On “AIT”, Islamic Invasions and “Whitewashing History”
I recently came across The Whitewashing of History, by Nithin Sridhar. Nitin has kindly agreed to let me reproduce the article on this blog. Those of you who are interested in history will find here a devastating critique of current studies and interpretation of Indian History – which has largely been driven by leftist-leaning scholars steeped in their prejudices and with varying agendas.
The article looks at the now thoroughly discredited “Aryan Invasion Theory” (AIT), the impact of Islamic invasions on India and the red-herring of “Hindu vandalism”.
I have also included a selection of comments at the end.
*** ARTICLE BEGINS / LONG POST ***
The history of India has been whitewashed and distorted, first by European rulers, and after independence by eminent historians of India and their supporters the Leftists, Seculars and self-claimed Progressives of India to meet their own ends. They have painted the pre-Islamic invasion period as a Dark Age and have glorified the Islamic period to be very peaceful and prosperous.
Ram Swarup says, “Marxists have taken to rewriting Indian history on a large scale and it has meant its systematic falsification.They have a dogmatic view of history and for them the use of any history is to prove their dogma.Their very approach is hurtful to truth. The Marxists’ Â contempt for India, particularly the India of religion, culture and philosophy, is deep and theoretically fortified.It exceeds the contempt ever shown by the most die-hard imperialists.1 Some of the common claims of these eminent historians are:
1] The Aryan Invasion Theory is true2
2] Large scale destruction of Buddhists and Jain temples was done by Hindus in pre-Islamic India.3
3] The Muslim rulers were religiously tolerant and Islamic rule was prosperous. The eminent historians deny the destruction of Hindu temples or the killing of Hindus at the hands of Muslim rulers. They also deny the religious motive behind the killing of Hindus at the hands of Muslim rulers.4
Let us examine the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT).
The history of India has been whitewashed and distorted, first by European rulers, and after independence by eminent historians of India and their supporters the Leftists, Seculars and self-claimed Progressives of India to meet their own ends. They have painted the pre-Islamic invasion period as a Dark Age and have glorified the Islamic period to be very peaceful and prosperous.
Ram Swarup says, “Marxists have taken to rewriting Indian history on a large scale and it has meant its systematic falsification.They have a dogmatic view of history and for them the use of any history is to prove their dogma.Their very approach is hurtful to truth. The Marxists’ contempt for India, particularly the India of religion, culture and philosophy, is deep and theoretically fortified.It exceeds the contempt ever shown by the most die-hard imperialists.1 Some of the common claims of these eminent historians are:
1] The Aryan Invasion Theory is true2
2] Large scale destruction of Buddhists and Jain temples was done by Hindus in pre-Islamic India.3
3] The Muslim rulers were religiously tolerant and Islamic rule was prosperous. The eminent historians deny the destruction of Hindu temples or the killing of Hindus at the hands of Muslim rulers. They also deny the religious motive behind the killing of Hindus at the hands of Muslim rulers.4
Let us examine the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT).
The AIT was introduced to justify the presence of the British among their Aryan cousins in India as being merely the second wave of Aryan settlement there. It supported the British view of India as merely a geographical region without historical unity, a legitimate prey for any invader capable of imposing himself. It provided the master illustration to the rising racialist worldview: Â The dynamic whites entered the land of the indolent dark natives and established their dominance and imparted their language to the natives; they established the caste system to preserve their racial separateness; some miscegenation with the natives took place anyway, making the Indian Aryans darker than their European cousins and correspondingly less intelligent; hence, for their own benefit they were susceptible to an uplifting intervention by a new wave of purer Aryan colonizers.5
Dr. Koenraad Elst, in The Vedic Evidence,6 after examining the Vedic corpus for any evidence of Aryan invasion theory proposed by the Marxist school, concludes, “The status question is still, more than ever, that the Vedic corpus provides no reference to an immigration of the so-called Vedic Aryans from Central Asia”. He further provides astronomical and literary evidence against the AIT in his other essays.
Jim Shaffer in “The Indo-Aryan Invasions: Cultural Myth and Archaeological Reality, wrote, “Current archaeological data do not support the existence of an Indo-Aryan or European invasion into South Asia any time in the pre- or protohistoric periods. Instead, it is possible to document archaeologically a series of cultural changes reflecting indigenous cultural developments from prehistoric to historic periods7Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, a U.S. expert who has extensively studied such skeletal remains, observes, Biological anthropologists remain unable to lend support to any of the theories concerning an Aryan biological or demographic entity.8
David Frawley, while commenting on the political and social ramifications, asserts, “First it served to divide India into a northern Aryan and southern Dravidian culture which were made hostile to each other. Â Second, it gave the British an excuse for their conquest of India. They could claim to be doing only what the Aryan ancestors of the Hindus had previously done millennia ago. This same justification could be used by the Muslims or any other invaders of India. Third, it served to make Vedic culture later than and possibly derived from the Middle Eastern. Â Fourth, it allowed the sciences of India to be given a Greek basis. Fifth, it gave the Marxists a good basis for projecting their class struggle model of society on to India, with the invading Brahmins oppressing the indigenous Shudras (lower castes). He further concludes, “In short, the compelling reasons for the Aryan invasion theory were neither literary nor archeological but political and religious, that is to say, not scholarship but prejudice.9
Archaeological evidence in no way contradicts Indian tradition, rather it broadly agrees with it (except for its chronology). Whether from North or South India, tradition never mentioned anything remotely resembling an Aryan invasion into India. Sanskrit scriptures make it clear that they regard the Vedic homeland to be the Saptasindhu, which is precisely the core of the Harappan territory. As for the Sangam tradition, it is equally silent about any northern origin of the Tamil people. These show that AIT which Marxists have been propagating is based on assumptions and pre-conceived notion, rather than hard evidences.
About the alleged destruction of Buddhist and Jain temples by Hindus, Sita Ram Goel observes,10 “It is intriguing indeed that whenever archaeological evidence points towards a mosque as standing on the site of a Hindu temple, our Marxist professors start seeing a Buddhist monastery buried underneath. They also invent some Saiva king as destroying Buddhist and Jain shrines whenever the large-scale destruction of Hindu temples by Islamic invaders is mentioned. They never mention the destruction of big Buddhist and Jain complexes which dotted the length and breadth of India, Khurasan, and Sinkiang on the eve of the Islamic invasion, as testified by H’en Tsang. He asks the historians to produce epigraphic and literary evidences to suggest the destruction of Buddhists and Jain places by Hindus, the names and places of Hindu monuments which stand on the sites occupied earlier by Buddhist or Jain monuments. Yet, till today no concrete evidence has been given by historians to substantiate their claim.
But, there is enough evidence to show that Buddhist and Jain temples and monasteries at Bukhara, Samarqand, Khotan, Balkh, Bamian, Kabul, Ghazni, Qandhar, Begram, Jalalabad, Peshawar, Charsadda, Ohind, Taxila, Multan, Mirpurkhas, Nagar-Parkar, Sialkot, Srinagar, Jalandhar, Jagadhari, Sugh, Tobra, Agroha, Delhi, Mathura, Hastinapur, Kanauj, Sravasti, Ayodhya, Varanasi, Sarnath, Nalanda, Vikramasila, Vaishali, Rajgir, Odantapuri, Bharhut, Champa, Paharpur, Jagaddal, Jajnagar, Nagarjunikonda, Amravati, Kanchi, Dwarasamudra, Devagiri, Bharuch, Valabhi, Girnar, Khambhat Patan, Jalor, Chandravati, Bhinmal, Didwana, Nagaur, Osian, Ajmer, Bairat, Gwalior, Chanderi, Mandu, Dhar etc were destroyed by the sword of Islam.11
It should be noted that though Brahmanical, Buddhist and Jain sects and sub-sects had heated discussions among themselves, and used even strong language for their adversaries, the occasions when they exchanged physical blows were few and far between. The recent spurt of accusations that Hindus were bigots and vandals like Christians and Muslims seems to be an after-thought. Apologists, who find it impossible to whitewash Christianity and Islam, are out to redress the balance by blackening Hinduism.
