Talageri’s “The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis’ (2000)” can be read online at http://voi.org/books/rig/

“An unknown Indian has taken on proponents of the Aryan invasion/migration theory, demolished their case, and established that northern India is the original home of the Aryans and the Indo-European family of languages. The importance of this remarkable achievement cannot be exaggerated. In course of time, it can compel the revision of the history not only of Indian but also world civilization.”

That was Girilal Jain in his masterful review of Shrikant G. Talageri’s ‘Aryan Invasion Theory and Indian Nationalism,’ published in 1993. Since then, Talageri, a not-so-unknown Indian now, has come up with two more works. His ‘The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis’ (2000) established that Vedic Aryans were inhabitants of the area to the east of Punjab, traditionally known as Aryavarta; that the region of Saptasindhu formed the western periphery of their activities and that the Aryans migrated from the east to the west within India and beyond it. For this, he relied solely on a detailed analysis of the Rigveda.

His latest book, “The Rigveda and the Avesta: the Final Evidence,” seeks to prove conclusively beyond all reasonable doubt that India was the original homeland of the Indo-European family of languages, that the Rigvedic people were settled in areas around and to the east of the Sarasvati river in at least the third millennium BCE if not earlier, that the proto-Iranians who later became Zoroastrians were settled in the areas to the west of the Vedic Aryans, and that both started expanding westward around that period.

Read the full article here

http://www.dailypioneer.com/142679/Land-of-religious-persecution.html

Alan Johnson: Hasn’t Christianity also been invoked to justify imperialism?

Andrew Bostom: Yes, of course. But Ibn Warraq pointed out to me how instructive it was to compare the impact of British imperialism and Muslim Imperialism on the Subcontinent. The devastation that was wrought by the waves of Muslim Jihad over almost a Millennium was incomparable with what the Europeans did on the same continent. Lord Curzon gave a remarkable speech in 1900 at a meeting of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, while engaged in a campaign to preserve India’s ancient monuments. This is what he said:

If there be any one who says to me that there is no duty devolving upon a Christian Government to preserve the monuments of pagan art or the sanctuaries of an alien faith, I cannot pause to argue with such a man. Art and beauty, and the reverence that is owing to all that has evoked human genius or has inspired human faith, are independent of creeds, and, in so far as they touch the sphere of religion, are embraced by the common religion of all mankind. Viewed from this standpoint, the rock temple of the Brahmans stands on precisely the same footing as the Buddhist Vihara, and the Mohammedan Musjid as the Christian Cathedral…To us the relics of Hindu and Mohammedan, of Buddhist, Brahmin, and Jain are, from the antiquarian, the historical, and the artistic point of view, equally interesting and equally sacred. One does not excite a more vivid and the other a weaker emotion. Each represents the glories or the faith of a branch of the human family. Each fills a chapter in Indian history.

This is not the way either Muslim conquerors or rulers treated the Indian subcontinent. Thousands of Hindu temples were destroyed. The Buddhist temples were also destroyed, and the Buddhists—wiped out all together from India—had to retreat into other parts of Asia.
And if you think that Curzon is not a reliable source, listen to the Indian historian, R.C. Majumdar, who was not terribly sympathetic to the Brits. When he compared Hindu advancement under British and Muslim colonial rule, he concluded:

Judged by a similar standard, the patronage and cultivation of Hindu learning by the Muslims, or their contribution to the development of Hindu culture during their rule…pales into insignificance when compared with the achievements of the British rule…It is only by instituting such comparison that we can make an objective study of the condition of the Hindus under Muslim rule, and view it in its true perspective.

Dr Hoodbhoy goes on to argue that this was a deliberate policy adopted twenty five years ago by the Pakistani government and is driven by a belief that Pakistan must exchange its South Asian identity for an Arab-Muslim in order to better define itself in contrast to India. For example, prayers in government departments were deemed compulsory and floggings were carried out publicly.In the 21st century however, there is no need for the state to impose strict Islam, as there is a spontaneous groundswell of religious zeal in contemporary Pakistan. The notion of an Islamic state is more popular than ever, as people turn to Islam to rescue a failing state.

Moreover, the Pakistani village has undergone a transformation, thanks in part to the return of Pakistani labourers from Arab countries. Village mosques are now “giant madrassas that propagate hard-line Salafi and Deobandi beliefs through oversized loudspeakers.”

In fact, Punjabis who tended to be relatively liberal on gender issues are increasingly taking a Talibanesque view on the matter. However, it is school militarism that emerges as the most significant issue.

Dr Hoodbhoy argues that the militancy that bedevils Pakistan’s tribal areas as well as its cities as well is a result of an education system that propagates Islam as a complete code of life and is designed to engender a siege mentality in the mind of the child. In fact, a government-approved social studies textbook for Class V students prescribes that the child should “Understand Hindu-Muslim differences and the resultant need for Pakistan”.

Dr Hoodbhoy attributes Pakistan’s Arabization or “Saudisation” to the Zia regime and the Afghan jihad. With active assistance from Saudi Arabia, General Zia established a network of over 22,000 madrassas across the length and breadth of Pakistan. It is these madrassas that provided the US-Saudi alliance with willing recruits for the anti-Soviet jihad.

In the end, Pakistan’s future will be determined by the ideological and political battle between citizens who want a theocratic state and those who want a modern Islamic republic.