety from the coniferous and deciduous
types to the monsoon and tropical types to the desert and scrubland
types. And India has been one of the primary contributors to the world
in every kind of plant and forest product. To name only some of the most
prominent ones: rice, a variety of beans, a wide range of vegetables
including eggplants and a number of different types of gourds, fruits
like bananas, mangoes and a range of citrus fruits, oilseeds like
sesame, important woods including teak, ebony and sandalwood, spices
like black pepper, cardamom, cinnamon, ginger and turmeric, dyes like
madder and indigo, important materials like cotton, jute, shellac and
India-rubber, a wide range of medicinal herbs, etc., etc. Moreover,
being strategically situated between, and sharing in, three different
ecological areas, India shares countless other important plants and
products with northern and western Asia on the one hand and Southeast
Asia on the other. And, as a detailed study will show, it has indigenous
equivalents, or potential equivalents, for a wide range of other
non-Indian plants and products.

India’s fauna is the richest in the world. Robert Wolff, in the
introduction to his book Animals of Asia, tells us that “India has more
animal species than any other region of equal area in the world”. But
the richness is not only in comparison with regions of equal area. For
example, India is the only area in the world which has all seven
families of carnivora native to it. The whole of Africa has five (no
bears or procyonids), the whole of North and South America together have
five (no hyaenas or viverrids), the whole of Europe has five (no hyaenas
or procyonids), and, in Asia, the areas to the east and north have six
(no hyaenas) and the areas to the west have six (no procyonids). Within
the carnivora family of cats, India is the only area to have all six
genera. The whole of Africa has four (no uncia or neofelis), North and
South America together, and Europe, have four (no acinonyx, uncia or
neofelis), and, in Asia, the areas to the east and north have five (no
acinonyx) and the areas to the west have four (no uncia or neofelis).

In respect of snakes, India is the only area in the world to have all
twelve of the recognized families, while the whole of Africa has eight,
and both North and South America together have nine. Extra significant
is that one of the twelve families (Uropeltidae or shield-tailed snakes)
is found only in South India and Sri Lanka, so that India alone has
twelve families, while the whole rest of the world put together has
eleven. Of the three families of crocodilians, two (crocodiles and
gavials) are found in India, one of them (gavials) exclusively in India.
India is the richest area in the world in the variety of bovine species,
second only to Africa in variety of antelope species, and second only to
China in variety of deer species. The list is a long one. And India is
not only a primary wildlife destination, it is also one of the important
centres of domestication of animals. The most important of these being
the domestic buffalo, the domesticated elephant, one of the two races of
domestic cattle and the commercially most important bird in the world,
the domestic fowl. The most ornamental bird in the world, the peacock,
is also Indian.

There are three recognized races in the world (Caucasoid, Mongoloid and
Negroid), and India is the only area in the world which has all three
native to it: the Andaman islanders are the only true Negroids outside
Africa. Sometimes, a fourth race, Australoid, is postulated (otherwise
included among Caucasoids), and we have it among the Veddas of Sri
Lanka. As to languages, six of the nineteen language families in the
world are found in India, three of them only in India: Dravidian,
Andamanese and Burushaski. The numerically and politically most
important family of languages in the world, Indo-European, originated
(as I have argued in my books) in India.

[acharya]

http://indiaculture.net/talk/messages/128/10083.html

[ramana]

The Historicity of Vikramaditya and Salivahana



By Sri Kota Venkatachalam.

[ramana]

Early Roman trading linkages to India...



Frontline article on Roman Egypt's links to Kerala coast.



South Indians in Roman Egypt?

Among the unexpected discoveries at Berenike were a range of ancient Indian goods, including the largest single concentration (7.55 kg) of black peppercorns ever recovered in the classical Mediterranean world (“imported from southern India” and found inside a large vessel made of Nile silt in a temple courtyard); substantial quantities of Indian-made fine ware and kitchen cooking ware and Indian style pottery; Indian-made sail cloth, basketry, matting, etc. from trash dumps; a large quantity of teak wood, black pepper, coconuts, beads made of precious and semi-precious stones, cameo blanks; “a Tamil Brahmi graffito mentioning Korra, a South Indian chieftain”; evidence that “inhabitants from Tamil South India (which then included most of Kerala) were living in Berenike, at least in the early Roman period”; evidence that the Tamil population implied the probable presence of Buddhist worshippers; evidence of Indians at another Roman port 300 km north of Berenike; Indian-made ceramics on the Nile road; a rock inscription mentioning an Indian passing through en route; “abundant evidence for the use of ships built and rigged in India”; and proof “that teak wood (endemic to South India), found in buildings in Berenike, had clearly been reused”(from dismantled ships).

[ramana]

x-post from BRF



Another good post by Atri in the Partition thread. And follow-up by Pulikeshi



-----------------------

The question to ask oneself is when did the partition of Bharat begin?

There are tomes written on the partition of British India in 1947.

While theories are all interesting, it is still about the latter not the former.

I would say partition was proposed when Najib invited Abdali in 1757 and the process actually began on 14th January 1761 on the plains of Panipat.. I think we really need to understand the Mughal-Maratha dynamics for complete grasp of the phenomenon of partition.



The key figures here are



1. Mughals (and last of them, Aurangzeb).

2. Pathan lobby from upper gangetic plains, Punjab, AFG and Iran)

3. Mullahs like Shah Wali and Sirhindi

4. Marathas

5. other Hindus in the region (Jats, Sikhs, Rajputs etc).



The antagonism between Pashtoons and Central Asians is legendary. Even today, the local saying goes like,"where anger and revenge of pathan ends, love of a tajik begins". This says a lot about their interactions. Central asians are the true "Bete Noir" of Indian civlization throughout the history's current. There are three blocks of populations which we must understand here.



a. Outer tier - Central asian block - Turks, Tajiks, Mongols, Kazaks etc. I like to talk in terms of river basins, hence the region beyond the Bakshu river (Oxus/Amu darya).

b. second tier - Pathans (southern afghanistan and NWFP - the lands between Sindhu and Kubha (Kabul) rivers (Or some times Amudarya).

c. Third tier - Punjab - Attock to Delhi and Jammu to Multan.

d. Fourth tier - Gangetic plains (the historical core - geographical and for considerable amount of time, civilizational)



When we speak of foreign invasions on India, it refers to people from the Outer tiers (Iran and trans Oxus regions) invading India. That means, the attack of Central Asians on Pathans is considered as foreign invasion. Hence Greeks, Bactrians, Scythians, Kushans, Huns, Arabs, Mongols, Mughals, Persians, British were undoubtedly "foreign in origin" and so was their incursion of subsequent tiers of India.



But when we count the total time the geographical core (Not the civilizational one which shifts) was under occupation "ethnic foreign people", it turns out to be not more than 800 years in the course of documented 5000 years of Indian history since times of IVC (not considering MBH as history just for sake of argument). Out of those 800 years, 500 are in past millennium. That is, only 18% of time, Indic core was under foreign domination.