The Islamic conquest has been described as the “Bloodiest,12 monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations, and destructions,13 as well as “bigger than the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese.”14
Irfan Husain in his article “Demons from the Past” observes, “While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enough to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan. The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed..Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster. Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful. These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage”
Dr. Koenraad Elst, while summarizing the Hindu losses at the hands of Muslim invaders, concludes,15 “There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like “punishing” the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty. The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526). The Moghuls (1526-1857), even Babar and Aurangzeb, were fairly restrained tyrants by comparison. Prof. K.S. Lal once estimated that the Indian population declined by 50 million under the Sultanate, but that would be hard to substantiate; research into the magnitude of the damage Islam did to India is yet to start in right earnest.”
From Mohamud Quasim to Tipu Sultan, every Mohammedan invader killed, converted, took as slave or put Jiziya on Hindus. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. While describing the conquest of Kanauj, Utbi, the secretary and chronicler of Mahmud Gahzni, sums up the situation thus: “The Sultan[Ghazni] levelled to the ground every fort, and the inhabitants of them either accepted Islam, or took up arms against him. In short, those who submitted were also converted to Islam. In Baran (Bulandshahr) alone 10,000 persons were converted including the Raja”. The conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated.
About the conversion of Hindus to Islam, K.S.Lal observes, “The process of their conversion was hurried.All of a sudden the invader appeared in a city or a region, and in the midst of loot and murder, a dazed, shocked and enslaved people were given the choice between Islam and death.Those who were converted were deprived of their scalp-lock or choti and, if they happened to be caste people, also their sacred thread.Some were also circumcised.Their names were changed, although some might have retained their old names with new affixes.They were taught to recite the kalima and learnt to say the prescribed prayers”.16
When Mahmud Ghaznavi attacked Waihind in 1001-02, he took 500,000 persons of both sexes as captive [This figure is given by Abu Nasr Muhammad Utbi, the secretary and chronicler of Mahmud Gahzni]. Next year from Thanesar, according to Farishtah, the Muhammadan army brought to Ghaznin 200,000 captives [Tarikh-i-Farishtah, I, 28]. When Mahmud returned to Ghazni in 1019, the booty was found to consist of (besides huge wealth) 53,000 captives. The Tarikh-i-Alfi adds that the fifth share due to the Saiyyads was 150,000 slaves, therefore the total number of captives comes to 750,000. In 1195, when Raja Bhim was attacked by Aibak, 20,000 slaves were captured, and 50,000 at Kalinjar in 1202. Sultan Alauddin Khalji had 50,000 slave boys in his personal serviceand 70,000 slaves who worked continuously on his buildings. In the words of Wassaf, the Muslim army in the sack of Somnath took captive a great number of handsome and elegant maidens, amounting to 20,000, and children of both sexes. Iltutmish, Muhammad Tughlaq and Firoz Tughlaq sent gifts of slaves to Khalifas outside India. To the Chinese emperor Muhammad Tughlaq sent, besides other presents, 100 Hindu slaves, 100 slave girls, accomplished in song and dance and another 15 young slaves. Firoz Tughlaq collected 180,000 slaves.17
About the destruction of Hindu Temples, Sita Ram Goel writes – Mahmud of Ghazni robbed and burnt down 1,000 temples at Mathura, and 10,000 in and around Kanauj. One of his successors, Ibrahim, demolished 1,000 temples each in Ganga-Yamuna Doab and Malwa. Muhammad Ghori destroyed another 1,000 at Varanasi. Qutbud-Din Aibak employed elephants for pulling down 1,000 temples in Delhi. Ali Adil Shah of Bijapur destroyed 200 to 300 temples in Karnataka. A sufi, Qayim Shah, destroyed 12 temples at Tiruchirapalli. Such exact or approximate counts, however, are available only in a few cases. Most of the time we are informed that “many strong temples which would have remained unshaken even by the trumpets blown on the Day of Judgment, were levelled with the ground when swept by the wind of Islam.18
Some of the Temples converted into Mosques are:19
Epigraphic evidences:
1. Quwwat al-Islam Masjid, Qutb Minar, Delhi by Qutbud-Din Aibak in 1192 A.D.
2. Masjid at Manvi in the Raichur District of Karnataka, Firuz Shah Bahmani, 1406-07 A.D
3. Jami Masjid at Malan, Palanpur Taluka, Banaskantha District of Gujarat: ?The Jami Masjid was built? by Khan-I-Azam Ulugh Khan, The date of construction is mentioned as 1462 A.D. in the reign of Mahmud Shah I (Begada) of Gujarat.
4. Hammam Darwaza Masjid at Jaunpur in Uttar Pradesh, Its chronogram yields the year 1567 A.D. in the reign of Akbar, the Great Mughal
5. Jami Masjid at Ghoda in the Poona District of Maharashtra, The inscription is dated 1586 A.D. when the Poona region was ruled by the Nizam Shahi sultans of Ahmadnagar
6. Gachinala Masjid at Cumbum in the Kurnool District of Andhra Pradesh, The date of construction is mentioned as 1729-30 A.D. in the reign of the Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah.
Literary evidences:
7. Jhain[name of the place], Jalalud-Din Firuz Khaljiwent to the place and ordered destruction of temples, mentioned in Miftah-ul-Futuh.
8. Devagiri, Alaud-Din Khaljidestroyed the temples of the idolaters, mentioned in Miftah-ul-Futuh.
9. Somanath, Ulugh Khan, mentioned in Tarikh-i-Alai
10. Delhi, , Alaud-Din Khalji , Tarikh-i-Alai
11. Ranthambhor, mentioned in Tarikh-i-Alai
12. Brahmastpuri (Chidambaram), Malik Kafur, Tarikh-i-Alai
13. Madura, mentioned in Tarikh-i-Alai
14. Fatan: (Pattan),mentioned in Ashiqa
15. Malabar: (Parts of South India), Tarikh-i-Alai
16 The Mosque at Jaunpur. This was built by Sultan Ibrahim Sharqi
17 The Mosque at Qanauj it was built by Ibrahim Sharqi
18 Jami (Masjid) at Etawah. it is one of the monuments of the Sharqi Sultans
19 Babri Masjid at Ayodhya . This mosque was constructed by Babar at Ayodhya
20 Mosques of Alamgir (Aurangzeb)
According to the reports of Archeological survey of India:
21 Tordi (Rajasthan)- early or middle part of the 15th century
22 Naraina (Rajasthan)- The mosque appears to have been built when Mujahid Khan, son of Shams Khan, took possession of Naraina in 1436 A.D
23 Chatsu (Rajasthan)- At Chatsu there is a Muhammadan tomb erected on the eastern embankment of the Golerava tank. The tomb which is known as Gurg Ali Shah’s chhatri is built out of the spoils of Hindu buildings. The inscription mention saint Gurg Ali (wolf of Ali) died a martyr on the first of Ramzan in 979 A.H. corresponding to Thursday, the 17th January, 1572 A.D.
