India! I dare you to be rich

Category: India

Singapore, UK and Canadian regulators find Maggi noodles are OK. Indian regulator must have demanded a bribe.

1) Singapore regulator finds India-produced Maggi noodles to be OK. [8 June 2015 Source]

2) UK regulator finds India-produced Maggi noodles to be OK. [1 July 2015. Source]

3) Canadian regulator finds India-produced Maggi noodles to be OK. [3 July 2015. Source]

I have long been a fan of Maggi noodles (particularly the Indian variety, with its unique spices).

These noodles are also available in Indian shops in Melbourne, and when I go these shops (once in 2 years) I am likely to buy some India-made Maggi noodles, as well.

I'm 100 per cent certain now that these noodles are fine. The case is a clear one of CORRUPTION. The Indian regulator must have demanded a bribe, and upon not getting one, cooked up these "results". All FABRICATED. 

In the ROTTEN socialist country called India, you will find that dangerous ayurvedic "medicines" containing poisonous heavy metals will be "approved" while fully legitimate foods will be destroyed, just to teach companies a lesson.

BRIBE OR DISAPPEAR. That's socialist India's motto. Carry on enjoying your junk Third World "country" – an international joke, really.

Continue Reading

Indians should become clear that Modi’s RSS actively supported British rule in India; did NOTHING for independence

It is very important that all Indians fully understand that the RSS was actively in support of the British, and did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to fight for India's independence from colonial rule.

Extracts from UNDOING INDIA THE RSS WAY, By Shamsul Islam

[All this and much more in my booklet: Angrezon Ke Pille]

​HEDGEWAR'S SUPPORT FOR BRITISH RULE

The Prime Minister of India, Atal Behari Vajpayee issued a commemorative postage stamp to mark the 110th birth anniversary of the ‘freedom fighter’ and founder of the RSS, Dr. K. B. Hedgewar, on March 18, 1999 in New Delhi. It was the first instance since India’s independence that a postage stamp was issued commemorating the birthday of the founder of the RSS or any other leader of this organization. On this occasion, the Prime Minister, while addressing mainly a gathering of the RSS cadre, took credit for the fact that by issuing the postage stamp his government had corrected an injustice whereby the great freedom fighter and patriot Hedgewar was denied his due place in the history of Independent India. Rajendar Singh, the then chief of the RSS, and the Union Home Minister L. K. Advani too spoke on the occasion and described Hedgewar as a great revolutionary. [The Hindu, Delhi, March 19, 1999.]

.. the Prime Minister, the Home Minister, and the RSS chief were talking dishonestly about the contribution of Hedgewar in the freedom struggle. They were trying to pass off a pre-independence political trend represented by the RSS as a legacy of the anti-colonial struggle whereas in reality the RSS was never part of the anti-imperialist struggle. On the contrary, since its inception in 1925, the RSS only tried to disrupt the great anti-imperialist struggle of the Indian people against the British colonial rulers.

Interestingly, the ‘contribution’ to the freedom struggle for which the BJP Government honoured Hedgewar was made by him as a Congressman long before he founded the RSS in 1925. It may not be known to many that he went to jail for the first time for giving an inflammatory speech in support of the Khilafat Movement (1920-21). He was subsequently sentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment. According to his biography published by the RSS: “The experiences gained by him in the freedom movement till now, gave rise to a number of questions in his mind. He felt that some other way should be found”. [CP Bhishikar, Sanghavariksh Ke Beej: Dr. Keshav Rao Hedgewar (Hindi), Suruchi, Delhi, 1994, p. 9.] In the same book, it is further mentioned that Hedgewar was attracted by ‘Hindutva’ towards 1925 and

“through his talent he found a new method of Shakha (the drill), different from the ways then prevalent, of doing public work and the type of efforts then being made for gaining freedom.” [Ibid, p. 11.]

The truth is that Hedgewar by then had openly taken the path, which Mohammed Ali Jinnah was to take later, of breaking the united movement of the Indian people against the British rulers and splitting it along religious lines.

