The Ancient Baluchis

[Guest guest]

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/jul/14guru.htmREDIFF.COMMohan

GuruswamyMUSHARRAF: WHAT ABOUT BALUCHISTAN?July 14, 2003The Pakistani case for

Kashmir no longer rests on religion; the Bengali rebellion and secession in

1971 did that argument in. It now rests upon the more exalted principle of

self-determination. That is what their friends abroad and in India wax eloquent

about. The Pakistanis no longer harp about Indian perfidies in Junagadh and

Hyderabad. Free elections, full integration and the sheer fact of Hindus being

the major community in these two onetime princely states has put paid to that.

But Kashmir still dogs us. It is predominantly Muslim and the demand for

self-determination has us confused. Isn't that what democracy is all about? But

the irony is that Pakistan is the champion of self-determination when its own

people do not enjoy any democratic rights. The three pillars upon which the

Pakistani State rests are Allah, Army and America. The people of Pakistan do

not figure in this scheme at all. The Pakistani leaders want a diplomatic

engagement with us on Jammu and Kashmir again. Their prime minister has once

again donned the cloak of democracy that hangs outside General Pervez

Musharraf's bunker. But we must not shirk from talking about self-determination

with them. It is two edged and cuts both ways. Let us take the case of

Baluchistan. The Pakistani province of Baluchistan is a mountainous desert area

of about 3.5 lakh sq kms and has a population of over 7.5 million or about as

much as Jammu and Kashmir's population. It borders Iran, Afghanistan and its

southern boundary is the Arabian Sea with the strategically important port of

Gwadar on the Makran coast commanding approach to the Straits of Hormuz. Quetta

is the capital of Baluchistan. The population consists mainly of Baluch and

Pathans. Like the Kurds, the Baluch are also a people ignored by the makers of

modern political geography. There is an Iranian province of Sistan and

Baluchestan spread over an area of 1.82 lakh sq kms and with a population of

over 2.5 million. Its capital is Zahedan.Through most of their history the

Baluch administered themselves as a loose tribal confederacy. The Baluch are an

ancient people. In 325 BC, after his abortive India campaign, as Alexander made

his way back to Babylon through the Makran desert, the Greeks suffered greatly

at the hands of marauding Baluchis. The legend has it that they originally came

from near Aleppo in Syria and there is much linguistic evidence to suggest that

they belong to the same Indo-European sub-group as the Persians and Kurds. They

came into Islam under the shadow of the sword of Mohammad bin Qasim's conquering

Arab army in 711 AD. Whatever be their origins, by 1000 AD they were well

settled in their present homeland. The poet Firdausi records them in the

Persian epic, the Book of Kings, thus: 'Heroic Baluches and Kuches we saw/Like

battling rams all determined on war.' As relatively late arrivals in the

region, the Baluchis had to battle earlier occupants of the lands such as the

Brahui tribes who still abound around Kalat. The Brahui language belongs to the

Dravidian family of languages and is close to Tamil. Quite clearly, the Brahuis

are the only Dravidian survivors in northern India, after the Aryan invasion. A

restless people, the Baluchis naturally pushed eastwards towards the more

fertile regions watered by the Indus river, but were halted by the might of the

Mughals. But we still have reminders of the many Baluchi incursions in the names

of  towns like Dera Ghazi Khan and Dera Ismail Khan in the Punjab and NWFP.

Unlike the Dravidians of Mohenjodaro and Harappa who disappeared without a

trace, the Brahuis made one last hurrah when they asserted their power in

Kalat. By the 18th century Kalat was the dominant power in Baluchistan and the

Khan of Kalat was the ruler of the entire region. But the Brahuis paid for it

by getting assimilated into the majority Baluchis. The Brahui language still

survives in small pockets but only by just. My late father who served in

British India's Defence Services Staff College at Quetta in the early 1940s

would often tell me of hearing local tribesmen serving in the Staff College

speaking a language that sounded remarkably like Tamil!The British first came

to the region in 1839 on their way to Kabul when they sought safe passage. In

1841 they entered into a treaty with Kalat. In the wake of Lord Auckland's

disastrous invasion of Afghanistan, the British annexed Sind in a mood,

Mountstuart Elphinstone said, was that 'of a bully who had been kicked in the

streets and then goes home to beat the wife in revenge!' The British annexed

Sind in 1843 from the Talpur Mirs, a Baluchi dynasty. On June 27, 1839 Ranjit

Singh died and within 10 years his great prophecy on being shown a map with

British possessions in India in 'ek din sab laal ho jayega!' came to be true.