The problem arose with Islamization of Afghanistan. Afghanistan resisted islamization for 250 years after fall of Iran. It was within 20 years of fall of Gazni (which was being ruled by Raja Shiladitya), Mehmood invaded the core and consolidated frontier of India along with outer regions. However, it is the trait of power-centre of frontiers to periodically seek expansion into Sindhu basin and vice-versa. Following that trait, Mehmood of Gazni, Muhammad Ghori, subsequent sultans of Delhi until Babar followed that tradition. The rule of the "core" was in hands of people who were ethnically Indians but culturally alienated. This is popularly known as "The Pathan Lobby".



The game-changer was First Battle of Panipat when an outsider displaced this entrenched Pathan lobby and consolidated the power of the core. The lobby of Pathans and Rajputs struck back and overthrew this foreign domination. There was internal dynamics to this struggle as well. Pathans (of Babur and Humayun's era) were alienated Hindus. Rajputs were defenders of Indic culture. Just as Rajput-Pathan lobby threw out ethnic outsider (Mughal/Mongol), Rajputs later overthrew the cultural outsiders too (Hemu Vikramaditya taming Lodis). Here we see the power-dynamics between Indians and foreigners and amongst Indians themselves (Indics and alienated Indics).



The Mongols/Mughals struck back in Second Battle of Panipat, this time successfully acquiring the throne and consolidating vast stretches of lands for long time period keeping the traditional aspirants of the power, away from the power. The Pathan lobby and Rajput lobby is beautifully handled by Akbar, Jahangir, Shahjahan and Aurangzeb and played against each other, keeping them preoccupied.



In 1681, when Aurangzeb descended on Deccan with full might of Mughal empire, the entrenched lobby of Pathans saw their chance to win what was rightfully theirs. Rajputs were deracinated by then and were out of power-struggle. It is here when the dynamics of "Islam" comes into picture. The traditional habit of Ulema to stay close to power-centre of region paid off when the regions of Awadh, Rohilkhand and Braj started making tremendous profits out of Deccan war of 27 years, when rest of India was suffering and revenues plummeting. The revenue and produce of Bengal and Odisha dropped by sharp 70% from 1690 to 1700, that is within 10 years. In same 10 years, the war-profits of western UP and Awadh (mostly dominated by Pathan lobby) increased by 67%.



Thus, after death of Aurangzeb in 1707, within few years of confusion, the chance begins to appear before Pathan lobby to usurp the long lost power. Ulema was quiet and indifferent as they do not care who the ruler is, as long as he is Islamic and is patronizing them and their quest of conversion. The first move was made by Sayyid Brothers to dethrone the Mughal successor of Aurangzeb to much more pliable successor. These brothers were the working towards restoration of Mughal (and their own) domination on north India. They managed to quell the discontent in Rajputana and rest of India, they had to give entry to an unlikely player in the game - The Marathas.



The events of similar to those prior to Second Battle of Panipat - just like Rajput-Pathan lobby tried to overthrow Mongol influence out of India, Maratha-Pathan lobby did actually manage that. After Mughals were overthrown, the internal Maratha-Pathan dynamics unravelled just like Rajput-Pathan dynamics of Hemu era. If Hemu were victorious at Panipat, he would have had to fight off Pathans just like Marathas did.



Almost all the regions which was previously under Mughal empire smoothly passed on to Marathas as protectorate. This however does not include the Braj, Awadh and eastern Bengal and Punjab, Sindh and NWFP. This is when Shah Wali started making noises about the danger that Islam will be in.



While Marathas were waiting to establish their legitimacy as natural successors to Mughals, the Pathan lobby was busy organizing their own revival. The opportunity came in 1740 when Nadir Shah invaded India. Bajirao-1 was in south, hence no army which was big enough to stop Nadir shah, was stationed in Punjab. Ahmadshah Abdali was one of the commanders of Nadir Shah in this campaign. After Nadir's assassination, and Abdali's ascension, pathans of gangetic plains contacted abdali to invade and occupy the land so as to create a continuous pathan ruled state. By Shah wali, this was given a religious overtone as "jihad" against kafir Marathas.



One has to understand the global perspective of the decade of 1750's to see the roots of partition of India. The kingdom of Pathans from Caspian sea to Bengal was in making. The kingdom from Punjab to Tamil-nadu of Marathas was in making. EIC was a small force then. This chance of establishment of Pathan kingdom was antagonistic to India and Marathas and vice versa.



Panipat ended in stalemate. All the dreams of Pathan lobby and Ulema were vanished. Marathas continued to expand but not with earlier zeal and power. Sikhs rose but could not give a sustainable dynasty to consolidate Punjab and NWFP. Eventually British took over the administration of India in 1818 and after 150 years, India was partitioned.



To fill the gaps in between, one has to understand this lost dream of Ulema (primarily based in westen UP) which was using Pathan lobby's political ambition to establish earlier Islamic dominance of Mughal era. This dejected Ulema mobilized the funds, influence, private armies and support of zamindars and local power-satraps of Indo-Gangetic plains under Muslim league, when chips were down. The dream was truly shattered on plains of Panipat and ironically, that heart-break came in form of victory. Hence the need to reclaim this victory and establish islamic state so fondly cherished by many people from this region. This need of alienated Indics and foreign ideology using them to find a incubator to relaunch their efforts which were stalled at Panipat, marks the beginning of partition. The man who established Darul Ulum Deoband was grandson of Shah Waliullah himself.



Figures say that since Islamization of Afghanistan, Pathans and later Pakjabis (which are ethnically Indians) were more detrimental to India and Indic civilization than foreign rulers (Mughals except Aurangzeb and British). The inner Vibhishana has been more detrimental to India than outer Vaanaras.



Successor of Hemu's India and Maratha's India is modern Republic of India. The aim which Hemu (Rajputs) and Marathas tried to achieve was five-fold.



1. to overthrow the influence of a visible foreign power (with or without the help of alienated Indians (Pathans, Pakjabis)

2. to defeat alienated Indians and overthrow their influence on policies of India and her core.

3. To reconquer the territory currently occupied by alienated Indians

4. To establish Indic system of socio-political and economics in reconquered/consolidated territory.

5. To bring alienated Indians back to Indian fold.



The fourth and fifth point has to happen simultaneously along with first three, which happen in the given order.



Hemu succeeded in overthrowing foreign power temporarily.



Marathas succeeded in overthrowing the foreign power permanently and overthrow the influence of alienated Indians on the territories and policies of India. Marathas tried to win back territory (Attock campaign) but not for long (only 19 months). They tried to implement Indic system of governance and remove foreign influence but not uniformly.



INC (with help of other nationalists) overthrew a visible foreign power. Republic of India (ROI) overthrew the influence of alienated Indians from core territory and policy-making of ROI. ROI has established a system of governance which is largely Indic and partially Western (Similar to Marathas). ROI has partially quarantined the alienated Indian lobby in its western and north-western regions like Marathas had it quarantined in Western UP. So, ROI stands at position where Marathas were in 1760. Thankfully, owing to democracy, the early deaths of good leaders won't harm ROI in a way it harmed Maratha-India.



Just like the global politics then, the internal lobby of alienated Indians trying to establish a continuous state. That lobby is being used by a foreign ideology which aims for uniform society without state and class. ROI is the only player which stands in its way.



Uthista Bharata!