Hedgewar was sent to jail a second time by the British government; the last time he went to jail. The reason for his second imprisonment has been described in the same biography in the following words:

“[In 1930] Mahatma Gandhi had called upon the people to break different laws of the government. Gandhiji himself launched the Salt Satyagraha, undertaking the Dandi Yatra. Dr. Saheb [Hedgewar] sent information everywhere that the Sangh will not participate in the Satyagraha. However those wishing to participate individually in it were not prohibited. This meant that any responsible worker of the Sangh could not participate in the Satyagraha.”[ Ibid, p. 20.]

However, rather surprisingly, Hedgewar decided to participate in Gandhiji’s Dandi Salt Satyagraha as an individual. Of course, he had an ulterior motive behind this participation. We learn about this from the same biography published by the RSS:

“Dr. Saheb had the confidence that with a freedom-loving, self-sacrificing and reputed group of people inside with him there, he would discuss the Sangh with them and win them over for its work.”[ Ibid, p. 20.]

In this context it is further stated in the biography, “Doctor Saheb did not let the work of the Sangh get away from his mind (aankhon se aujhal nahin hone diya) even for a moment during his imprisonment. He established close links with all the leaders and activists [of the Congress] who were in prison, made them understand the work of the Sangh and obtained from them promise of cooperation in work for the future. He came out of the prison only after making plans for a big leap for work expansion.”[Ibid, p. 21]

It is clear that Hedgewar chose to go to jail this time not because he was committed of the cause but in order to break and disrupt the ranks of the Congress cadres. These cadres were participating in the Non-Cooperation Movement and going to jails upholding the banner of the united struggle of the people of all religions of the country. In fact, the Congress leadership soon realized that communal and sectarian organizations were bent upon using the cadre of the Congress for their vicious designs. In order to thwart such designs, the All India Congress Committee passed a resolution in 1934, forbidding Congress members from becoming members of the RSS, the Hindu Mahasabha, and the Muslim League.

… the only ‘contribution’ for which he could claim credit was that of propagating the communal and disruptive ideology of the Hindu Rashtra (Nation), an ideology which divided and undermined the Freedom Movement.

The people of this country have every right to know about the movements which were launched by the RSS before 1947, to free India from the clutches of British imperialism. They must share with the nation the information about its leaders and cadres who suffered repression under the colonial rule. They must tell us who amongst them went to jail or became martyrs for the cause of the freedom of the country?

GOLWALKAR'S SUPPORT FOR BRITISH RULE

it has not been possible to locate any material in contemporary records including Press, which would shed light on the anti-British role of [RSS]. Today we have to rely exclusively on what we are told by the RSS propagandists in their publications citing no historical proofs.

The reality is that so far RSS has not been in a position to produce even a single volume containing documents that could show that the organization played any role in the freedom struggle.

The contemporary writings and speeches of the RSS leaders have a very different story to tell. These leaders showed little enthusiasm for the anti-British struggle. Golwalkar, while deliberating about the attitude of the RSS towards the freedom struggle said:

“There is another reason for the need of always remaining involved in routine work. There is some unrest in the mind due to the situation developing in the country from time to time. There was such unrest in 1942. Before that there was the movement in 1930-31. At that time many other people had gone to Doctorji. This delegation requested Doctorji that this movement will give independence and Sangh should not lag behind. At that time, when a gentleman told Doctorji that he was ready to go to jail, Doctorji said: ‘Definitely go. But who will take care of your family then?’ That gentleman replied: ‘I have sufficiently arranged resources not only to run the family expenses for two years but also to pay fines according to the requirements’. Then Doctorji told him: ‘If you have fully arranged for the resources then come out to work for the Sangh for two years’. After returning home that gentleman neither went to jail nor came out to work for the Sangh.”[ Shri Guruji Samagar Darshan, (collected works of Golwalkar in Hindi), Vol IV, Bharatiya Vichar Sadhana, Nagpur, nd, pp. 39-40. Hereafter referred as SGSD.]