24 SaheTh-MaheTh(Uttar Pradesh)
25 Sarnath (Uttar Pradesh)- the inscriptions found there extending to the twelfth century A.D
26 Vaishali (Bihar)
27 Gaur and Pandua (Bengal)- The oldest and the best known building at Gaur and Pandua is the adna Masjid at Pandua built by Sikandar Shah, the son of Ilyas Shah. The date of its inscription may be read as either 776 or 770, which corresponds with 1374 or 1369 A.D? The materials employed consisted largely of the spoils of Hindu temples and many of the carvings from the temples have been used as facings of doors, arches and pillars
28 Devikot (Bengal)- The Dargah of Sultan Pir, The Dargah of Shah Ata are the Muhammadan shrines built on the site of an old Hindu temple
29 Tribeni (Bengal)
This whitewashing of history, the policy of “Suppresio Veri, Suggestio Falsi” followed by “eminent historians” of India is not only dangerous to national integration but also the future of the entire nation. It is time that the self interests are kept aside and the facts of history is made known to the masses.
Footnotes:
1 Indian Express, January 15, 1989, quoted in book “Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them Vol. 1 by Sita Ram Goel
2 For example, JNU historian Romilla Thapar.[Article titled “Romila Thapar Defends the Aryan Invasion Theory! byVishal Agarwal published here- http://www.india-forum.com/articles/60/1 ]
3 In letter published in The Times of India dated October 2, 1986, Rom”illa Thapar had stated that handing over of Sri Rama’s and Sri Krishna’s birthplaces to the Hindus, and of disused mosques to the Muslims raises the question of the limits to the logic of restoration of religious sites. How far back do we go? Can we push this to the restoration of Buddhist and Jain monuments destroyed by Hindus? Or of the pre-Hindu animist shrines? [ Quoted in book- Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them Vol. 2 The Islamic Evidence by Sita Ram Goel]
4 In his book Medival India [NCERT 2000], Satish Chandra writes- Â “The raid into India (by Timur) was a plundering raid, and its motive was to seize the wealth accumulated by the sultans of Delhi over the last 200 years Timur then entered Delhi and sacked it without mercy, large number of people, both Hindu and Muslim, as well as women and children losing their lives., but Timur repeatedly states in his memoirs, the Tuzuk-i-Timuri, that he hada two-fold objective in invading Hindustan. The first was to war with the infidels, and thereby acquire, some claim to reward in the life to come. The second motive was “that the army of Islam might gain something by plundering the wealth and valuables of the infidels. He further says “Excepting the quarter of the saiyids, the ulema and other Musulmans, the whole city was sacked.
5 Koenraad Elst, in “The Politics of the Aryan Invasion Debate”
6 “The Vedic Evidence – The Vedic Corpus Provides no Evidence for the so-called Aryan Invasion of India” by Koenraad Elst
7 Jim G. Shaffer, “The Indo-Aryan Invasions : Cultural Myth and Archaeological Reality,” in Michel Danino “The Indus-Sarasvati Civilization and its Bearing on the Aryan Question
8 Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, “Have Aryans been identified in the prehistoric skeletal record from
South Asia ? in Michel Danino “The Indus-Sarasvati Civilization and its Bearing on the Aryan Question”
9 David Frawley, in “Myth of Aryan Invasion Theory of India”
10 Sita ram Goel, Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them Vol. 2-the Islamic Evidence
11 Sita ram Goel, Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them Vol. 2 -the Islamic Evidence
12 Will Durant in “Story of Civilization” observes – “The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.”
13 “Histoire de l’ Inde – By Alain Danielou; he notes- “From the time Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series ofmurders, massacres, spoliations, and destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of “a holy war” of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilizations, wiped out entire races. Mahmoud Ghazni, continues Danielou, “was an early example of Muslim ruthlessness, burning in 1018 of the temples of Mathura, razing Kanauj to the ground and destroying the famous temple of Somnath, sacred to all Hindus. His successors were as ruthless as Ghazni: 103 temples in the holy city of Benaras were razed to the ground, its marvelous temples destroyed, its magnificent palaces wrecked.” Indeed, the Muslim policy vis a vis India, concludes Danielou, seems to have been a conscious systematic destruction of everything that was beautiful, holy, refined.
14 Francois Gautier
15 Dr. Koenraad Elst in “Was There an Islamic Genocide of Hindus?
16 K.S. Lal in “Indian Muslims Who Are They”
17 K.S. Lal in “Muslim Slave System in Medieval India”
18 Sita Ram Goel, in “Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them Vol. 2 The Islamic Evidence”
19 It is taken from the large list of places documented by Sita Ram Goel in his magnum Opus “Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them Vol. 1- The Preliminary Survey”
***
Related Posts:
Distorting history and getting paid for it
Lies and half-truths in the name of national integration
Taj Mahal: The Biggest Whitewash in Indian History?
On Aurangzeb, Kashi Vishwanath, Lies and Half-Truths
*** COMMENTS to Original Article ***
From Bhagwat Shah:
Great info – but – how are we making sure this gets passed onto our children or to the common man in India ? Scholarly treaties, novels or articles are not read by the masses and we need to make sure this info gets to the masses. What is the proposal for that ? Are we going to make sure the education system in India and abroad takes note of these findings and research ? If so, how ?
We continue to shout in the cyber space, but, in the schools and universities around the world – including India, none of this matters. They are still sticking to the old books. What are the plans to change them ?
Sadly, our religious leaders are not concerned with this research or spreading this info. Our politicians are definitely not interested as there are no votes in this (Hindus vote bank does not exist for them !!!!). Our educationalists are not interested as they don’t want to have to re-read and re-educate themselves, besides, they are brought up on old prejudices and are unwilling to change it. Saddest of all, our masses are not interested. They do not care about anything beyond the next bollywood release and cricket score. To them our ruined temples and ruined histories are of no consequence at all.
Until we start to educate the new generation and do so on a wide scale, this info will be limited to the elite and will not help us lift our country, culture or religion out of the mire its in at present. We have to do this in India and outside India. Don’t wait for the gov or religious bodies to do this, I propose we do this ourselves. We are happy to send our children to tennis and piano lessons, we should also send them to Indian culture lessons.
If need be, we have to start these lessons ourselves and use the research on-line to educate our children. Having tried different institutions, I eventually started my own classes in London to teach children of my own friends and family. We can’t wait for others. We have to do this for ourselves.
***
From Dina U. Mehta
To me it is a matter of surprise that when motivated and hostile commentators in the garb of historians, propound a false and propagandist theory like the Aryan Invasion Theory of India, our religious and spiritual leaders, politicians as also our writers, simply beat their breasts and try to say that there was no such invasion. Instead why not write about those times with research and honesty, and show the idiocy and ridiculousness of the Theory.
Can you in such a case, separate an alleged event from the context of those times?
…
In any case, the problem always was and is: how do you disprove a theory without writing about those times? It can only be dismissed when you know the context and the period in which such an event is said to have occurred.
Fortunately, very fortunately, one writer – but only one – has come forward to write about those pre-Vedic times in which this False theory was supposed to have come to life. The writer is Bhagwan S. Gidwani and his book is “RETURN of the ARYANS” published by Penguin Books in India. This book gives a mortal body-blow to the Aryan Invasion Theory of India. But the book has a much larger theme and canvas. Its 1,000 pages tell the fascinating story of the Birth and Beginnings of the roots of Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma) with a thrilling account of how, in 5,000 BC, the Aryans originated from India, and from nowhere else – and why they moved out of their home-land; their trials and triumphs overseas; and finally their return to India. Thus, Gidwani demolishes the theory of Aryan invasion of India. He traces the Hindu ancestry of Aryans from 8,000 BC, and shows that Aryans were born, grew up, and died as citizens of Bharat Varsha, anchored in the timeless foundation of Sanatan Dharma. With equal clarity, the Book also demolishes the theory of North/South Divide, and shows how the people of Ganga, Madhya, Sindhu, Bangla and other regions were together with the Dravidian regions, in a spirit of equality and mutual respect, as a part of Bharat Varsha (India).