[ramana]

Posted by Brihaspati in BRF:



------------------

brihaspati Post subject: Re: Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -IPosted: 18 May 2010





BRF Oldie



Joined: 18 Nov 2008

Posts: 3485 Starting off from the Sindh-Samani-Islamist issue, we can actually grapple with some of the core strategic concerns of Bharatyia society living and developing their world-view in intimate contact with the land.



I will assume the generally academically accepted dating for the Magadhan ascendancy around Bimbisara in the 6th century BCE and him being contemporaneous with the Buddha we are concerned with. Alternatives can be explored but that perhaps belongs more to the "distorted" thread.



The first issue is that the whole process of rise of the Buddhist "deviation" from the Vaidika was an attempt to return to the Vaidika abstraction in the backdrop of a very real negative political/military experience - that of the loss of the western reaches of northern India to the Persians. The monasticism with obsessions about celibacy does not find a normal mention in the literature deriving from sources prior to the Buddhists - for all possible biological age-groups, in an organized order of monasticism.



It need not be a coincidence that such a monasticism developed exactly at this period. We note that both the Buddhists as well as Jainas show organized, monastic, celibacy character in the sixth century BCE, and are adopted by ambitious imperialist powers in the Gangetic Valley - with the philosophy being spread around by the most traveled section of society - the merchant-princes and traders. The traders were part of a network that went right across the north-west over Persian and Mesopotamian kingdoms and empires, where we know monastic orders to have risen before this period with the peculiar sexual and organized, semi-political, associate of empires - character. The traders could have brought these ideas all along the Gangetic valley. Moreover, as is pointed out, trading and merchant communities are eager to appear "harmonic" with foreign ideologies in the hope of uninterrupted prosperity. We should note that the four-fold division of society was formally adopted in the Persian empires and the Buddhists would perhaps find it convenient to revive the older philosophical Vedic categories and reshape it in analogous Persian manner, thereby starting the process that would lead to the later redefinition of "caste".



Thus the Buddhist revolution could be an exact reaction like that of the Samanis, or later Indonesian Buddhists, to the spread of Persian power in the west - by copying and remolding themselves or dusting out aspects of their pre-existing ideology that they think will help them to appear "compatible/harmomic" with the ME establishment. (This phenomenon could be hidden in the hints of "many" Buddhas before, and other issues OT here).



This trading/merchant prince leadership/character of Buddhism of this period can indicate the continued predominance of mercantilist interest in the sangha and its networks. The ideology was really a cover then to preserve trade interests and with time, it would then attract opportunists willing to use the cover for material ambitions. This shows up in the increasing reference to urban artisans and merchants and "entertainers" - all city based and all basically dependent on trade networks - as dominating Buddhism. This would point to the countryside, the real producers, those tied to the land growing gradually disillusioned and detached from the Buddhist ideology and establishment - which will be seen as exploitative and repressive.



The Buddhist networks would also develop mutually overlapping interests with foreign forces in the same way the Samanis do, and in the process deviate even from their earlier "puritanical" position. This will lead to disillusionment from idealist elite under Buddhist dominance to seek alternatives and will most likely find this in the now disempowered remnants of the Vaidik system held on to by pockets of Brahmin(scholar-ideologue)+Kshatryia(warrior-administrator-defence) resistance or orthodoxy. Further, the establishment Buddhists will be seen and suspected to be collaborators of foreign interests with perhaps a good degree of basis - as the Samani case shows. This could have led to the cases of warrior kings lashing out at the Sanghas - reported in buddhist literature.



With both the ideology, as well as the merchant class discredited, and suspected or accused of contributing to the defeat of indigenous society at the hands of foreign powers, we will see a revival of the older Brahmin+Kshatryia model where now, the vaishyas will be sought to be confined and isolated as a caste. Same would be the utility of "antajas", mlechchas and "shudras" as categories for those seen to be too much deviated in contact with the "foreign" or potentially rebellious. This would also explain the attraction for "idols/images/icons" as a challenger for Buddhist "iconoclasm".



We have extant "shuddhi" doctrines in the period immediately after contact with the Arabs, such as Devala-Smriti, give specific and detailed procedures to be followed for those "contaminated" in connection with Arabs and Islamics - participating in obvious Islamic practices like killing cows and eating beef, or cohabiting with Muslim women, even undertaking destruction of Vedic sites etc under duress - for less than a month by rites of "prajapatya". The list goes on to even describe how women abducted, or enslaved or forced to become pregnant by Muslims could reenter society after appropriate rites were performed. However, significantly, beyond 20 years - cohabiting with Muslims was seen as irredeemable. At a time of low life expectancy - probably varying from 35-60 years, such a period would be seen as too long portion of life -where the person is likely to have come to substantial compromises with the Islamics to be reliable as a re-entrant.



I would see that the ancient philosophical categories would now come in handy and adaptable as categories to slot people in. The derogatory and suspicious, "under surveillance" categories of "vaishyas" and "shudras" and "antajas" will develop from the experience of the Samani like Buddhist and similar orders, and the Muslims themselves. The mistrust of Islamics would be natural, given that even Islamics granted asylum and protection from their own regimes turned in favour of invading Muslim armies. This was the case of Alafi, who was a fugitive from the Ummayad Caliphate, and fought alongside Dahir's forces against neighbouring Indian kings but refused to fight against Qasim - and was actually forgiven later because of this treachery - by the Caliph. So people who had been in long contact with the Islamics, even if they were not fanatical Islamists - would not be trusted and would be kept under pressure.



This would be the final transformation of the reinvention of varna as "caste" where intermingling will be seen suspicious and dangerous, especially from those sections suspected to have been (and like the merchants still trading with the Islamics - continuing to) in touch with and ideologically contaminated by the foreigners.



This should be characterized as an attempted homogenization that remained incomplete as long as the Islamics themselves could not be divested of their identification with cultural centres and societies outside of India. It was an attempted homogenization, because the "Indian" component gone into the foreign sphere was sought to be reabsorbed entirely shedding their Islamist aspects, but had to be necessarily left incomplete, because the military erasure of the continued sources of contamination could not be carried out. What resulted was an incomplete homogenization as well as an incomplete harmonization of the "foreign/suspected/untrusted" with that of "indigenous/core" - and has been gifted to us as modern caste.



The homogenization was incomplete and the resulting harmonization simply pasted over fractures that would remain weaknesses for subsequent and progressive expansion of "foreigners", and hence the periodic attempts to correct that, [like the Bhakti movements from both Shaivas and Vaishnavas] which however had to take into account pre-existing ideological burden and wandered around not always with success, and sometimes creating more problems. The problems started with employing practical tools of mobilization which were however themselves subject to errors and overshadowing the real Vedic understanding and leading to further errors.



Lessons :

Ideological shortcuts and compromises out of practical political and military considerations should be firmly recorded and understood as compromises and should not be made part of the ideology itself. Their temporary and transient nature should be highlighted, and at least the core should maintain a careful, rigorous and detached understanding of the very process of compromise and clearly recognize the dangers it implies of being used in the future as core ideology itself.