This incident clearly shows that the RSS leadership was bent upon demoralising the honest patriotic persons, making them run away from the cause of Freedom Movement.

Non-Co-operation Movement and Quit India Movement were two great milestones in the history of the Indian Freedom Movement and here is the great thesis of the great Guru (Golwalkar) of the RSS on these two great happenings of the Freedom Movement. While deliberating over these two great anti-British movements led by the Congress Golwalkar stated:

“Definitely, there are bound to be bad results of struggle. The boys became unruly after the 1920-21 movement. It is not an attempt to throw mud at the leaders. But these are inevitable products after the struggle. The matter is that we could not properly control these results. After 1942, people often started thinking that there was no need to think of the law”.” [Ibid, p. 41.]

Thus Golwalkar wanted the Indians to respect the draconian and repressive laws of the inhuman British rulers! Golwalkar admitted that despite universal condemnation of the RSS attitude towards Quit India Movement of 1942, the then RSS leadership did not budge from its stand of keeping aloof from the freedom struggle. He admitted:

“In 1942 also there was a strong sentiment in the hearts of many. At that time too the routine work of Sangh continued. Sangh vowed not to do anything directly. However, upheaval (uthal-puthal) in the minds of Sangh volunteers continued. Sangh is an organization of inactive persons, their talks are useless, not only outsiders but also many of our volunteers did talk like this. They were greatly disgusted too.”[Ibid, p. 40.]

However, there is not a single publication or document of the Sangh which could throw some light on the great work the RSS did indirectly for the Quit India Movement.

As we have seen, Hedgewar participated in the Salt Satyagraha in his individual capacity. But after this the RSS leaders kept away completely from the anti-British struggle. The RSS scrupulously avoided any political activity which might have been construed as being against the British authorities. According to a publication of the RSS:

“After establishing Sangh, Doctor Saheb in his speeches used to talk only of Hindu organization. Direct comment on Government used to be almost nil.”[ Sanghavriksh Ke Beej, p. 24.]

It may be interesting to note that the RSS literature available on Hedgewar so far has absolutely no reference of any ‘indirect’ comment of his on the barbaric and de-humanized, ‘white rule’ or ‘Gorashahi’ in India. Even close scrutiny and scanning of the nationalist Press of the times of the freedom struggle throw no light on any role played by the RSS.

Though it is possible, given the mass upsurge of that period, that some members of the RSS might have individually participated in some anti-British movement, these would have been isolated instances. However, the RSS as an organization never launched any struggle or campaign against British colonial rule or for the rights of the oppressed Indian masses. Nor was the top leadership of the RSS ever part of the freedom struggle. The RSS documents of the period make it very clear.

Golwalkar, as the Sarsanghchalak of the RSS, was never able to hide his opposition to any movement against foreign rule. As late as March 1947 when the British rulers had decided in principle to go away from India, Golwalkar while addressing the annual day function of the RSS at Delhi declared that leaders with narrow vision were trying to oppose the state power of the British. While elaborating the point he said that it was wrong to hold the powerful foreigners responsible for our ills. He decried the tendency of “initiating the political movements on the basis of our hatred towards our victors”. [SGSD, Vol.1, p. 109.] While narrating an incident in the course of his speech he got more original on the issue:

“Once a respectable senior gentleman came to our shakha (the drill). He had brought a new message for the volunteers of the RSS. When given an opportunity to address the volunteers of the shakha, he spoke in a very impressive tone, ‘Now do only one work. Catch hold of the British, bash them and throw them out. Whatever happens we will see later on’. He said this much and sat down. Behind this ideology is a feeling of anger and sorrow towards state power and reactionary tendency based on hatred. The evil with today’s political sentimentalism is that its basis is reaction, sorrow and anger, and opposition to the victors forgetting friendliness.”[ Ibid, pp. 109-110.]