Clearly, “RETURN of the ARYANS” explains how the racial differences, like the skin colour, between North Indians and South Indians arose, and how Sanskrit has some words with foreign origin unlike Tamil. The book also shows how Bharat Varsha of 5,000 BC was far more extensive than the present-day territory of India, Pakistan & Bangladesh, as it included additionally Avagana (Afghanistan), parts of Iran, beyond Lake Namaskar (now known as Namaksar), where many Hindu hermits resided; in North, Bharat Varsha territory went across soaring peaks of Himalayas to Tibet to reach Lake Mansarovar, Mount Kailash, upto the source of mighty Sindhu and Brahmaputra rivers, and beyond; Also, Bharat Varsha included Land of Brahma (Burma) and beyond; Kashmir; Lands of Sadhu Newar (Nepal); Bhoota (Bhutan); and Land of Vraon (Sri Lanka).
Note also that RETURN of the ARYANS covers a vast panorama to reveal dramatic stories behind the origins of Om, Namaste, Swastika, Gayatri Mantra, and Soma Wines. It tells how Tamil and Sanskrit developed, and how they influenced world-languages; also it has tales of discovery and disappearance of Saraswati River, and founding of Ganga, Dravidian, and Sindhu civilizations; the battles and blood-shed that led to fall and rise of Benaras, Hardwar, and many cities. Besides, Gidwani sheds light on pre-history establishment of legal and constitutional systems; development of ships and harbours; gold-mining; chariots; Yoga; mathematics; astronomy; medicine; surgery; music, dance, drama, art and architecture; and material advancement of the pre-ancient India.
…
Unfortunately, “RETURN of the ARYANS” has not been presented as a formal historical text as the author has chosen to present it in story-form with even dialogues to fully focus on the drama of those times and hence has, withintegrity and objectivity, marked it as fictional, though fully explaining the extent of the fiction in the Preface. This has given a handle to Hindu Organizations and others to dismiss the book; and as some one has said these organizations suffer from some dogma while all other dogma-ridden faiths and religions fully use novels and dramatic presentations to advance their message.
***
From Uma, Pahari , Lalit, Samir and Kotwal
Not many Indians are likely to buy an expensive, bulky book -Return of the Aryans – published by Penguin Books, India and its sale is largely confined to foreign countries, and therefore the best course is to view the Themes from that book which are shown at www.sindhulogy.org. (They appear in that website under “Projects”.).These themes will give an idea of how the roots of Hinduism began in Bharat Varsha (Indian subcontinent) in 8,000 BCE and how the Aryans who originated in India in 5,000 BCE travelled to a large number of countries in Asia and Europe, including Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Russia, Finland, Lithuania, Sweden, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Greece and Germany and their adventures and exploits there. These Themes will give an idea of how art and and development flourished in that period of pre-History in India
Anyone reading the Themes on website will clearly come to the conclusion that the Aryan Invasion Theory of India is false and was designed as a propagandist hoax.
Related Posts:  Jain/Buddhist Temples destroyed to build Hindu Temples? – UPDATED and Dear Vir, This is why Buddhism declined in India… and Part II of this post
Also read On Aurangzeb, Kashi Vishwanath, Lies and Half-Truths and Dear Vir, Leave these kids alone…
Image Courtesy: Wikipedia
On the topic of “whitewashing history”, there is much to be learnt from the way no mention is made in our history book od the Portuguese Inquisition in Goa. Three hundred years, from the mid-1500s, were spent on torturing Hindus selected by the Grand Inquisitor. The methods of torure were inhuman, and designed to inflict the maximal pain. I don’t think I can detail the methods used here, people would be throwing up on their computers.
No mention of this in our history books.
Dear Sir,
Can we provide a History student, BY THE WAY NON COMMIE, a stipend supported by all the bloggers on this Blog and ask him to do a research on this topic and we can publish it as a book for further action at a later date.
Shri. Shantanu, you may take the lead as to how this matter can be taken further, to avoid further whitewashing.
The matter of Goa and the portugese should be brought to light.
Regards,
vck
http://vepa.us/dir00/
Dr Kaushal Vepa has been doing extensive reserach into Indic History. He has a lot of contacts in this area, including being a founder of India Forum (linked on this page) which has some of the best historians I know.
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1584&st=0&p=79107&#entry79107
Here is a primer on the Goan inquisition
Dear Ashish: Thanks so much for the links. I shall have ma look at them over the weekend.
***
Dear vck: That is an excellent suggestion…I am willing to bear a little bit of cost myself…Do you or other readers know of any keen hitsory student who may be looking for some work and extra money during the holidays?
Thanks.
Dear Shantanu,
There is a link provided by Shri. Ashish. Can you take it up with Dr. Vepa and ask his inputs on a History scholars, they are usually an ignored lot, as people do not like the truth.
Regards,
vck
About the Holy inquisition-
“Varying attempts to stamp out infidels and heretics often proved to be inadequate, so the Holy Inquisition was formed by Pope Gregory IX in 1231 to make the efforts more organized and efficient. Burning was quickly decided upon as the official punishment. In 1245, the Pope gave Inquisitors the right to absolve their assistants of any acts of violence which they might commit in the fulfillment of their duties. Torture of suspects was authorized by Pope Innocent IV in 1252. The Inquisition was not limited to Europe, as Spaniards brought it to the Americas and used it to punish the native inhabitants. Through the 1500s, 879 heresy trials were recorded in Mexico alone.4 The historian Hernando del Pulgar estimated that the Spanish Inquisition had burned at the stake 2,000 people and reconciled another 15,000 by 1490 just one decade after the Inquisition began. (Cited in Kamen op. cit., p. 62.) Juan de Zumarrage, first Bishop of Mexico, writing in 1531, claimed that he personally destroyed over 500 temples and 20,000 idols of the heathens.5 The Goa inquisition which lasted from 1560 to 1812 is considered as the most violent inquisition ever executed by the Portuguese Catholic Church. Inquisition proceedings were always conducted behind closed shutters and closed doors. Hindus were brutally interrogated, flogged, and slowly dismembered in front of their relatives. Eyelids were sliced off and extremities were amputated carefully. Viceroy D Constantine de Braganca issued an order on April 2, 1560, instructing that Brahmins should be thrown out of Goa and other areas under Portuguese control. At the end of 1567, 300 Hindu temples were destroyed.”
http://www.hinduyuva.org/tattva-blog/2008/03/orissa-clash-conversion/
Dear Shri Sridhar,
I do not know your background, but from your mails i may have come to doubtful conclusion, that you are interested, a sort of historian with an interest in coming to terms with the truth of inquisition and the role of the church in its attempt to exterminate the way of life in this country. It is my personal opinion and note!!!
I would appreciate it, if Shri. Shantanu would like to endorse what i am requesting and also permitting me to say so, may be you can source a historian who can play a part in removing this whitewashed background and get back to the truth.
May be the truth may be bitter for any side, but let us come to terms with it.
Today people are coming to terms with “Hindutva” and “Hinduism” and “Sanatan Dharma”. it hurts a few, terrifies a few, a few celeberate.
Let us get to the truth and let us get the true colors of the painting behind the canvas, let be black or white.
Regards,
vck
“The history of India has been whitewashed and distorted, first by European rulers, and after independence by eminent historians of India and their supporters the Leftists, Seculars and self-claimed Progressives of India to meet their own ends. They have painted the pre-Islamic invasion period as a Dark Age and have glorified the Islamic period to be very peaceful and prosperous.”