If we see such practical compromises as compromises, and temporary ones, there will be less psychological difficulty later on to mobilize the "leaders" themselves - which itself needs more effort than to "mobilize" the masses. A lot of time and effort is wasted in bringing consensus on subjects which would not have confused the "leaders" themselves - if the authors of "compromises" clearly indicated them as such in their statements for posterity - even if for secret, "your eyes only" and "classified" texts.











----------------



ramana



Joined: 01 Jan 1970

Posts: 11685 Also wasn't the centuries old Janapada system (16 janapadas) breaking down with Bimbisara's consolidation of the janapadas around Magadha? What was the impact of this on the rise of Buddhism? Was it a reaction to Bimbisara's imperial quest? Maybe to temper it? We see that three centrueis later we have the Mauryan empire merging all the janapadas.





--------------------





Top



brihaspati



Posts: 3485 The traders would find a single empire protecting their interests along the Gangetic Plains to the Persian inteface in western India, beneficial. In turn, Bimbisara would find it helpful to appear a "Buddhist" and sponsor them because of this west-Indian taxation source. So Buddhists would quickly become part of the imperial establishment. The reaction and resistance to Buddhism following Bimbisara has been represented negatively by the Buddhists, but in my model they would appear as an indigenous reaction which however lost out.



We see the effects in obviously greater information of military significance possibly leaking out through this international traders (just as scholars like Al Beruni, and traders before him provided details of North India useful to Ghori) - in the Persian expansion in the Indus Valley, and Alexanders adventure that apparently produced a plethora of Indo-Greek, Indo-Bactrian potentates in the west. Even the Mauryan empire is suspected of having a strong Persian influence or component [the archaeological level corresponding to this period of Patraliputra] and possibly the reason that there are severe criticisms of the Mauryas from certain quarters in India as "foreigners". The continued influence of monastic orders on this dynasty is significant, and may explain why the succeeding regime will be violent against the "Buddhists". Buddhism was naturally seen as "foreign" and its influence could be seen as "foreign" influence which acted against indigenous interests and culture.



-----------------------

[Guest]

Dhilli according to the Pasanacariu

by Ishwa



A. Introduction

There is one important pre-Sultanate work, which gives us a picture of Delhi during the rule of Tomara kings, just a few decades before they became the Samantas of the Chauhanas. This work is known as Pasanacariu. In this Digambara Jaina work, we have the oldest attested reference to the toponym 'Dhilli'.



For people unfamiliar with the Pasanacariu, Cohen gives a good introductory quote to the author, his work, time and the language: “The Pasanacariu is a hagiography of the twenty-third Jaina tirthankara, Parshvanatha. It was written in Delhi in A.D. 1132 by the Agravala Digambara poet, Shridhara, for a patron, a wealthy, influential merchant, Nattala Sahu. The text is composed in a stylized literary form of western Apabhramsha, often used during this period by Digambara Jainas.” (Cohen, p. 513)



Most scholars equate Dhilli only with Yoginipura, Mehrauli. This city has its ancient fort, called Lal Kot, with it larger extention together called Kot Rai Pithora, or Qilah Rai Pithora by the Muslims.

In this writing, I argue for another, much larger picture, based upon the purposely systematic description of the poet Shridhara.



Some notes on the language: The feature of this Apabhramsha is its cerebralization of most of its natural dentals. Of the first two I have added the count of the syllables to the verses.

The diacritical transcription is adapted to my transliteration, the translation is adopted from Cohen.

I have cut the uninterrupted sequence of versus into a twofold grouping: the whole sequence is split into four groupings, which is explained below; and I have split the sequence into doublets, which I have given a subject title.



B. Description

The poet Vibudha Shridhara, in my opinion, gives a description of the size of Dhilli, in a very systematic, (topo)graphical way. I have cut the topographical references into these four functional sections: 1. He first starts with the general topographical information, with a large Delhi as the capital city of the densely populated Haryana region; 2. he moves on with the description of an immense fortress, its lake and surroundings; 3. then he describes the immense commercial centra; 4. and finally, he mentions Dhilli's famous founder.



1. General information

Shridhara first describes the general topography and the extent of Dhilli.



1.2.14 hariyANae dese asankha-gAme | gAmiyaNa-jaNiya-aNavaraya-kAme || (24 syllables)

1.2.15 para-cakka-vihaTTaNu siri-sanghaTTaNu jo suravaiNA parigaNiuM | (24 syllables)

riu-ruhir'AvaTTaNu paviulu paTTaNu DhillI-NAmeNa ji bhaNiuM || (24 syllables)

In the region of Hariyana(ka) which has numerous villages, and whose inhabitants are ever happy,

there is the large city called Dhilli, favored by Indra, destroying hostile armies, a mass of wealth, boiling the blood of the enemy.



Of this verse 'Siri-sanghaTTaNu' translated as 'a mass of wealth' is central to the core character of Dhilli, that it is a PaTTana or commercial capital city. And it is huge (paviliu).

Perhaps this 'Siri = wealth' is a hint of its location and name towards the city under this name, known from Sultanate references. The word 'sanghaTTanu' here is used by Cohen in the sense of piling wealth. But the word having as core 'sangha' rather points to a conglomerate character of places full with people for a central purpose (in this case commerce).



2. Immense Fortress

Then, Shridhara moves on to Dhilli's large(st) fortress complex.



Fortifications

1.3.1 jahiM gayaNa-maNDal'Alaggu sAlu | raNamaNDava-parimandiu visAlu ||

1.3.2 goura-siri-kalas'Ahaya-payangu | jala-pUriya-parih'Alingiyangu ||

The immense fort, adorned all around with bastions and encircled by a water-filled moat, touches the vault of the sky, the radiant pinnacle of its city-gate brighter than the sun.”



This fort (sAlu) is an immense (visAlu) one, encircled (parimaNDiu) with bastions (raNamaNDava).



Inside and outside

1.3.3 jahiM jaNa-maNa-NayaN'AnandirAiM | maNiyara-gaNa-maNDiyA-mandirAim ||

1.3.4 jahiM caudisu sohahiM ghaNa-vaNAim | NAyara-Nara-khayara-suhAvanaIM ||

The buildings, studded with gems, delight the minds and eyes of the public.

Dense forests, which beautify the entire area, are a source of pleasure to the birds and city-dwellers.



Fauna

1.3.5 jahiM samaya-karaDi ghaDaghaDahaDanti | paDisaddeM disi vidisi viphuDanti ||

1.3.6 jahiM pavaNa-gamaNa-dhAvira-turanga | NaM vArirAsi-bhangura-taranga ||

Here rutting elephants loudly clash, splitting the air with their noises, and galloping horses, swift as the wind, are like ocean waves about to break.



Wide lake

1.3.7 paviliu ananga-saru jahiM vihAiM | rayaNAyaru saiM avavariu NAiM ||

1.3.8 jahiM tiya-payaNeura-rau suNevi / hariseM sihi Nacca-i taNu dhuNevi ||

The wide Ananga Lake resembles the ocean; the peacock, its body trembling, dances with delight, hearing the tinkling sound of women's anklets.



Here we have a wide, ocean-resembling Ananga Saras. Thus it was a vast lake.



3. Immense commercial town centra

Then, Shridhara moves to an immense commercial town(s?) of the city.