In all fairness to Golwalkar, he did not claim that the RSS had been opposed to the British rule. During the course of a speech delivered before the top-level cadres of the RSS drawn from whole of India at Indore on March 5, 1960 he said,

“Many people worked with the inspiration to free the country by throwing the British out. After formal departure of the British this inspiration slackened. In fact there was no need to have this much inspiration. We should remember that in our pledge we have talked of the freedom of the country through defending religion and culture. There is no mention of departure of the British in that.”[SGSD, Volume IV, p. 2.]

The RSS was not even willing to regard colonial domination as an injustice. In a speech of June 8, 1942, at a time when India was reeling under unprecedented British repression, delivered at the conclusion of the all India training programme of the cadres at the Nagpur RSS headquarters, Golwalkar declared:

“Sangh does not want to blame anybody else for the present degraded state of the society. When the people start blaming others, then there is basically weakness in them. It is futile to blame the strong for the injustice done to the weak…Sangh does not want to waste its invaluable time in abusing or criticizing others. If we know that large fish eat the smaller ones, it is outright madness to blame the big fish. Law of nature whether good or bad is true all the time. This rule does not change by terming it unjust.”[ Ibid, Vol. 1, pp. 11-12.]

Interestingly, Golwalkar or RSS will not treat Mughal rulers or other rulers with Muslim names with the same generosity even if they decided to be part and parcel of the Indian society.

The RSS thus can be seen as having played an extremely treasonous role throughout the freedom struggle. All evidence points towards its disruptive activities and the fact that the organization and its leadership were never a part of the freedom struggle. The single most important contribution of the RSS was to consistently disrupt the emerging unified struggle of the Indian people against British imperialism through its extreme exclusivist slogan of Hindu Rashtra.

Continue Reading

No trifling thinker, this Sanjay Sonawani. His book was released by Dr. Vasant Shinde, Vice-Chancellor, Deccan College

Trying to find more about Sonawani, I chanced upon his blog. This blog post shows his book was released by none other than Dr. Vasant Shinde, Vice-Chancellor, Deccan College.  [Shinde's profile on DC website and his CV]

This is no mean achievement: to get the head of the most academically sound and eminent institute of archaelogy in India (and one of the few such institutes in the world) to release a book. There were a couple of other academics present at the event, as well.

Sonawani is no Talageri.

The man's intellect is powerful and has been able to attract some top academics of India.

Continue Reading

Very clever: Sanjay Sonawani’s hypothesis for the RV/Sanskrit culture & the Indus Valley “script”

Rarely do I come across much sense in the various writings on ancient Indian history (particularly the OIT-AIT etc. theories). When you read most of the writings, it appears that people are looks at things from fairly pre-conceived perspectives, and they are merely TWISTING the facts to suit their preferences. 

At least that's the impression I got with most OIT "theorists". I've not paid much attention to alternative hypotheses (since there are too many of them). I've merely rejected OIT as being a bunch of nonsense.

But Sanjay Sonawani has no preconceived ideas and is willing to think more deeply. He is not content to debunk OIT but aims to find the truth. That's a far more ambitious project than what I started (a couple of weeks) to undertake. I'm not sure I'm going to spend much more time on these issues, since I don't intend to waste time on ancient history, but let me make a few notes on the broader issues, while I'm on the topic.

Sonawani is not a trained historian or scholar but jurors don't need to be trained criminlogists or forensic scientists. Jurors need to ask questions and make sure the facts fit the story being advocated. Sonawani asks sharp and pointed questions, and dismisses evidence that doesn't stack up. That's what I like about his work. Then he TENTATIVELY offers alternative possibilities. That's another good sign. Not the boor Talageri whose writings are littered with arrogant challenges to everyone in the world. Sonawani is the exact opposite of Talageri – even though both are untrained in any relevant discipline.

I won't comment on Sonawani's entire thesis till I've reviewed it carefully, but from what I've understood of his work so far (I've only reviewed a small bit), this is his deduction:

– Indo-European (or whatever these are called) languages came to India tens of thousands of years ago, along with the very early migrations that are well documented.