I hold no brief for the leftist historians, who have indeed distorted Indian history, but the first para of this article is so biased that I had to stop reading and comment on it –
I can only comment from my experience of the school books I learnt from in Maharashtra – I learnt about the great Rajput kings, about the glorious Maurya dynasty, about the Cholas, about the nawabs of Bengal, of the Marathas and their great empire, of the nobility of Akbar and the savagery of Aurangzeb ….. and, I learned all of the above from state promoted textbooks, vetted by various “leftist historians”, I guess.
Shantanu, while we certainly need to tear down the myths of the past, we also need to see who we are putting forward as our sources. Based on the first para, I would dismiss Sridhar as equally biased as the historians of Delhi.
Let us have credible people on this blog, please.
Nithin, vck and Patriot: Thanks for your comments.
***
@ Patriot: Perhaps Shri Sridhar has been a bit harsh in his first para…That however (I feel) should not distract from the otherwise excellent analysis and the huge amount of research and effort that has gone into this…
I am myself sometimes “guilty” of unwittingly slipping into making statements that are hard to bak up…So I hope we will all be a bit more flexible with regards Sridhar’s writing(s).
In any case, the bias of NCERT in providing “guidelines” for history textbooks is something I have commented on before… Please have a look at this link whenever you have a moment:
https://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/07/19/lies-and-half-truths/
Thanks
Dear Friends
In my view the study of history raises a few higher questions, than just the questions of fact. I’m asking two questions here:
1) Should a government be involved in any way in advocating history? (eg. NCERT).
In my view, history is a matter for independent researchers – and history can change as our research improves. Therefore each school teacher should be free to promote any history book he or she likes as a professional historian. The concept of a ‘government vetted’ history book is dangerous and problematic. Despite the obvious concerns governments may have about history, they should stay out of this area. Governments should not publish any books for schools.
2) Second, what is the real purpose of history? Do we use it to learn anything at all? I don’t find evidence that India learns from history – even the history of the past 60 years hasn’t taught India to abandon socialism and reform its political system.
On the other hand, people do seem to quickly learn the message of hate from history. I know a number of Hindu friends who fanatically hate Islam. And from where did this hatred arise – from history books they studied when they were young.
So how does history help us unless we bring some wisdom and balance into the discussion? What does it matter what our ancestors did? It matters what we do. And if we use history as a pretext to hate each other, then I would even say – we don’t need history at all.
To me one of the major lessons of history is that religion is a potentially dangerous concept. All religions have – at many times – been incompatible with tolerance and life. History without a message of tolerance and critical thinking against the madmen who frequently arise from various religions is a recipe for repeating the tragedies of the past.
So my question to Nithin Sridhar is this: What do you want the reader to do after you’ve listed the great damage done by people in the name of Islam in the past? Does it mean that Hindus should hate their Muslim fellow-citizens even more? Do you want people to die today because some criminals, madmen, or idiots, did something terrible in the past?
Are historians aware of the damage they cause to the present generations by not inoculating their readers from hate? Historians must write a chapter on tolerance and critical thinking to close their books, else history becomes merely a list of criminals and crimes of the past. Why does anyone need to study criminals who lived a thousand years ago?
Regards
Sanjeev
Sanjeev: A few quick points…
1. First of all, I firmly advocate the study of history…It is not history’s “problem” that people refuse to learn from it….
2. Re. historical wrongs, they cannot be corrected but that does not mean that nothing can be done to have “closure” on cerain issues…A recent case in point (which of course you would be very familiar with) is the apology tendered by Australian PM to the aborginies…(and similar apologies for historical wrongs that have been offered in other instances)
3. I do not agree that “All religions have – at many times – been incompatible with tolerance and life”
But before we get into this debate, it is very important to understand that “Hinduism” is NOT a religion neither is Sanatan Dharma (in the strictest sense of the word) and certainly not in the monolithic, absolute terms of other religions…So I feel very strongly about remarks such as “all religions have at times been incompatible…”
I am very willing to stand corrected on this but please point me in the direction of some evidence which would prove that Sanatan Dharma has been incompatible with tolerance and life.
4. As for government’s involvement in history books, history – as you well know – is only partly about facts, the farther (back in time) it goes (and the more complex it becomes), another factor comes into play – that of interpretation.
Here I would like to reproduce excerpts from an open letter written by Prof. Chakrabarti recently re. the proposed Indus Centre in Vadodara (pl. see Annex 2):
A great example of interpretation and bias is the insistence of certain historians to refer to the Sarasvati-Sindhu civilisation as “Indus Valley” civilisatoin even though enormous amount of research has now shown that the extent of that culture covered parts of Rajasthan, Gujarat, Haryana and Punjab…
5. As for your final question: “Why does anyone need to study criminals who lived a thousand years ago?”…at least one reason is that there acts continue to “inspire” present day regimes (a great example being the names that have been assigned to Pakistan’s missiles – e.g. see this link – although the “names” are now being “claimed” by Afghanistan!)
I have to rush now but I look forward to your thoughts…and that of other readers too..
Thanks
Dear Shantanu
I sense a strange thing here. It was my family that was kicked out of West Panjab by religious fanatics, and presumably many close relatives lost their lives in that process. So it is I who must want ‘closure’ by studying history, but I don’t want any of that. Closure is a personal matter that can only be achieved through understanding that one’s life is independent and unique, and by trying to ensure that history doesn’t repeat itself.
Closure is not achieved by recalling the brutalities of religious fanatics and criminals. Why study the lives of killers? We have better things to do. Studying about killers is a sure recipe to ensure that hatred will fester in one’s mind. History must be studied, but not to bring closure.
That brings me to your related issue about historians calling Sarasvati-Sindhu civilisation as the “Indus Valley” civilisation. A name doesn’t change the history, in my view, and if the name change is useful then historians will in due course adopt it. It is the job of historians to do such things; not a task for laymen. Like any other discipline, history is full of historians with different opinions on everything. Why not let these professionals battle it out?
About “evidence which would prove that Sanatan Dharma has been incompatible with tolerance and life.” I’m afraid every religion (even if this particular one is not a monolithic religion, as you rightly point out) makes similar claims for its own tolerance. For me the litmus test lies in the actual behaviour of people who claim to lead or follow the path of various religions. I don’t look back to the scriptures but to what people do.
I know that each individual must be held to account for his or her actions, and entire religions cannot be labeled as tolerant or intolerant. And yet, we must watch their leaders to learn what religions stands for. Have a look at:
This person is from VHP and he appears to be a Hindu leader to my untutored mind – unless you say that VHP does not represent Hinduism, in which case I’d ask you to show me who are the true leaders of Hinduism. This person’s is clearly intent on inciting the people. On the incitement of (other) people like him the Babri Masjid was destroyed – see
Hundreds of similar demagogues parade as leaders of Hinduism today. This particular person has a style quite unlike the peaceful and reasoned style of the Dalai Lama, or even the style that comes out from Vivekananda’s lectures (which I read avidly when I find the time for it).
That was the leaders. Now for the followers. I have pointed out elsewhere the enormous evidence of brutalities committed by followers of Hinduism (and other religions) in various communal riots – many (not all) of the riots are provoked by Hindu followers; and that government forces in India have killed disproportionately larger numbers of Muslims during these riots, deliberately allowing many Hindu arsonists to escape.
So if some of the leaders of a religion are intolerant, and some its followers kill with abandon, then are we to say that the religion in question is fully tolerant? Yes it is by and large tolerant, but the behaviour of the Hindu Mahasabha and its offshoots is problematic, to say the least. When I read Vivekananda and then think or look at these people who call themselves Hindus – and often use his name – a sense of the deep tragedy that is India overcomes me.
I left Hinduism when I was around 12 years old because of many reasons; its intolerance towards its own people – lower castes – was a part (not all) of those reasons. I have not come across any religion attractive enough to make me want to join them; I pick and choose and make my own ‘religion’, primarily founded in freedom and critical thinking.
