Musings on Indian History

[Guest guest]

History is cyclical. It is not linear. It always repeats itself-

provided the time span being is sufficiently long.

 

In a country like India, where we can not really fathom how old is her

past, the history of the country is both glorious and painful.

Obviously, the various ideologists have failed to notice that this

country, like any other society, will have both good and bad elements.

Only an unbiased and non ideological look at the ancient history will

be able to trace the origins of these elements and present a cohesive

, correct and more importantly, a definite picture.

 

The earliest western historians have started with the premise that the

greatest contributions of India to the world are Hinduism and

Sanskrit. While the list does not stop here with regard to the

significant contributions of India, the fact is that these two

elements are singularly the greatest contributions to the world. But,

the Marxists did not agree to this. They do not recognize the religion

as a great contribution on one hand and depict the Brahmins as a set

of eternal oppressors, who are responsible for all Hindu maladies. For

Marxists, Sanskrit is more of a linguistic symbol of such oppression.

Thus, they have started looking for other choices and came up with

Buddhism as an alternative nominee for this honor.

 

However, in this quest for ideological fix it somehow formulas, the

world's view of the Indian history suffered. Ultimately, Basham

describes the greatest Indian contribution to the cultural world is

the community of Gypsies. Nothing could be more ironical!!!

 

On the other hand, the Indian past is not all milk and honey, as

depicted by traditionalists. Any society undergoes pain and pleasure

cyclically. Similarly, every historical figure has his or her own set

of characteristic idiosyncrasies – good and bad. They must have had

something really note worthy in them, otherwise they could not have

remained in the annals of history for so long. Nothing can be more

fallible than trying to fit and justify the ancient societies into

today's value systems. If our ancestors have behaved so and so, so be

it, if that is the truth.

 

Why the readings by any historian of the Indian ancient past are

always only partially true? No single element of this hoary past had

ever been presented in a holistically correct way.

 

The possible explanation for this riddle is twofold – one, the

chronology of the India always remained warbled, mostly thanks to the

biblical time limits. We can notice that the dating of some of the

ancient events, like say Mahabharat war, is constantly being revised

pushing it into earlier times. I think the first group of colonial

historians has placed MBh war sometime in 400 AD but now, the people

are conceding it as early date as 1400 bce!!! We are yet to reconcile

this with the traditional dating of around 3000 bce.

The puranas and other scriptural evidences are almost rejected with

regard to the chronology of the Indian past. This warbled history

makes one jump to wrong conclusions, by falsely shrinking the

historical time distances.

 

The second and most painful reason for the wrong interpretations of

the Indian History is the high level of polemics and intrusion of

ideology into the realm of history erudition.

Every school has insisted to interpret history not on the basis of the

events that have unfolded but on the basis of the ideology it follows.

This was true of colonial historians, true of Marxists, true of

Christian missionaries, true of present western historians (and their

Indian followers) and sadly true of even traditionalists. Each of

these schools talks as if they are the ultimate authority on the

subject of Ancient India and every one else suffers from the scholarly

myopia. The deliberate and malafide methods of misinterpretations of

Indian history have done the greatest disservice to the field and in

fact, to the present generations in shaping their attitude and

outlook. Without a doubt, this has become greatest bane.

 

One of the very interesting corollaries of this feature is that

today's ultimate word on ancient Indian history is not that of

historians but of historical linguists, ideologists and religionists.

It is a different thing that some of them do don the garb of

historians. While we should not reject the tools and readings of

these groups in toto- lest we may be falling into the same trap that

these groups knowingly binding themselves in- nothing can be sillier

than say, a linguist or a theologist offering an ultimate dictum on

history issues, especially when these conclusions are not strictly

based on scientific derivations

 

Most of these schools do not want to consider the eternal pluraralism

of Ancient India. No doubt, many countries in the world today enjoy or

suffer cosmopolitan pluralism. But this pluralism is mostly modern in

its origin i.e. to say, the identity and the origins of both the sons

of the soil, the natives and of the immigrants is clearly known in

almost all these countries. The bipolar division of native and

newcomer is possible elsewhere in the world but not in India.

 

In fact, the model of ancient substratum assimilation of a single

homogenous group over another SINGLE native homogenous group is highly

improbable in this country, i.e. at any given point of time, there are

more than one group of people that were claiming themselves to be

natives of this country and in today's India, it is really not

possible to say who is the most original native and who is an

immigrant, unless such immigration has occurred in the " recent " past

of say 2000 years. Thus, we have to reject the Single native theory

that seems to be being imposed on this country.