– Rig Vedic CULTURE (which is an offshoot of Zoroastrian culture) came into India from south Afghanistan in around 1500 BC through a SMALL group of preachers.

– These preachers settled in north India, in small pockets, but kept their proselytising momentum towards the East.

– Rig Vedic leaders absorbed a number of local language Prakrit influences and composed RV in around 1000 BC. Sanskrit was invented to combine the old Afghan language and the local prakrit.

– The Indus Valley civilisation is TOTALLY distinct to the RV culture, and was a major trading culture, with extensive roots in the middle-East. 

– Indus Valley seals are labels for goods that were exported. They contain three pieces of info: the corporate brand/ logo, the product name and quantity. The seals contain NO evidence about the IV culture.

– It is FUTILE to try to link IV culture either with Dravidian or with RV/Sanskrit. It was a robust PRAKRIT culture, the SAME as what prevails TODAY in these regions. There is total continuity of culture/ artefacts (even names) and we should look at the UNDERLYING folk culture of these places to make deductions about the IV people. They didn't disappear – they continue exactly where they are.

Maybe Sonawani is on to something.

One thing is clear: OIT is RUBBISH. So also AIT (particularly the "invasion" bit).

Buddhism didn't influence the East through invasions. It spread through proselytisation. 

It appears RV preachers found themselves a niche as Brahmins and became politically influential. They were also very clever and absorbed whatever local culture/s they found. Hence they spread their RV religion.  

Apart from his book (which I've linked earlier, separately), you should download and read his article on the IV script, here.

Continue Reading

Sanjay Sonawani’s Origins of the Vedic Religion: And Indus-Ghaggar Civilisation #1

I have a problematic habit: I question everything. When I start examining any issue I test all claims. That often means going to the original sources. But that's not all. I question the original sources for their methodology and integrity. I beat up all arguments and claims to death – till only the truth remains standing.

It is this approach that led me to throw out the Out of India Theory (OIT) within just a few days of starting reading up on the subject. I've already elaborated the "big picture" reasons why that theory is untenable. The common sense test was badly offended by the OIT.

That doesn't mean AIT is "correct". I've come out with a view that there is an In and Out Theory (call it IOT). That ideas can come and go (in various forms and shapes) is not remarkably interesting: just the way the world works. 

In the process of "beating the arguments to death", I found that even stalwarts like MK Dhavalikar make massive deductions on the basis of facts that are not established. He is an archaeologist but his paper "Archaeology of the Aryans" necessarily makes use of the findings of numerous other disciplines. Unfortunately, he seems to take as "fact" things which are not necessarily facts. He doesn't "beat the arguments to death". He is a good archaeologist but a poor critical thinker. He needs to weigh the "facts" and attribute a "truth value" to them. Most importantly, he needs to assemble alternative explanations even for the well-established facts. 

An example is his assertion: "It has now been scientifically established that the river dried up in the lower basin because of change of courses of its tributaries, viz Sutlej and the Yamuna, the former joining the Indus system and the latter, the Ganga".

I NEVER take anything as "scientifically well established" because I know how poorly most empirical science is conducted, and understand the limitations of data. (Climate "science" is absolutely bogus in most respects, for instance).

So I started testing this "well established fact".

And within minutes I found that this is a minefield. The assumptions made by people on the basis of a mere "satellite map" are frighteningly vast! Is this how people do science?!

In this process of investigating this a little bit further I chanced upon Sanjay Sonowal's 2015 book, Origins of the Vedic Religion: And Indus-Ghaggar Civilisation. I've now bought the book (readily available in kindle) and browsing through it.

Here's the section on the Sutlej-Jamuna issue. The man does have a critical mind. It would be worthwhile reading his book. I'll talk more about the book and its findings in the next few days/weeks. I am trying to assemble, separately, a set of facts that ARE true. These facts constrain all "theories" in this space, but definitely the Saraswati as a major river is not a "fact" to rely upon. 

Did Yamuna and Satlej ever change their course?