After the formal surrender of the Sikhs on March 29, 1849 and the annexation of

Punjab, the British now had a long border with the Baluchis. But learning from

their disastrous experience with the Afghans they preferred to keep out of

harm's way on Baluchi assurances of the inviolability of their borders.In 1876,

the British however forced another treaty on the Baluchis and forced the Khan of

Kalat to lease salubrious Quetta to them. The Khan's writ still ran over

Baluchistan, but now under the watchful but benign eye of a British minister.

That the Khan of Kalat was not considered another insignificant prince was in

the fact that he was accorded a 19-gun salute. With security assured and

largely unfettered domestic power the Khan led lavish and often eccentric

lifestyles. One Khan collected shoes, and to ensure the safety of his

collection had all the left shoes locked in a deep dungeon of his fort in

Kalat!Whatever the whimsicalities of the Khans of Kalat, like the rulers of

Hyderabad and Kashmir, they enjoyed the greatest degree of autonomy possible

under the system established by the British as long as whimsy was within reason

and not inimical to British interests. This arrangement prevailed till 1947. The

urge to be independent rulers burned equally bright in all three of them. The

Khan of Kalat, Mir Ahmad Yar Khan, went further than Hari Singh of Kashmir and

Osman Ali Khan of Hyderabad. He declared independence, while the other two

dithered and allowed events to overtake them. Unlike in Hyderabad, it was

apparent that the population largely supported the Khan. The Baluchis, like the

Pathans of NWFP, were not too enthused with the idea of Pakistan. In the NWFP

the separatist Muslim League led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah was actually rejected