General layout

1.3.9 jahi maNaharu rehai haTTamaggu | NIsesa-vatthu-sanciya-samaggu ||

1.3,10 kAtantaM piva panjI-samiddhu | Nava-kAmiNi-jovvaNam'iva saNiddhu ||

The fascinating marketplace glitters with a collection of every commodity.

Like the Katantra grammar, it abounds in panjis and is friendly like the youthfulness of a young girl.



Panjis: balls of cotton from which a threat is spun, denoting here main commercial centers or companies having several subcenters spread everywhere, all interconnected.



Commodities

1.3.1 1 suraramaNiyaNu va varaNetta-vattu | pekkhaNayaram'ivav ahu-vesavantu ||

1.3.12 vAyaraNu va sAhiya-vara-suvaNNu | NADaya-pekkhaNayaM piva sapaNNu ||

It possesses precious cloth like goddesses, numerous guises like a public spectacle, eloquent speech like a grammar and connoisseurs like the performance of a drama.

It possesses the best betelnut as a general has the advantage of superior troops.



High standards

1.3.13 cakkavai va vara-pUapphalillu | saccuNNu NAiM saddaMsaNillu ||

1.3.14 dapp'ubbhaDa-bhaDa-toNu va kaNillu | savinaya-sIsu va vahu-gorasillu ||

It possesses an honest appearance as one full of truth possesses the six systems of philosophy.

It is filled with grain as the quiver of a proud, excellent warrior is filled with arrows, and many milk prepara-tions as the well-trained student with the sweetness of eloquent speech.



Immense size

1.3.15 pArAvAru va vitthariya-sankhu | tihuaNava-i guNa-Niyaru va asankhu ||

1.3.16 NayaNam'iva satAra-u saruva-sahAra-u paura-mANu kAmiNiyaNu va |

sangaru va saNAya-u nahu va sarAyati Nihaya-kansu NArAyaNu va ||

Like the ocean, its size is vast, immeasurable like the multitude of virtues of a Lord of the Three Worlds.

It is radiant like the eyes, enchanting like a lake, very capricious like a woman in love, full of elephants like a battle, colorful like the sky, and has struck Kansa like Narayana.



This commercial center is as immeasurably vast as an ocean, so it must have been of a huge size. The word 'tihuanava-i' of which the Sanskrit rendering is Tribhuvanapati, is not only a hint to the (almost) contemporary Tomara ruler, as discussed in Cohen's paper. But it is also a hint towards the double character of the size of the city: one, that it was part of three larger centers, and two, it was part of a conglomerate triple city.



4. King Anangapala

Finally, Shridhara comes to the Tomara ruler, Anangapala. It is not important for this writing who this ruler was and in which time he ruled. The importance of this 4th section is that we clearly are in Yoginipura area.



Towards enemies

1.4.1 jahiM asivara-toDiya-riu-kavAlu | NaraNAhu pasiddhu aNangavAlu ||

1.4.2 Nirudala-vaTTiya-hammiravIru | vandiyana-vinda-paviiNNa-cIru ||

[Here is] where the famed King Anangapala [ruled]. He cut off the head of the enemy with his excellent sword, crushed and destroyed the Hammira warrior, and distributed cloth to the groups of bards.



Towards the wicked

1.4.3 dujjaNa-hiyay'AvaNi-dalaNa-sIru | duNNaya-NIraya-NirasaNa-samIru ||

1.4.4 valabhara-kampAviya-nAyarAu | mANiNiyaNa-maNa-sanjaniya-rAu ||

As the plowshare breaks the ground, so he broke the heart of the wicked.

He was the wind driving away the cloud of evil conduct. The weight of his pillar caused the Lord of the Snakes to tremble.



This last verse is a clear reference to Yoginipura and its heavy Pillar. (Vala = post, pillar) The causative ppp of kamp 'to tremble'. This reference is perhaps the first hint and origin of the (folk)etymology of the name Dhilli metropolis, in that part, as being connected with the meaning of 'loose'. If so, the time of the etymology goes back to the period of this description. The name Dhilli itself is older.

Anangapala II lived in the middle of the 11th century, and Shridhara around 1132. His royal patron can not have been Vijayapala, father of Madanapala, who both came later. It is plausible that there was another Anangapala III in the early 12th century, just preceding Vijayapala. Of this Anangapala there are several coins, with the legend of Samantadeva, thus having a subordinate role. His tribhuvana-pati character hints at his governership (pati) over three cities (tribhuvana). Remember that a governor of one city is called a Pura-pati!

The Muslim Hammira is Bairam Shah Ghaznavi, his Lahore governor raided the India from there 'see Firishta and Barni), but was unsuccessful with the Delhi ruler.



C. Deduction

After giving a general topographical picture, Shridhara then moves from the east to the west, and gives this sequence of the Delhi metropolis, which in my opinion should be these locations with these functions: Tughluqabad (military center) > Siri-Jahanpanah (commercial center) > Yoginipura (religious center). And all centers are well fortified.

Siri-Jahanpanah tower as the commercial center, even though Tughluqabad had its own large commercial town. Yoginipura was not a commercial town, even though it may have had its own small market town. The hint towards Siri is given in the first doublet as 'siri-sanghaTTanu'. The oval-shaped (vrttAnta) Siri functioned as the outer, military stronghold of the conglomerate cities, with Jahanpanah area in the middle as the commercial center proper, with its sahasrasthuna Vijayamandala palace as royal residence. And in the west Yoginipura served as a stronghold of particularly religious edifices. This is the triple function of the conglomerate cities.



There are quite a few reasons that a much larger area is meant by Shridhara's total description than Yoginipura, but which all scholars have overlooked. The consequence is that we have to include other cities of Delhi close to Yoginipura. The reasons or arguments for a much larger geographical picture of Delhi are these:

1. immense fort character: Even though the older Tomara fort is impressive, it is a dwarf as compared to the extended fort of Prithviraja Chauhana. But the Chauhana overlords had yet to come. This immense fortress complex, with the same huge batallions as Lal Kot, (amidst dense forests) applies better to Tughluqabad than that of Yoginipura.

2. ocean-like lake: Considering the immense size of its Lake, as compared to Ananga Tal close to Lal Kot, which last is classed as a tank (Upinder Singh, p.570, ASI review 1991-1992) or baoli by some, but not as a lake! I believe that, being an Agravala, he certainly knew the differense between a Saras and a Tala or Baoli. While Ananga Tala retained its name, Ananga Saras lost it together with the city with its original name.

3. immense market character: Cohen admits that “Nothing of the market's architectural design is given, nor do any remains of the area seem to exist today.” He has Yoginipura in mind with this description. But, it perfectly applies to Siri-Jahanpanah.

4. triple centers: Shridhara gives two hints at the vast character of the city. First, through the word 'tihuanava-i' or Tribhuvana-pati, indicating the rule over three residential abodes, either in a geographical conglomerate or in a functional sense.

5. description sequence: Shridhara clearly starts from the east and the most remote area, then moves to the center, and finally arrives at his residential and sacred city.