            It is widely assumed by the Indian scholars that during the Harappan Phase, Yamuna and Satlej used to be tributaries of the Ghaggar river. It is said that the Yamuna and Satlej added ample water in the Ghaggar channel and made it a mighty river. This assumption has been derived from the satellite images that show the palaeo-channels of both the rivers. However, the satellite images do not define the minute topography and geological age of the river channels.

            Did Satlej and Yamuna ever flow in the channel of the Ghaggar? We need to consider opinions of various scholars in this regard.

            According to ‘Current Science’ report (2004) contributed by Indian and German scientists, “…the Saraswati did not carry glacier waters. The Ghaggar-Hakra area does not show mineral deposit of Himalayan glaciers, and thus it could not be a big, perennial, glacier fed river, but, rather, a smaller, seasonal, monsoon fed one. Based on sediment geochemistry and composition and geomorphologic and palaeoclimatic constraints that the Ghaggar-Hakra river was likely always Siwalik fed.

            Further, the report adds, “The suggestion of glacial sources and the Yamuna and Satluj rivers draining to the river Saraswati through Ghaggar before they were pirated by the Ganga and Indus respectively, are not supported by our isotopic data. If these hypotheses were correct, we would expect to find sediments derived from the Higher Himalayas in the Thar. Our data also do not support the idea that there was a change in the source area for the Ghaggar from a glaciated region to rainfall region.” 12

            The report emphatically states that the Satlej and Yamuna being the tributaries of the Ghaggar, even in the remote past is a myth nourished by scholars neglecting the vital proof. According to the same report, the waning of the Ghaggar was only because of the declining of the rains, which was a gradual process, and not because of the capture of its tributaries by the other rivers or any tectonic events.

            This means Satlej and Yamuna were never tributaries of Ghaggar, or at the least they were not feeding Ghaggar during the Harappan times, if taken into the considerations the other reports. Satlej and Yamuna are glacial fed rivers. Had they been feeding the Ghaggar in the past, the glacial mineral traces would have been detected in the sediments of the Ghaggar channel, but that is not the case according to the above-mentioned report. Rather, mighty rivers such as Satlej and Yamuna feeding a moderately small river even in the remote, pre-Harappan, past is a ridiculous idea.

            In a research paper, published in “Geology”, Peter D Clift et al states, “…although loss of the Yamuna from the Indus is likely to have occurred as early as 49 ka and no later than 10 ka. Capture of the Yamuna to the east and the Sutlej to the north rerouted water away from the area of the Harappan centers, but this change significantly predated their final collapse…… Throughout the Holocene, including the Harappan period this river was fed only by seasonal monsoon rain in the east. This rain-fed Ghaggar-Hakra was active until after 4.5 ka and was then covered by dunes before 1.4 ka. What this means is that the Ghaggar-Hakra, unlike any of the major Indus tributaries, was not fed by snow melt, which begins in Spring and may be unpredictable, but was entirely reliant on swelling its banks from the summer monsoon.” 13

            According to Sanjeev Gupta (Imperial College London), the river sediments ceased in the tract of the palaeo channel after 14,000 BCE, long before the Indus civilisation era had began. He reached this conclusion after his team did extensive drilling in the 30-40 m thick sand body in the subsurface beneath a tract of the Ghaggar-Hakra palaeochannel adjacent to the Indus city of Kalibangan.14

            The Project Palaeo-Environmental Research Group — FB conducted field research and analysis of satellite imagery to identify the former course of the Ghaggar river and determined the causes and the dates of its avulsion. Contrary to its description in the Rig Veda text, field evidence demonstrates that the Ghaggar was not a large river, but a small one capable of providing water for agriculture only during the monsoon season.15

            Sedimentary Geologist Suvrat Kher, referring to the research of Clift and his colleagues, states on his blog that the Yamuna and Satlej stopped feeding the Ghaggar long before 50,000 and 10,000 years respectively. While doing in-depth analysis of the critical issue, he clearly states that, “…I have stressed that this attempt to link a hypothesis of a mighty Saraswati to the presence of Aryans is misguided and the one that has caused harm to the public understanding of the topic and to what constitutes good science. Many geologists and archaeologists accepted the validity of a glacial Saraswati without critically weighing the evidence. Taking their cue, in web forums and books, supporters of a glacial Sarasvati have popularised the hypothesis of a late river avulsion and often presented it as irrefutable evidence favoring the indigenous Aryan theory.” 16 This statement speaks for itself.