in elections. Yet eight months after the Khan's assertion of independence the

Pakistanis forcibly annexed Baluchistan. But Baluchi aspirations for an

independent state were not quelled completely. In 1973 a war of independence

broke out in Baluchistan.For five long years there was total war. At its peak

the Baluchis raised a force of 55,000 combatants. Nearly six Pakistan Army

divisions were deployed to fight them. The Pakistan Air Force was also deployed

and its Mirage and Sabre fighter jets carried out strikes all over rural

Baluchistan. Widespread use of napalm has been documented by scholars like

Robert Wirsing of the University of Texas and Selig Harrison. Iran too joined

in the military action and Huey Cobra helicopter gunships of its Army Aviation

were widely used. By the time the last pitched battle was fought in 1978 5,000

Baluchi fighters and 3,000 Pakistani soldiers had died. Civilian casualties

were many times that. The Baluchi war for independence was crushed, but the

aspirations still flicker.Speaking at the 57th session of the Commission of

Human Rights at Geneva between March 9 and April 27, 2001, Mehran Baluch, a

prominent Baluch leader said: 'Our tragedy began in 1947, immediately after the

creation of Pakistan. The colonialist army of Pakistani Punjab forcibly occupied

Kalat at gunpoint.' Even now a struggle continues in Baluchistan. Leading

Baluchi leaders like Sardar Attaullah Mengal, Sardar Mahmood Khan Achakzai and

Nawab Khair Baksh Marri, heads of the three great Baluch clans, have been

leading protests over the economic exploitation of the region's great natural

resources to the exclusion of the local people. Marri and hundreds of his

supporters are under arrest. Till 1977 the Indira Gandhi government actively

worked for the democratic aspirations of the Baluchis and Pathans. Baluchi

fighters were trained in the deserts of Rajasthan. We also provided them with

financial and diplomatic assistance. With Bangladesh free, Indira Gandhi

reckoned that Sind, Baluchistan and Pakhtunistan should follow. After her

electoral defeat in 1977, Vajpayee as the Janata government's foreign minister

made his first misguided and woolly-headed attempt to normalize relations with

Pakistan. We now remember Lahore as his first, but that is not correct. Indian

support to various movements struggling for self-determination in

Punjabi-dominated Pakistan was withdrawn. L K Advani was as much a comrade in

arms then as he is now for he did not protest even when G M Syed's Jiye Sind

movement was betrayed. He was quite pleased with being able to go to his

hometown of Karachi and visit his old school. Vajpayee's assurances to Zia, the

man who initiated the policy of 'death by a thousand cuts' to destroy India,

ensured that the Baluchis were forced to leave their camps in Rajasthan and all

financial, military and diplomatic assistance was cut. Even though the Janata

Party regime did not last very long, the damage was done. Now the Pakistanis

want to talk to us about self-determination.

-

vrnparker

vediculture

Tuesday, July 15, 2003 4:16 AM

[world-vedic] 3 problems facing Bharat Historical research

By NarenLinks with links to

detailshttp://www.geocities.com/narenp/history/info/epilogue.htmWhen compiling

the history of Bharat, one faces 3 problems:  1. Sequence of events is known

from Puranas. But exact time cannot be associated with these events. Why?  2.

Many invaluable records were destroyed during Islamic rule.  3. British

historians twisted the records to dwarf the history of Bharat.  From this chaos

one has to set the exact timeline. One then referes to the accounts of

Megasthenis (Greek Ambassador to Chandragupta courts). He mentions Sandracottus

(Chandragupta) as Alexander's contemporary. Halt! There are two Chandragupta:

Chandragupta Maurya and Chandragupta Gupta. It was Chandragupta Gupta who was

the contemporary of Alexander. Why? Alas! Sir Jones mapped Sandracottus to

Maurya Chandragupta. Thus: Maurya dynasty was placed in 300 BC.  Nanda dynasty

placed in the range: 400 BC - 300 BC.  Gautam Buddha, Mahavir Jain, &;

Ajatshatru placed in 500 BC.  Adi Shankara placed 1000 years after Buddha in

800AD.  Shalivahan dynasty placed in 40 BC.  Gupta dynasty placed in 400 AD. 

*This history fabricated by British, is taught to the children of Bharat,

todate.  This needs to be corrected by replacing Sandracottus with Chandragupta

Gupta. Here is a more correct timeline: 1887-1807 BC  Gautam Buddha Why?

1864-1792 BC  Mahaveer Jain Why? 509- 477 BC  Aadi Shankaracharya Why?.

3138-1634 BC  Shishunga and earlier dynasties 1634-1534 BC  Nanda  1534-1319

BC  Maurya  1294 BC  Kanishka of Kushan Dynasty  327 BC  Chandragupta Gupta  57

BC  Vikramaditya Gupta  References:1.  Some Blunders of Indian Historical

Research by P. N. Oak  2.  The Age of Buddha, Milinda and King Amtiyoka and

Yuga Purana by K. Venkatachalam  3.  Reestablishing the Date of Lord Buddha by

Stephen Knapp  4.  Chronology of Ancient Bharat by Professor K.

Srinivasaraghavan  5.  Antiquity and Continuity of Indian History by Dr. Prasad

Gokhale  6.  A Peep into the Past History by K. Rajaram  7.  Indian Architecture

by Thyagaraja Aiyer  8.  Dates in Ancient History of India by Somayajulu  9. 