I would prefer if we could simply live as ordinary human beings, and stop finding reasons to hate each other. History in the hands of the unwise is like fire without control. Unbalanced and one-sided histories are even worse; they are ideologically driven, and dangerous. Let us therefore encourage the study of history by professionals and not by laymen, who unfortunately often use history for purposes it was never meant for.
Regards
Sanjeev
Hi Sanjeev,
Thanks for your poignant personal insights and experiences. There’re are few points I thought worth making, as saw them:
i) Leaving Hinduism is a misnomer since no one joins ‘Hinduism” which I understand to be a generic term given by foreigners to Indian religions, philosophies and spirituality. This includes athiesm or agnosticism et al. So if you are in any situation of belief or non-belief or just ‘are’ you’re still an Indian partaking of its culture and contributing to it
ii) Atrocities committed in name of ‘Hinduism’ quite simply have no religious sanctiity or motivation, quite simply, because of (i) which makes an divergent contrast to the Semitic/Abrahamic relgions of Islam, Christianity or Judaism. At least islam and Christianity have a strong ‘go ye and convert the non-believers’ motive which is absent from teh ‘Hindu’ practices
iii) Viewing religion as a politically relevant practice is more of an imported concept, definitely applcable today to ‘Hinduism’ but I am inclined to believe its more of a ‘me too’ reaction to the activities of the more organised and politically (as against spiritually) ambitious semitic religions operating in India today
Separating religion from politics is essential in any debate that proceeds on the basis of reason and logic which is a democratic process and if you agree with this – would be interested in some more of your views and insights
*** Part of the comment moved here ***
*** Comment moved here ***
*** Comment moved here ***
Sanjeev, Hrishi and Dnyanesh: Thanks for sharing your thoughts and comments.
This (separation of religion from politics) is a fascinating subject for discussion and I am tempted to move this to a separate thread…I am rushed for time right now but may do this de-linking later tonight.
In the meantime, please continue to post your thoughts here (on this post) and I will move the whole lot when I migrate this to the new thread.
Thanks
*** Please continue the discussion on separation of politics and religion here ***
What do you want the reader to do after you’ve listed the great damage done by people in the name of Islam in the past? Does it mean that Hindus should hate their Muslim fellow-citizens even more? Do you want people to die today because some criminals, madmen, or idiots, did something terrible in the past?
My take- Of course not.
Every truth is printable. The study of history should be done to Learn from the mistakes of the past. My intention of writing this article, was not to spread hate, but to make people aware of the threat we are facing from last 1000 years, which we are facing even now.
Every truth is Printable. Truth must be supported always. True national integration is not possible by supressing history in the name of “Maintaining harmony”, but Integration and Harmony is achieved, when we accept the mistakes of the past, and reform ourself and become a better informed citizens.
Are historians aware of the damage they cause to the present generations by not inoculating their readers from hate? Historians must write a chapter on tolerance and critical thinking to close their books, else history becomes merely a list of criminals and crimes of the past. Why does anyone need to study criminals who lived a thousand years ago?
My take- I am no historian. But, the work of a Historian is not to “preach”(it may be love or hate). The duty of Historian is to state the facts of History. That is the only work he should be loyal to.
As for my article being biased, I would say that, it appears biased because, my primary concern was to highlight the “other face of the coin” which is often supressed.
I might be off topic, but just wanted to point everyone who talks of hindu fundamentalism, and hindu right winged groups etc etc to read this article by David Frawley:
http://pseudosecularism.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-there-hindu-fundamentalism.html
Namaste
From a review of “Pakistan’s westward drift” (Pervez Hoodbhoy) by Vijay Vikram (School of International Relations, University of St Andrews) in Pragati issue dt. 19th Oct 2008
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.â€
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 Pakistanâ€.
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.
From an interview with Dr Andrew Bostom
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:
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:
So much of how a people define their nation and themselves depends on how they view their common history. When two groups have extremely dissimilar views of who was the aggressor (invaders, conquerors) and who were the original inhabitants, can they really form a cohesive nation ? An interesting article by Sandhya Jain.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/142679/Land-of-religious-persecution.html
Just stumbled on this: Demolished once for all: Aryan Invasion Theory
Read the full article here
24-
Talageri’s “The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis’ (2000)” can be read online at http://voi.org/books/rig/
About studying the history of atrocities wreaked by Mughals on Indians, I feel unless this is understood, how are we to save ourselves from similar such repetition. Sriman Koenraad Elst has written an excellent book titled “Negationism in India”
One quote I heard sometime back. “Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it”
From Daily Mail:
Mutairi (Salwa al Mutairi, political activist and TV host from Kuwait) said that during a recent visit to Mecca, she asked Saudi muftis – Muslim religious scholars – what the Islamic ruling was on owning sex slaves. They are said to have told her that it is not haram.
The ruling was confirmed by ‘specialized people of the faith’ in Kuwait, she claimed.
‘They said, that’s right, the only solution for a decent man who has the means, who is overpowered by desire and who does not want to commit fornication, is to acquire jawari.’ Jawari is the plural of the Arabic term jariya, meaning ‘concubine’ or ‘sex slave’.
One Saudi mufti supposedly told Mutairi: ‘The context must be that of a Muslim nation conquering a non-Muslim nation, so these jawari have to be prisoners of war.’
@ ACH
Good find.
It is not enough to call her a nut case. She is a politician and stood in elections. If these are her views, it is necessary to inquire where this attitude is coming from. According to the same post she spoke to Mullahs of Saudi Arabia and they confirmed that the practise of having sex slaves is NOT Haram(forbidden).
Franky there is no point blaming the individual and letting the ideology off hook. She is theologically right in that she has the approval of Koran, Hadiths and the Sira(biography of Prophet). Their prophet himself had concubines and reduced female POWs to slavery and sex slavery.
I volunteer this heartless bimbo to be a sex slave.
From PERFIDY OF INDIAN EDUCATION SYSTEM, EXTOLLING VIRTUOUS TYRANTS by Shankara, a brief excerpt:
In the preface of his first volume Sir Henry Elliot exposes the perfidy of our Indian historians who have sung paeans of Muslim rulers from the earliest Turk to the last Mughal. If one peruses our current school books or the badly researched paperbacks of some foreign author masquerading as Indophiles one will be struck by the generosity, compassion and care for general well being that these foreign barbarians showed to the conquered people, the Hindus, that one would think Muslim invasion was the best thing that ever happened to Hindus. But Sir Henry Elliot’s books on the contrary questions, where are the fantastical bridges, public works and network of canals, irrigation projects and tree lined highways, markets and free commerce, security and well being of the population.
Admonishingly Elliot writes…
..
This is the real condition during the Islamic occupation of India as exposed by someone who had no hidden agenda to sugar coat the facts. Where are the public works and utilities, roads and highways, canals and markets places, running water, drainage and well laid out towns. In hindsight old parts of our cities are a testimony to the above, narrow dingy lanes, open sewers, random construction with no planning or public utilities whatsoever. We will be hard pressed to find a public park or a public water fountain for the thirsty traveler.