            The research paper published in  “The current Science” which was mentioned earlier, also concludes that, ‘If the snowline did not drop to the Sub-Himalayan ranges even during glaciations and the glaciers continuously occurred only in the HHC, a higher rainfall for the huge erosion of Sub-Himalayan lithologies and to sustain the rivers was essential. Our isotope data provide a scientific basis for the absence of a glacial-fed, perennial Himalayan river in the Harappan domain, i.e. the River Ghaggar is not the Saraswati as far as its origin in the glaciated Himalayas is concerned.” 17 (Emphasis mine.)

            From the abovementioned facts, we can conclude the following:

            1.      The Ghaggar is not the mythical river Saraswati.

            2.      The possibility of the mighty Satlej and Yamuna being the tributaries of the comparatively minor monsoon-fed rivers is unlikely. 

            3.      Even if considered, though unlikely, that the Satlej and Yamuna were flowing through the Ghaggar Channel before they changed their course, it was quite long before when even the early phase of the Harappa culture had began.

            4.      The decline of the Harappan culture was gradual for several centuries due to the climatic changes and was not a sudden event as thought by some scholars.

            5.      At the least, equating the Ghaggar with Saraswati cannot become the basis of indigenous Aryan theory.

            It appears that the problem with some was also to find anyhow the location of the Vedic people in the vicinity of IGC sites to stake the big claim that they were authors of the magnificent civilisation. Scholars like Kazanas seriously try to place the date of the Rig Veda in third millennium BC to coincide with the previously supposed date of Yamuna and Satlej changing their course, but the hypothesis is ridiculous in the light of the geological findings. 18 C

            For the time being, let us leave aside the geological proofs, which clearly indicates that the Ghaggar could never have been Rig Vedic Saraswati, and consider different other points of view as to why the Ghaggar could not have been Saraswati.

            In addition, we have already discussed that the Ghaggar river never was a lost river, like Saraswati. It always flowed, though seasonably, in summer showers, though its water discharge had reduced considerably because of the weak monsoons. Desertion of the Harappan sites was a gradual process that might have continued intermittently over hundreds of years. No foreign aggression or sudden natural or social calamity in the vicinity has been recorded. Still there are other socio-cultural evidences as well which misfits the Ghaggar as a candidate for being the lost Saraswati.

Continue Reading

Entering into a debate with a Vedic scholar re: OIT theory of Sanskrit/ Rig Veda #5

Around four days ago, I received this fifth installment from Kalicharan Tuvij. I find some assertions (e.g. in red, below) that I don't agree with. Much is interesting but not directly relevant to the issue I'm looking into: the OIT.

Publishing this for the record.

​SS ji,

Namaste.

You said,

"Well, this information (re: Parsuram, Sudras, etc.) is rather interesting and I'm sure will interest a lot of people."

No sir, this – or anything else – will NOT interest a lot of people. Tolerance for truth is not among the highest in our country, where playing "fighting" into each other is a profitable business ensuring returns even without investment.

Our middle class being a consumer, and not producer, need to be told or taught how to do/ use this or that; sadly, they are completely dysfunctional in every other way.

When RV was redacted (text form) for the first time, the society (except our "beggar-bhaktas", and "village-Hindus") was already dysfunctional. Because it is very clear that those who did the documentation, or did the subsequent commentaries (Yaska, Sayana, even Panini, etc), did not have any clue on what the text meant.

This was because a civilisation had just died a natural death (widely understood under "yuga-cycle"; yeah US will also go, someday:-)), and RV as a written text was an attempt to salvage some of that.