 

 

Kishore patnaik

98492 70729

[Guest guest]

Dear devotees and Sadhaks , Sanskrit and Latin have the same origion and

westerners knew it better than Indian scholars who are Anglicised

PLEASE COMPARE

Sanskrit ------- ------------Latin---------------------Meaning

TRI KONO MATRA------TRIGNOMETRY-----Branch of Maths

DASA ------------------------DECA-------------------Ten

ASTA-------------------------OCTA--------------------Eight

SAPTA ----------------------SEPTA------------------Seven

DWY --------------------------DI ----------------------Two

PANCHA-------------------- PENTA-----------------Five

ASTHI-------------------------OSTEO-----------------Bone

NAASIKA--------------------NASAL-----------------Nose

PATTHAR--------------------PETRO ----------------Stone (petrol is patthar oil)

PADA--------------------------PEDA------------------Foot (pedal etc

 

Space is limited.

But I can say many Himalayan herbs are used as Allopathic medicines after

rationalising them.

Kindly learn and teach Sanskrit

yours very sincerely

ijswamy

 

 

Kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik01 wrote:

History is cyclical. It is not linear. It always repeats itself-

provided the time span being is sufficiently long.

 

In a country like India, where we can not really fathom how old is her

past, the history of the country is both glorious and painful.

Obviously, the various ideologists have failed to notice that this

country, like any other society, will have both good and bad elements.

Only an unbiased and non ideological look at the ancient history will

be able to trace the origins of these elements and present a cohesive

, correct and more importantly, a definite picture.

 

The earliest western historians have started with the premise that the

greatest contributions of India to the world are Hinduism and

Sanskrit. While the list does not stop here with regard to the

significant contributions of India, the fact is that these two

elements are singularly the greatest contributions to the world. But,

the Marxists did not agree to this. They do not recognize the religion

as a great contribution on one hand and depict the Brahmins as a set

of eternal oppressors, who are responsible for all Hindu maladies. For

Marxists, Sanskrit is more of a linguistic symbol of such oppression.

Thus, they have started looking for other choices and came up with

Buddhism as an alternative nominee for this honor.

 

However, in this quest for ideological fix it somehow formulas, the

world's view of the Indian history suffered. Ultimately, Basham

describes the greatest Indian contribution to the cultural world is

the community of Gypsies. Nothing could be more ironical!!!

 

On the other hand, the Indian past is not all milk and honey, as

depicted by traditionalists. Any society undergoes pain and pleasure

cyclically. Similarly, every historical figure has his or her own set

of characteristic idiosyncrasies – good and bad. They must have had

something really note worthy in them, otherwise they could not have

remained in the annals of history for so long. Nothing can be more

fallible than trying to fit and justify the ancient societies into

today's value systems. If our ancestors have behaved so and so, so be

it, if that is the truth.

 

Why the readings by any historian of the Indian ancient past are

always only partially true? No single element of this hoary past had

ever been presented in a holistically correct way.

 

The possible explanation for this riddle is twofold – one, the

chronology of the India always remained warbled, mostly thanks to the

biblical time limits. We can notice that the dating of some of the

ancient events, like say Mahabharat war, is constantly being revised

pushing it into earlier times. I think the first group of colonial

historians has placed MBh war sometime in 400 AD but now, the people

are conceding it as early date as 1400 bce!!! We are yet to reconcile

this with the traditional dating of around 3000 bce.

The puranas and other scriptural evidences are almost rejected with

regard to the chronology of the Indian past. This warbled history

makes one jump to wrong conclusions, by falsely shrinking the

historical time distances.

 

The second and most painful reason for the wrong interpretations of

the Indian History is the high level of polemics and intrusion of

ideology into the realm of history erudition.

Every school has insisted to interpret history not on the basis of the

events that have unfolded but on the basis of the ideology it follows.

This was true of colonial historians, true of Marxists, true of

Christian missionaries, true of present western historians (and their

Indian followers) and sadly true of even traditionalists. Each of

these schools talks as if they are the ultimate authority on the

subject of Ancient India and every one else suffers from the scholarly

myopia. The deliberate and malafide methods of misinterpretations of

Indian history have done the greatest disservice to the field and in

fact, to the present generations in shaping their attitude and

outlook. Without a doubt, this has become greatest bane.

 

One of the very interesting corollaries of this feature is that

today's ultimate word on ancient Indian history is not that of

historians but of historical linguists, ideologists and religionists.