India was looted for personal gain and self aggrandizement of the Muslim kings and emperors. What we have are tombs, mausoleums, well laid out private gardens and frivolous fountains, while the common man was left to fend for himself. India was raped and trod under the shoes of barbaric invaders who are now extolled by our secular historians
Excerpts from The Lost River by MICHEL DANINO, 20th Oct ’12:
…
A modern myth is that satellite imagery ‘rediscovered’ the river in the 1970s. Actually, it only confirmed what had been known for over two centuries: As early as in 1760, a map from The Library Atlas published by Bryce, Collier & Schmitz showed the Saraswati (spelt ‘Soorsuty’) joining the Ghaggar (‘Guggur’) in Punjab; indeed, even today a small stream called ‘Sarsuti’ seasonally flows there. In 1778, James Rennell, a noted English geographer and cartographer, published a Map of Hindoostan or the Mogul Empire with similar details. In the early 19th century, several topographers surveyed the bed of the Ghaggar, a seasonal river that flows down from the Shivalik hills, and found it much too wide for the paltry waters it carried during monsoons; the first scholar to propose that the Ghaggar-Saraswati combine was the relic of the Vedic Saraswati was the French geographer Louis Vivien de Saint-Martin, who authored in 1855 a massive Geography of India’s North-West According to the Vedic Hymns. Subsequently, nearly all Indologists, from Max Müller to Monier-Williams or Macdonell (and later Louis Renou) accepted this thesis. Geologists such as RD Oldham (1886) joined in, followed by geographers such as the Indian Shamsul Islam Siddiqi (1944) or the German Herbert Wilhelmy (1969).
…
In the 1920s, cities of the Bronze Age like Mohenjodaro and Harappa came to light; initial findings were limited to the Indus Valley and Baluchistan, but in 1941, the intrepid explorer Sanskritist Marc Aurel Stein conducted an expedition in the then Bahawalpur State — today’s Cholistan, a very arid region of Pakistan which is technically part of the Thar desert. The Ghaggar’s dry bed continues there under the name of ‘Hakra’, and had long been known to be dotted with numerous ruined settlements. Stein’s contribution, encapsulated in his paper titled ‘A Survey of Ancient Sites along the Lost Saraswati River’, was to show that some of those sites went back to Harappan times. So the Saraswati, too, had nurtured the ‘Indus civilisation’, which prompted a few archaeologists to propose the broader term of ‘Indus-Saraswati civilisation’.
Indeed, decades of further explorations both in India and Pakistan have established that the Saraswati basin was home to about 360 sites of the Mature Harappan Phase…altogether, almost a third of all known urban Harappan sites. (Gujarat was also host to over 300 of them, another indication that the term ‘Indus civilisation’ is something of a misnomer.)
Again, that the Ghaggar-Hakra was the Saraswati’s relic was accepted by most archaeologists, including Mortimer Wheeler, Raymond Allchin (both from Britain), Gregory Possehl, JM Kenoyer (both from the US), Jean-Marie Casal (France), AH Dani (Pakistan), BB Lal, SP Gupta, VN Misra or Dilip Chakrabarti (India).
…
Despite the broad consensus, scholars such as Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib and the late RS Sharma started questioning this identification in the 1980s. What prompted this rather late reaction? It was a new development: A study of the evolution of the pattern of Harappan settlements in the Saraswati basin now revealed that in its central part — roughly southwest Haryana, southern Punjab and northern Rajasthan — most or all Harappan sites were abandoned sometime around 1900 BCE, a period coinciding with the end of the urban phase of the Indus civilisation. Clearly, the river system collapsed — which archaeologists now saw as a factor contributing to the end of the brilliant Indus civilisation.
Why was this a problem? We must remember that the Saraswati is lavishly praised both as a river and a Goddess in the Rig Veda, a collection of hymns which mainstream Indology says was composed by Indo-Aryans shortly after their migration to India around 1500 BCE. However, by that time, the Saraswati had been reduced to a minor seasonal stream: How could the said Aryans praise it as a ‘mighty river’, the ‘best of rivers’, ‘mother of waters’, etc? There is a chronological impossibility. Hence, the objectors asserted, the Ghaggar-Hakra was not, after all, the Saraswati extolled in the Rig Veda. While some (Rajesh Kochhar) tried to relocate the river in Afghanistan, others (Irfan Habib) decided that the Saraswati was not a particular river but “the river in the abstract, the River Goddessâ€; but both theses ran against the Rig Veda’s own testimony that the river flowed between the Yamuna and the Sutlej.
However, what should have remained a scholarly issue now turned into an ideological and often acrimonious battle: On the one hand, those who stuck to the identity between the Saraswati and the Ghaggar-Hakra concluded that the composers of the Rig Veda must have lived in the region during the third millennium BCE at the latest — but as the only settlements known of that period were Harappan ones, they often held that the Harappans were part of the Vedic people; cultural evidence such as a Harappan swastika, yogic postures, figurines in namaste and more was pressed into service to bridge the Harappan and the Vedic worlds. On the other hand, scholars who continued to swear by an Aryan immigration in the mid-second millennium BCE, and therefore a pre-Vedic Harappan civilisation, accused the former of ‘chauvinism’, ‘jingoism’ or worse, conveniently forgetting that dozens of Western scholars had, for a century-and-a-half, accepted the same location for the Saraswati river.
From A Pakistani in search of a homeland by Koenraad Elst, some excerpts:
A Pakistani in search of a homeland
In Eurasia Review on 25 December 2012, Khan A. Sufyan published a paper titled: “Pakistan: The True Heir Of Indus Valley Civilization – Analysisâ€. (Appended). In it, he argues that Pakistan is not just the state for South-Asian Muslims created by Mohammed Ali Jinnah in 1947, but was in fact delineated already by the Harappan civilization. After all, its extent coincided roughly with that of modern Pakistan, and not for nothing it is called the “Indus civilizationâ€, after Pakistan’s main river. He is the typical Pakistani Hindu-hater who pretends that Pakistan was necessary for fear of “Hindu dominationâ€, as if Hindus were not extremely benevolent towards their minorities. His aim is to give body to the official Pakistani propaganda of “five thousand years of Pakistanâ€. Let us evaluate the case he makes.
First of all, the extent of the Harappan civilization. An important number of cities lie outside Pakistan, from the Afghan colony of Shortugai to a large number is Gujarat, including the port of Lothal, and another large number in India, including the metropolis of Rakhigarhi. Many of these cities are near the bed of the Saraswati in Haryana, which is why Indian archeologists are entitled to speak of “Sindhu-Saraswati civilizationâ€. The emphasis on the Indus is the result of the first discoveries, viz. of Mohenjo Daro on and Harappa near the Indus, but is now dated. Note that this civilization was much larger than the contemporary Mesopotamian civilization. If we don’t look too closely on the map, with a Martian’s glance, we might say that its borders very roughly coincide with those of Pakistan.
Sufyan’s thesis is that Pakistan “was an outcome of thousands of years of historical, geographical and genetic distinction between the peoples of Indus Valley Civilization and those occupying the Gangetic plainsâ€. Here we see a logical implication of the doctrine behind the Partition, stemming from the Indian Muslims’ immediate interests assuming a continuation of the Westminster democracy in which numbers are important: they could achieve safety and power only in a state where they would form the majority. That state would then, like other states, have to endow itself with a proper history, justifying the state’s continued existence.
This conflicts with the orthodox Islamic calculation, upheld at the time of Partition by Maulana Azad, that (1) democracy is un-Islamic so that, like for the medieval Muslim invaders, power can just as well be obtained by a strong-headed minority, and that (2) in the longer run, the Muslims would obtain the majority in united India anyway, by means of conversions and a higher demographic growth. From the Islamic viewpoint, the history of Pakistan is not important because Pakistan is not important: it can only be a temporary tactic (and not even the best) on the way to the ultimate goal, viz. the Islamization of India. But in a confrontation with the infidels, anything un-Islamic becomes Islamic by being useful in the confrontation. Thus, suicide is strictly un-Islamic, but before silly secularist or Western commentators say that therefore suicide-bombing must be un-Islamic, let us realize that before an Islamic court, any would-be (or failed) suicide-bomber can successfully plead that in this case, his suicide was the way to inflict terror on the infidels, hence Islamically correct. Pakistan, therefore, is the fruit of a hybrid ideology, mainly consisting of Islam but adding un-Islamic elements from modern majority rule and nationalism because these were deemed necessary for the Indian Muslims in the then-prevailing circumstances. In particular, the attempt to streamline a country’s history in the service of the present state’s continued existence is not Islamic but nationalist; however, it is Islamic in so far as the state of Pakistan is a useful instrument in the Islamization of the whole of South Asia.