Based upon the testimony of Badaoni, that Tughluqabad and its lofty edifices was rebuilt in a short time span by Ghiyathuddin, and based upon the research of the Shokoohy's that the builders of the walls and the gates show different hands at the joints, we may ascribe Tughluqabad to an older period. As both Siri and Jahanpanah were also built in a very short time span, these included also repairing projects of the early Sultans, which is indirectly indicated by the repairing projects of seven fortifications of Old Delhi by Firuz Shah Tughluq. (See my previous posting on Tughluqabad)



This huge city size of Tomara period is again described in the time of Tughluqs by Ibn Batuta, based upon two indigenous sources, stressing the continuity of the size: The core of Delhi metropolis consisted of 4 fortified cities, of which Qilah Rai Pithora(Yoginipura)-Jahanpanah-Siri formed a conglomerate.

But, the area of this Delhi was known for more fortified cities, in this case of Indarpat metropolis, which in Tomara times were not part of Dhilli, but certainly was part of their kingdom. But somehow it was counted as part of (the kingdom of) Delhi. (see my previous posting on Tughluqabad)



D. Conclusion

Dhilli was the name of one of the cities of Delhi, which gaves its name to the other. Shridhara, when giving topographical information, he first describes Haryana and its capital, he moves on to a vast fortress, then he moves to huge commercial centra, and finally arrives at Yoginipura with its Pillar.

Giving this both geographical and functional forms, this leads to this. Geographically, Shridhara moves from east to west: Tughluqabad fits the description of the fortcomplex with its immense lake, Siri-Jahanpanah fits the description of the immense markets, and Yoginipura/Kot Rai Pithora that of the city of the Pillar. Functionally we have three centers: a military one in the west of Dhilli, a commercial one in the middle, and a religious one in the east.



Cities which were thought to have been founded in Sultanate period, may have been older than previously thought. Perhaps due to destructions during the later Lahori Ghaznavid and Ghurid raids these cities needed repairings, especially wth the Mongol incursions.

With this outcome, outlining the systematic logic behind Shridhara's description, it makes sense to connect this with topography. The consequence is that Dhilli was much larger in the early and pre-Sultanate period than previously admitted.



Anyway, Delhi seems to have been not only larger, but this larger character was already achieved in Tomara times! With this, a gap in the topographical history can be filled.



I hope that more Jaina Apabhramsa and perhaps Shaiva Agama or other works will see the light of publication in English. It may enhance our understanding of Delhi in pre-Sultanate period with the continuity of its main character in Sultanate period.



Sources

1.An Early Attestation of the Toponym Ḍhillī. Author(s): Richard J. Cohen. Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 109, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1989), pp. 513-519. Published by: American Oriental Society. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/604073. Accessed: 23/08/2010 08:53



2. Upinder Singh: A History of Ancient and Medieval India; From the Stone Ahe to the 12th century. Delhi, 2008. Dorling Kindersley Pvt. Ltd.



3.ASI review 1991-1992, URL: http://asi.nic.in/nmma_reviews/Indian%20...Review.pdf

[Guest]

(Re)Building Siri and Jahanpanah



Introduction

A surprising reference of court historian Badaoni about Tughluqabad caused me to reconsider the claim connected with Ghiyathuddin that he was the creator from scratch of the fortress:

“Then he directed his ambition to the rebuilding of the fortress of Tughlaqābād and all the lofty edifices, and set about it (without delay)* and Badr Shā‘ir Shāshī invented as a chronogram for the date of building the fort (of Tughlaqābād) the following: “Enter then her gates.”* [Note: These words give the date 727 H.]



This makes sense. Ghiyathuddin didn't build Tughluqabad fortress and all the lofty edifices (palaces, places of worship, etc.), according to Badaoni, but he started a repairing project of an already existing fortress = a large fortified complex with residential structures, as it was chosen as the location of his new place including towns. Badaoni on the same page says this about the duration of this rebuilding:

”And in the year 724 A.H. (1324 A.D.), Sultān Ghiyāthu-d- 224. Dīn Tughlaq Shāh, upon the occasion of the tyranny of the governors of Bengal, left Ulugh Khān as his viceroy in the capital Tughlaqābād which had been built in the space of three years and a fraction, ...”



The archaeological proof for two different layers=periods of this rebuilding project is this:

“These gates were more closely investigated, and soon it became apparent that there is a considerable difference between the complexity of planning and construction of the gates in comparison with the walls. Even the stonework of the gates differs from that of the walls (pl. IIIb). It seems that the builders of the gates and those of the walls could not have been the same, and that the military personnel were probably responsible only for the construction of the walls.” (Shokoohy's Tughluqabad, p. 435)



Having seriously challenced the claim that Ghiyathuddin built Tughluqabad fortress from scratch in a very short time span, I believe that the same accounts for similar cases, at least with other Tughluq and Khilji period built fortresses in very short time lapse, as enumerated here:

“The entire city of Tughluqabad, including the citadel, the fort and the shahristan, together with the palaces and public and residential buildings, was built in a short period of time, apparently in the first two years of Ghiyath al-din's reign.23 Such speed in establishing a new town is not unusual in India, as many other towns of that period were built in a similar time span. Among such towns are 'Ala'al-din Khalji's Siri24 as well as Firuz Shah Tughluq's Jaunpur25 and Hisar-i Firuza (modern Hisar).” (Shokoohy's Tughluqabad, pp.433-434)



Concentrating only on Delhi here, Siri too might be an older pre-Sultanate period city, having been subjected to a repairing and relocating project. Not named here is the large Jahanpanah, also built in this short time span.

The case of Tughluqabad is clear, both from literature and archaeology, that it was a rebuilding of a preexisting ancient fotress with lofty edifices. But, to build a city from scratch and also with long walls joining the Delhi cities of Yoginipura, Jahanpanah and Siri in just a year or two, is equally impossible. The better explanation is that the three ancient conglomerate cities, called Dhillipura, were already fortified before.



The suggestion that new cities were built for the new dynasties to found a city to show the power of theirs, is totally unfounded. After the battles to conquer Dhillipura by the Sultans, the cities needed repairs and relocating due to the repeated serious invasions and threads of the Mongols. The contemporary court historians and poets didn't pay much attention to this aspect, as it would undermine the ego and lustre of their patrons. But the later court historian Firishta did refer to this important Mongol thread.



Amir Khushrau and his friend Barni lived during 2 megalomanic Sultans: The first was Alauddin Khilji, who considered himself such a great conqueror to call himself a second Alexander the Great. But he was seriously humbled by Qutlugh Khwaja who killed a formidable Khilji general, and especially by Turghi, who only had to give the knock out to Alauddin safely hiding in Siri, being protected in his “camp” there. But Turghi suddenly disappeared.

The second was Muhammad bin Tughluq, whose relocating of his royal seats caused famines and deads.

Both Sultans had to wage wars in order to get some money to paty the expensive military. Alauddin had to cut on his wages to save money, just after Turghi's invasion, which was not the last Mongol thread. How on earth would he generate extra money for immense projects.



There was hardly any time for peace of rest. To build huge fortified cities in such turbulent periods, with costly armies to raise and maintain for distant successful and unsuccessful raids, is not an easy task. Especially for warlords, not interested in permanent settlements, but thinking and acting practically using on one hand movable camps for annexations and on the other hand (captured) garrisons or forts for consolodation. The conquering megalomaniac warlords Alauddin Khilji and Muhammam Tughluq were not interested in and had no time for civilian consolidation.