The oral tradition was, therefore, continuing since even before that: prAkrita and Sanskrit existed side by side- none being older or younger to the other. RV is in Vedic Sanskrit, so we don't have any records of Prakrit from that period (other than the substratum in RV).

Indus seal writings have not been deciphered, and will never be, because we don't have Prakrit from that period. It is also a false framework to compare Sanskrit with other IE languages, because Sanskrit IS NOT A NATURAL LANGUAGE, Prakrit is. But we don't have any Prakrit texts from that time to compare with, since Sanskrit was the medium of formal communication; Prakrit was not even one language – it was a guild of  a thousand languages.

Ultimately, Sanskrit is as old as the RV ideas. Using the RV ideas, Prakrit was modified, unified, rationalised, and refined to create Sanskrit. Sanskrit, on the other hand, since then, continued to influence Prakrit as well.

Philology is therefore successful when Russian region is shown to be the main genesis of European IE, but fails when it is taken out of context to include Vedic Sanskrit into its application on the Eastern IE.

One doesn't have to be particularly bright to see that Sanskrit has a lot of innovations (sound resolutions, rules inventing, roots arithmetic, and so on), but that doesn't mean that Sanskrit came later: because, as I said, Sanskrit was coexisting with Prakrit. Sanskrit was also a language designed to be an efficient carrier of innovations, its root system is an important tool to support that. PANini didn't create Sanskrit — everyone knows that — he didn't create inflection, roots, any of that. The original Sanskrit is known as "Aindra Sanskrit".

Sanskrit was meant to be the ONE LANGUAGE, as against the many of Prakrit. Sanskrit was meant to be the formal pan-bhArata lingo, so the insistence that there is only one Indian IE, that is Sanskrit, is in the end nothing but an obfuscation.

The native names of places and rivers (small or big) in Punjab, Haryana etc are known to be IE. This is because they are from various Prakrit's, which were all IE's.

Linguistically speaking, and in every other sense as well, India can be modelled as an inverted triangle: the three vertices being — at the bottom TamilNadu-Kerala, at the left upper Punjab-Haryana, and at the right upper Bihar-Jharkhand.

This is the three dimensional "vector" model, where all other regions of bhArata are seen as different sums of these three pure, "basis" vectors.

Among these three, the bottom vertex is the "first among the equals". The RV ideas, even though co-eval, were preceded a bit by the South. Remember, the timelines I am talking here could be tens of thousands of years.

So, even though the three "centres" were the independent contributors to the competencies, these still interacted with each other and kept abreast, so the content remained the same.

Under this triangle model, the IE story is only the third of the whole story.

The Easterners are less bragging than the Westerners, and that is I guess why the Japanese are not claiming a JIT (Japanese Invasion Theory) explaining their connections with the Bengalis or others on the East :-)

To the East, it is not the RV or Sanskrit that played that role: it was primarily the Ramayana culture. Not different languages, just different Ramayana's. Not much military enforcement was required either. Yet, the Ramayana ideas are at the deepest level the same as the RV ideas, even though there is a lot of difference in their respective forms.

So, yes, ideas went outside both from the East and the West of India.  

We don't believe in creationist theories of "Aryans" (which nobody, I admit, "believes on paper", either, nowadays. Well, good for them), but the thing is, a lot of evolution and enrichment took place in India which was specially located for this purpose (spent a lot of time even floating there in the sea as an island).

There is a "West", and there is an "East", and we are right there in the Center. For clearly, "east" doesn't mean that "the sun REALLY rises there", neither does "west" mean that "the sun REALLY sets there". (I have read K.Elst earlier say something along this line).

There are many deeper things about these world-views and models, but I will not allow myself to speak more on this; however, the point is, this is the framework (already existing in our native sources) I am suggesting that is relevant here, and admits of all facts.

The liberal narrative demands that various models should be given opportunity to compete with each other. There is no middle path.

Continue Reading
izmir escort escort izmir izmir escort izmir escort escort beylikdüzü ankara escort ankara escort