Shankaracharya aani tyancha sampradaaya by M.R.Bodas  10.  Chronology of Nepal

History by K.Venkatachalam  11.  Orion by B.G.Tilak  12.  The Arctic Home in

the Vedas by B.G.Tilak  13.  The Vedic Buddha Date by Vrin Parker  Gautam

Buddha  1. Kshemajit (reign 1892-1852 BC) was the fourth in the Shishunag

dynasty, and was a contemporary of Lord Buddha's father, Shuddhodana. It was

during the reign of Bimbisara (reign 1852-1814 BC), when Prince Siddhartha

became the enlightened Buddha. Then it was during the reign of King Ajatashatru

(1814-1787 BC) when Buddha left this world.  2. According to the positions of

the planets, during Buddha's time, Budhha existed in the Kruttika period, i.e.

between 2621-1661 B.C.  3. The current date for Gautam Buddha was derived by

European historians from Cylonese records. (Because those mentioned the most

latest dates.) Nepalese and Bhaaratiya records for the person born on the

Bharat - Nepal border are ofcourse more reliable.  Mahavir Jain  1. The Jaina

tradition holds that Mahaveer left this world 15 years after the death of

Bhagawan Buddha (1807 BC), ie, in 1792 BC, and since Mahaveer lived for a span

of 72 years, he must have been born in 1864 B.C.  2. Mahavir taught his

philosophy during the reign of Ajatshatru ie. 1814-1787 BC.  Shankara  1. The

date of Shankara, as per the current chronology, is 788-820 A.D. (derived from

Shankara Digvijaya Sara) However, since the "sheet-anchor" is displaced

backwards, it is apparent that the date of Shankara would be recalculated to be

around 600 B.C.  2. Brihat Shankara Vijaya, gives a date of 509 BC. Nepal

Rajavamshavali states the date of 487 BC.  Reasons for Sandracottus to be

Chandragupta Gupta: 1. The Greek records mention the kings before and after

Sandracottus to be Xandramas and Sandrocyptus. The kings before and after

Chandragupta Maurya were: Mahapadma Nanda and Bindusar. The kings before and

after Chandragupta Gupta were: Chandramas and Samudragupta. The phonetic

similarity is quite apparent for Chandragupta Gupta and not Maurya.  2. Greek

records are silent about important figures like: Chanakya, Ashoka (kingdom much

bigger than his Gradfather Chandragupta's.)  3. Greek records do not mention the

presence Buddhist monks who were very common in Maurya time.  4. Inscription on

a Greek Tomb: "Here lies Indian Sramanacharya, Shakya monk from Bodh Gaya".

Sramanacharya went to Greece with his Greek pupils. The tomb marks his death

about 1000 B.C. Which means Buddha existed before 1000 BC.  5. The names of

contemporary kings found on Ashokan inscriptions are Amtiyoka, Tulamaya, etc.

Amtiyoka ruled Afghanistan around 1475 BC, which then appears to be the

approximate date of Ashoka. (the grandson of Maurya Chandragupta.)  Note on the

destruction of records during Islamic rule About 9 million scriptures were burnt

in the Nalanda University alone. One can only imagine how many records must have

been destroyed all over Bharat in 700 years. Hindu temples record information on

the pillars of the temple. This includes who built the temple, when,

contemporary kings etc. From this information one can conclude when the

particular king (and his dynasty) existed. About 60,000 Hindu temples were

razed to the grounds. Note on the time defined in PuranasPuranas record time of

an event as: "1532 years had passed since the Mahabharat war", or "12 kings of

Gupta dynasty had ruled for 68 years", or "33 years after the coronation of

king Vikramaditya". Thus we have the sequence of events, but unless the time of

Mahabharat is fixed, or time of some main dynasty is fixed, exact time cannot be

associated with these events. Note on British view1. It served to make Vedic

culture later than and possibly derived from Middle Eastern cultures.  2. It

discredited not only the 'Vedas' but the genealogies of the 'Puranas'. The

kings before Buddha like Rama and Krishna were left without any historical

basis.  3. It served a social, political and economical purpose of domination,

proving the superiority of Western culture and religion.  This is an

information resource and discussion group for people interested in the World's

Ancient Vedic Culture, with a focus on its historical, archeological and

scientific aspects. Also topics about India, Hinduism, God, and other aspects

of World Culture are welcome.Remember, Vedic Culture is not an artificial

imposition, but is the natural state of a society that is in harmony with God

and the environment.Om Shantih, Harih OmYour use of is subject to

the