This clearly stated by Firishta about Alauddin: ”But apprehensive of another invasion of the Moguls, he increased his forces so greatly, that upon calculating the expense, he found his revenues, and what treasures he had himself amassed, could not support them above six years. In this dilemma he resolved to reduce the pay of the army, but it occurred to him that this could not be done with propriety, without lowering, pro­portionably, the price of horses, arms, and pro­vision.

Where did Allaudin have time and resources to maintain an even larger army and build forst from scratch. All his money was directed in the direction of defense: arms, horses, personnel, provision and repairing his existing fortifications. There was no money for new forts from scratch.



In contrast to the name Jahanpanah, Siri is nowhere said to have been introduced as a new name to a location. It is thus an old name for the location.



Suburbs and Siri citadel

Contemporaries of Alauddin (1296-1316) were court poet Amir Khushrau and his friend court historian Ziauddin Barni.

Both aren't giving how dreadful the real thread of Mongol raids and invasions were. That is more faithfully described by the later Firishta, having more historical works at is disposal.



Barani: “Next day 'Aláu-d dín marched with royal state and display into the plain of Sírí,* where he pitched his camp. The throne was now secure, and the revenue officers, and the elephant keepers with their elephants, and the kotwáls with the keys of the forts, and the magistrates and the chief men of the city came out to 'Aláu-d dín, and a new order of things was established. His wealth and power were great; so whether individuals paid their allegiance or whether they did not, mat­tered little, for the khutba was read and coins were struck in his name.”

This is in 1296, when he usurped the throne by treacherously killing is uncle, the Sultan. In the plains he pitched his camp or Lashkar(gah). Below we get to know what the nature of this camp was.



Mongol incursions and its effects

1221 Indus, first thread during Sultan Iyal Timish (Iltutmish)

Alauddin Khilji

1296/7 Jalandhar: Raid by Dua Khan, defeated by Alaf Khan

1298 Sewustan (Sahwan): Raid by Saldi Khan, defeated by Zafar Khan

Then came two serious Mongol invasions



1299 Delhi: invasion Qutluq or Qutlugh Khwaja

Barani: “The Sultán marched out of Dehlí with great display and pitched his tent in Sírí. Maliks, amírs, and fighting men were summoned to Dehlí from every quarter. At that time the author's uncle, 'Aláu-l Mulk, one of the companions and ad­visers of the Sultán, was kotwál of Dehlí, and the Sultán placed the city, his women and treasure, under his charge. * * * * 'Aláu-l Mulk went out to Sírí to take leave of the Sultán, and in private consultation with him [advised a temporising policy.] ...'Aláu-d dín marched from Sírí to Kílí and there encamped. Katlagh Khwája, with the Mughal army, advanced to encounter him.”

Then the Mongol thread reached deep into Delhi: “Mughals had seized the roads, and were so encamped that no reinforce­ments could reach the city from the army of Hindustán. There were no forces in Multán, Sámána, and Deopalpúr sufficient to cope with the Mughals, and join the Sultán at Sírí. The army of Hindustán was pressed to advance; but the enemy was too strong, and they remained in Kol and Baran. All the passages of the Jumna were in the hands of the enemy. The Sultán, with his small army of horse, left the capital and encamped at Sírí, where the superior numbers and strength of the enemy compelled him to entrench his camp.”



Barni first uses “tent”, which clearly points to an open field with a meeting point of the military pouring in to form an army with cavalry ready to ride out. Which they did.

He then uses the words “camp” and “encamped” for (Kili and for) Siri for the small army of Alauddin, using the word “ entrenching” too. That Alauddin chose to encamp his small army in an open area against a vast superior invasion army, doesn' make sense. Before reaching a place to make a camp and entrenching himself, the swift Mongols would have destroyed him. But “entrenching” himself in a citadel, defending that against a siege, and than reacting with a counterattack through his cavalery with defensive support from the citadel at a moment in their advantage, that makes sense.

This contrast of the use of the words (mobile) “tent” versus (inmobile) “camp” makes the difference between a non-fortified and a fortified place and army!



Firishta gives the surprising and important detail about suburbs:

“Alla-ood-Deen Khiljy, on this pressing occasion, called a council of his nobles, and, in spite of remonstrances, resolved to attack the enemy. He left the city, and marched out by the Budaoon gate with 300,000 horse, and 2700 elephants. He drew up in order of battle, on the plains beyond the suburbs, where the enemy formed to receive him.”



Here we see that Delhi had three areas: Alauddin left 1. the (fort of royal) city, and marched 2. beyond the suburbs 3. on the plains. Beyond the suburbs was his (fortified) “camp”, as per Barni. And outside this “camp” was the field where he had pitched his “tent” before, also as per Barni. Now his enemy must have had their tents, waiting for his arrival and encounter.



1303 Delhi: Invasion by Targhay or Turghay

Before the battle

Firishta: “Intelligence of these distant expeditions becoming known in Ma-wur-ool-Nehr, Toorghay Khan, the Mogul chief who had distinguished himself formerly against Zuffur Khan, thinking that Alla-ood-Deen would for a long time be absent, seized the opportunity of invading Hindoostan. The King, hearing of this dangerous inroad, abandoned, for the present, his designs on the Deccan, and caused his army to return to Dehly. Toorghay Khan, with twelve tomans of Mogul horse, amounting to 120,000 men, reached the capital, and encamped on the banks of the Jumna. The cavalry of the Indian army being absent on the expedition to Wurungole, the King was in no condition to face the enemy on equal terms, and therefore contented himself with en­trenching his infantry on the plain beyond the suburbs, till he could collect the forces of the dis­tant districts. The Moguls, meanwhile, having command of the adjacent country, prevented all succours from joining the Indians, and proceeded to such lengths as to plunder the suburbs of Dehly, in the King's presence, without his being able to check them.”



It is clear again from this description, that there is a capital city Delhi, with a. its fortified royal residence in Qilah Rai Pithora, b. its suburbs and c. a plain beyond the suburbs with a fortified military camp or Lashkar(gah). It doesn't make sense to just encamp an infantry at a vulnerable, easily attackable spot in the plains (!) with its king there too against a superior cavalry of a huge Mongol army. That the king and his army was entirely defenseless against the raids to the non-fortified areas of the suburbs of Delhi underlines the swift superiority of his enemy.

The key here is again the word “entrenching”, which means fixing securely. His infantry, defenseless against a cavalry, must have been protected, feeling secure between walls, i.e. within a citadel! The king was totally powerless and only could wait and hope.



After the battle

Barni: “After this very serious danger, 'Aláu-d dín awoke from his sleep of neglect. He gave up his ideas of campaigning and fort-taking, and built a palace at Sírí. He took up his residence there, and made it his capital, so that it became a flourishing place. He ordered the fort of Dehlí to be repaired, and he also ordered the restoration of the old forts which lay in the track of the Mughals. Additional forts were directed to be raised wher­ever they were required. To these forts he appointed veteran and prudent commandants.”