As a real Pakistani patriot, Sufyan lists Harappan cities found in the four provinces of his country. Nothing against that, but we repeat that he could also have listed cities from Afghanistan, Gujarat, East Panjab and Haryana. Here is his main argument: “The South Asian subcontinent is principally divided into two major geographical regions; the Indus Valley and its westerly inclined tributaries, and the Ganges Valley with its easterly inclined tributaries. In his book, The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan, Aitzaz Ahsan identifies the geographical divide between these two regions as the Gurdaspur-Kathiawar salient, a watershed which is southwesterly inclined down to the Arabian Sea. This watershed also depicted the dividing line between the peoples of Indus Valley Civilization and those of Gangetic plains and also corresponds almost exactly with the current day Pakistan-India border. Historically, only the Mauryas, Muslims and the British amalgamated these two regions as a unified state. For most of the remaining history, when one empire did not rule both the regions as a unified state, the Indus Valley Civilizational domain was always governed as one separate political entity.â€
As a historical claim, his thesis is largely untrue. For instance, the Gupta and Sikh empires clearly saddled this border, and one looks in vain for a historical kingdom coinciding with the Indus territory or with modern-day Pakistan. But the geological claim is of better quality. East Panjab and Kashmir constitute Indian parts of the Indus region (or is this a veiled Pakistani claim to these regions?), but further downstream, the border does roughly coincide with the watershed defining the Indus area. But is this watershed of political or civilizational relevance? The Aegean Sea separated Greece from Ionia, the Greek area of coastal Anatolia, yet the two areas were one in language and culture. Jinnah also didn’t base his Pakistan on this watershed: he would gladly have included the Nizam’s Hyderabad and did include East Bengal, part of the supposedly un-Pakistani Ganga plain.
Sufyan has the usual swearwords for the Indian archeologists, whom he accuses off-hand of “distorting†and “manipulating†their findings, and even of “forging†a straight line between Harappan and later Hindu civilization. He bases himself predictably on the Aryan invasion chronology, which puts the Vedic age after the Harappan age: “However, the later identification of emergence of Vedic Hindu cultural traditions between 1500 – 600 BC, discounted such linkages.†In reality, the low Western chronology of the Vedas is anything but proven.
He is, however, right to identify the southern Pakistani province of Sindh with the Sumerian-attested name Meluhha. That this name is the origin of the word Mleccha indicates that its people were not embraced or held in high esteem in Vedic circles. And here we run into a phenomenon that Sufyan doesn’t realize yet, but that would certainly serve him well: the areas now constituting Pakistan and Afghanistan were considered inauspicious by the Vedic people. In his book The Rigveda and the Avesta (Delhi 2009), Shrikant Talageri describes how the Northwest was held in suspicion and taken to be the home of people who brought misfortune. In the Ramayana, exile and misery are visited upon Rama and Sita by the hand of Rama’s father’s second wife Kaikeyi, who hailed from the Northwest. In the Mahabharata, the war between the Pandava and Kaurava branches of the Bharata lineage is triggered by Pandu’s death, caused by his being enamoured of Madri, again a wife of Northwestern provenance. Talageri testifies how his own Brahmin family fasted by refraining from consuming Gangetic rice, while Panjab-grown grain was not deemed real food and hence was permitted. This information would marvelously fit in with Sufyan’s project.
So, let us assume that the Vedic people did indeed frown upon the areas now constituting Pakistan. Unfortunately, the quarrel between the Vedic people and the Mlecchas or Dasas from the Northwest has nothing to do with the present state of Pakistan. Both parties were perhaps ethnically or culturally a bit different, but both were Pagans, unwelcome in today’s Pakistan. It is against the Pagans of Sindh (formerly Meluhha) that Mohammed bin Qasim, revered as the ultimate founder of Pakistan, waged the first successful Jihad on South-Asian soil. Come 1947, it was the West-Panjabi Hindus and Sikhs, straight descendants of the Harappans, who were driven out of West Panjab to make way for the new state of Pakistan. This Islamic state usurps the territory of the Harappans but otherwise wants to have nothing to do with them.
The contrast between Harappa and Pakistan, or the fundamental Hinduness of the Harappans, is perhaps best illustrated with the three most famous artifacts from the Harappan civilization. The “priest-king†was probably a practitioner of the stellar cult suggested on many Harappan seal. The Quran emphatically forbids the Pagan worship of sun, moon and stars. At any rate, he was not a Muslim but a propagator of Paganism, the same kind against whom Mohammed made war. So, according to Islam, the state religion of Pakistan, the priest-king has been burning in hell for four thousand years. As for the “dancing-girlâ€, she exudes self-confidence and is stark naked. In today’s Pakistan, there would be no room for her. In fact, she would be stoned to death. Finally, the “Pashupati seal†may or may not depict Shiva as Lord of the Animals, but the character depicted would certainly feel more at home in a Hindu temple than in a mosque. A figure in a yoga posture clearly belongs in India more than in Pakistan. There is nothing Islamic and therefore nothing Pakistani about these three faces of the Indus civilization.
Most Pakistanis are biological descendants of the Harappans, as are many Indians. So what? Is Khan Sufyan sneakingly revalorizing the un-Islamic notion of ancestry? The Pagan Arabs of Mohammed’s time were his own relatives, yet he chose to fight them. He located his own mother in hell because she was a Pagan. Similarly, the state religion of Pakistan situates the Harappans in hell, eventhough they are the ancestors of today’s Pakistanis. So, the state of Pakistan is estranged from its Harappan heritage, while the Hindus have a far more profound claim on the Sindhu-Saraswati civilization. However, every Pakistani can do something about this. Yes, he can turn Pakistan into the successor-state of Harappa. To do this, he must only do one thing: renounce Islam and reconvert to Harappan Paganism. Paki, come home!
Koenraad Elst July 2, 2013
(1) The Sanskrit term ‘jangala’ (cognate with modern English ‘jungle’) means a deserted or a long abandoned land. Jangala also designates arid lands, meaning the total opposite of what ‘jungle’ means in English today. Jangala is opposed to anupa or paludal lands, which represent the hydrophilic vegetation. This contrast between jangala and anupa draws a strong polarity in cosmology, which is used in that sense in ayurveda and in the Indic taxonomy of plants and animals (see Francis Zimmermann–The Jungle and the Aroma of Meats: An Ecological Theme in Hindu Medicine, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987).
(2) True, the above classical contrast between Jangala and Anupa is echoed to a large extent in the geographical and genetic distinction that Sufiyan draws between the peoples of Indus Valley Civilization and those occupying the Gangetic plains.
(3) Fortunately, as Dr Elst helpfully reminds us, as a historical claim, this thesis is largely untrue. The Gupta and Sikh empires clearly saddled this border, and one looks in vain for a historical kingdom coinciding with the Indus territory or with modern-day Pakistan…Pakistan is estranged from its Harappan heritage, while Hindus have a far more profound claim on the Sindhu-Saraswati civilization.
(4) When I think of the mighty Sindhu River, the image that first comes to my mind is the opening line from the Devala Smriti composed by Devala (which includes rituals for facilitating return to Dharma for those who had been forcibly converted): As he sat meditating on the bank of the Sindhu river…
Shrinivas Tilak July 2, 2013
Comments on this post are now closed.
Pl post any further comments on this thread which is the main placeholder for a discussion on the myth of “Aryan Invasion Theory” etc..