Firishta: “Alla-ood-Deen, relieved from the perils of this invasion, caused a palace to be built upon the spot where he had entrenched himself, and directed the citadel of Old Dehly to be pulled down, and built anew.”



The second statement of Firishta doesn't make sense. To pull down the citadel of Old Delhi = Yoginipura and built that anew. There is no other source confirming this. The first statement is even more ridiculous: if there wasn't a fortress there, it would be mad and dangerous to build a palace in the open, with the fresh fear of serious Mongol invasions.

But, if with the 'citadel of Old Delhi' is meant a preexisting citadel of Siri suburb, in which Alauddin's outnumbered army was safe from a sure defeat of the sieging attacks of Turghay, and in which citadel he built a palace, it all makes sense. That is exactly what can be deduced from Barni's statement too!

During the plunder of Siri-Jahanpanah suburbs and the siege of Siri's old citadel, it must have got damaged in such measure that it had to be repaired before a new Mongol invasion or raid.

Siri citadel and surrounding suburb rebuilding project started after this 1303 invasion. That there was not enough money at that time, despite the raids of the Khilji generals and the flattering comments of court writers, to maintain secure from raids, becomes clear from the financial situation as described below.



Financial situation

Firishta: ”But apprehensive of another invasion of the Moguls, he increased his forces so greatly, that upon calculating the expense, he found his revenues, and what treasures he had himself amassed, could not support them above six years. In this dilemma he resolved to reduce the pay of the army, but it occurred to him that this could not be done with propriety, without lowering, pro­portionably, the price of horses, arms, and pro­vision. He therefore caused an edict to be pro­claimed, which he strictly enforced throughout the empire, fixing the price of every article of con­sumption. To accomplish the reduction of the prices of grain, in particular, he caused large maga­zines to be built upon the rivers Jumna and Ganges, and other places convenient for water-carriage, under the direction of Mullik Kubool. This person was authorised to receive half of the land tax in grain; and the government agent supplied the markets when any articles rose above the fixed price.”



Barni gives this information too about the finance regulations. It is very remarkable that Badaoni, in the parallel passages, also mentioning the name of Barni, doesn't spill a word on Siri palace-citadel-city having been built by Alauddin!



Folk etymology of Siri

There are two references which might have given rise to the folk etymology of the name Siri with the meaning of (slain) heads. The first is by Amir Khushrau (court poet): “It is a condition that in a new building blood should be sprinkled; he therefore sacrificed some thousands of goat-bearded Mughals for the purpose.”



It is clear that the finished repaired Siri fort is intended. But Amir Khushrau does not state that it has anything to do with the name Siri or its connection with heads, only blood is mentioned here. But, another reference is really about heads:



Firishta: “They were sent to Dehly with their chief, Eibuk Khan, where, being trodden to death by elephants, a pillar was raised before the Budaoon gate, formed of their skulls; and I am in­formed that a portion of it is to be seen at this day.”



Firishta relates the story of the heads (say sir) with the later raids of Aybak Khan in 1305, and this happened before the Yoginipura fort! Thus it has nothing to do with Siri. As building a tower or a heap of skulls was customary amongst Turks, such a tower may have been raised before the gates of Siri fort after the invasion of Qutlugh Khan and Turghay, indirectly implying that there aws an existing citadel/fort.

Anyway, the place was already known as Siri before the time of the Khiljis and did have an ancient citadel.



Conclusion

From the above it becomes clear that in the capital city of Delhi (Yoginipura with Qilah Rai Pithora) there was beyond its suburbs (=Jahanpanah) a place that was called Siri at least before the Khiljis. This Siri did contain an ancient citadel in that plain, where Alauddin did hide twice during serious invasions of two Mongol leaders.



The Sultanate court writers did call it Lashkar(gah) or military camp, but that it had to be a fortified place or citadel/fort, is clear from the way in which the cavalry attacked the suburbs, and could not capture either Qilah Rai Pithora and Siri and from the fact that only infantry was stationed in the “military camp”.

Bani makes the difference when using the word “tent” with a movable army ready to go, versus the word “camp” for a place to secure the enforcing infantry against a huge cavalry. While Amir Khushru and Barni are vague about the claim that Alauddin built the citadel, Firishta later is too. But Badaoni completely omits this, while he mentioned Siri's camp slightly after becoming the Sultan in 1296. All indicating that Siri city-fort-palaces weren't built by Alauddin, but were repaired!

As Allauddin only felt secure in the Siri citadel, he ordered its repairs, which were needed after the sieges by Mongols.

The old fortifications of the suburbs, not so firm, high and strong as those of the Qilah of Yoginipura and the citadel of Siri as these were the market places etc., must have been damaged too by the Mongol siege of these. These had to be repaired too.



Not only Siri, but also the suburbs (=later renamed Jahan-panah, the suburb of jahan=mahi and panah~palapura) were existent before the Khiljis and Tughluqs. These suburbs between the ancient Qilah of Yoginipura and the ancient Lashkar citadel of Siri had a name, but this name was changed into Jahanpanah under the Tughluqs later on.



Now, the Pasanacariu, in my writing on the topographical verses, exactly described this triple conglomeratecharacter from Yoginipura city area through Jahanpanah suburb area to the citadel city of Siri! The Sultanate and later court writers substantiate the preexistence of this triple conglomerate before Sultanate period. As the fourth city of Dhilli proper, Tughluqabad (perhaps Anangapura), was also preexistent before the Sultans, The Sultans only repaired the older Tomara cities of Dhillipura metropolis!



The cities of Indarpat metropolis, apparently, were also of pre-Sultanate period. The fortress of Indarpat proper is ancient, mentioned by court works of Firuz Shah Tughluq, the name is met with in Barni's work. The area of Kilugarhi also denotes an ancient fortied (garhi) area, with an indigenous placename KIlU. That it doesn't represent a word Qilah is apparent, as the -q- sound and letter is knowb to the Muslim authors. Besides a double wordt fort-fort doesn't make sense. Kilugarhi suburb was made a royal seat by Kaikubad and Jalaluddin Khilji.

And the Shahjahanabad palaces were repaired (!) by Shahjahan, as per Mirat-i Ahmadi of the 18th century Gujarat court, free from Mughal censorship. No royal palace has been built outside a fortified place, thus both the palaces as the Red Fort were there before the repairs of Shah Jahan. Like all the Muslim rulers before him, they were in almost all cases responsible for renaming cities and repairing preexisting forts, fortifications and lofty edifices.



Sources

1. Al-Badaoni: Muntakhab-ut Tawarikh, in History of India, Vol. III, p.296.

2. Shokoohy's: Tughluqabad, Second Interim Report, p. 435 and pp. 433-434.

3. Ziauddin Barni: Táríkh-i Fíruz Sháhí, in History of India, Vol. III, section xv, pp. 93-268.

4. Muhammad Qasim Firishta: Táríkh-i Firishta, in History of rise of Muhammadan Power in India, Vol. I, pp. 285ff.

5. Amir Khusrau: Táríkh-i 'Aláí; or, Khazáínu-l Futúh, in pp. 67-92.

[HareKrishna]

Prehistoric UFO and ET images found in remote cave in India

http://raelianews.org/news.php?item.392.6