It is a different thing that some of them do don the garb of

historians. While we should not reject the tools and readings of

these groups in toto- lest we may be falling into the same trap that

these groups knowingly binding themselves in- nothing can be sillier

than say, a linguist or a theologist offering an ultimate dictum on

history issues, especially when these conclusions are not strictly

based on scientific derivations

 

Most of these schools do not want to consider the eternal pluraralism

of Ancient India. No doubt, many countries in the world today enjoy or

suffer cosmopolitan pluralism. But this pluralism is mostly modern in

its origin i.e. to say, the identity and the origins of both the sons

of the soil, the natives and of the immigrants is clearly known in

almost all these countries. The bipolar division of native and

newcomer is possible elsewhere in the world but not in India.

 

In fact, the model of ancient substratum assimilation of a single

homogenous group over another SINGLE native homogenous group is highly

improbable in this country, i.e. at any given point of time, there are

more than one group of people that were claiming themselves to be

natives of this country and in today's India, it is really not

possible to say who is the most original native and who is an

immigrant, unless such immigration has occurred in the " recent " past

of say 2000 years. Thus, we have to reject the Single native theory

that seems to be being imposed on this country.

 

Kishore patnaik

98492 70729

 

 

 

 

 

 

~SWAMY

http://gjnanaswarup.spaces.live.com/blog/

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Respected Friend. I agree your all statements. During British rule

over India, Lor Mecauley who started modern education in India while

starting such movements has stated that 'unless the social and

cultural intigrity of these masses is not deviated, dislocated and

misguided, we can not rule on this huge nation culturally'. Hence

under the pretext of modern education he and his associates, picking

up brilliant brains from the society started their was against

social and cultura intigrity and harmoney. It always has been the

practice of conquerers to dislocate cultural heritage of conquered

subject. They were successful in this plan and hence the youth

coming out of these schools blamed their own parents and culture.

Along with British, others westerns have intruded on our culture and

tried to shake eternal faiths and beliefs under the pretext

of 'pbselete practices'. They smashed the original system of 'Ashram

Education'. Earlier to Brisish, Muslims have tried to smash our

cultural heritage using every means including mass conversions at

the tip of sowrds and weapens. British were rather cunning and

taking advantage of peacefulness, they converted masses suffering

under poverty by helping economically. That too, by such donations

they did not inculcate spirit of hard work but rather taught these

masses free enjoyments of wine and women. The gullible lazy ones

were allured away and made ready to kill their own kiths & kins

emotionally and psychologically under the pretext of dogmatism and

conservativeness. They hated their own mother tongue,language with

Sanskrit and adopted foreign language, though understood or not.

These British were successful to destroy all our glorious history

and dared to state that India has no history and here people live

like beasts in jungle. It was all planned. The result was many

learned ones need not cared to rething about Ancient Indian

heritage.

Now, as you state, history repeats itself, modern youth is changing

and with proper study of historical documents/statements, they are

finding out truth. This is very good sign. Don't bother the

chronoloty of historical events, accept them as eternal truth and

try to re-establish power of Spiritual and Cultural Heritage of

Ancient India, The Aryan Culture, Vedas and Upnishadas.

Marxists and Buddhinst have no firm foundation and right philosophy

to lift up common man making his strong to stand on his own legs.

Marx prophesses robbery of 'haves' for benefit of 'have nots' but do

not teach 'have nots' to stand on their own legs. Buddhists

prophess 'every thing transitory and there is grief & sorrow in

everything, better shunn everything and concentrate on your 'self'

and you will be liberated. If every one starts concentrating on

his 'self' who will earn bread and butter? who will arrange clothes

and who will provide homes? Both of these prophess 'escapism' and

our Gita teach 'self less love and self less work' for simultaneous

benefit/ upliftment of all, that too irrespective of caste, colour,

creed, race, nation, time and space. They wish 'every one on the

earth to be hale and healthy, happy and hearty,. They teach 'do help

to needy ones to stand up honorouably and respectfully' so that

every member of the society is happy and thankful to the God.

Heartful regards.

 

, " Kishore patnaik "

<kishorepatnaik01 wrote:

>

> History is cyclical. It is not linear. It always repeats itself-

> provided the time span being is sufficiently long.

>

> In a country like India, where we can not really fathom how old is

her

> past, the history of the country is both glorious and painful.

> Obviously, the various ideologists have failed to notice that this

> country, like any other society, will have both good and bad

elements.

> Only an unbiased and non ideological look at the ancient history

will

> be able to trace the origins of these elements and present a

cohesive

> , correct and more importantly, a definite picture.

>

> The earliest western historians have started with the premise that

the

> greatest contributions of India to the world are Hinduism and

> Sanskrit. While the list does not stop here with regard to the

> significant contributions of India, the fact is that these two

> elements are singularly the greatest contributions to the world.

But,

> the Marxists did not agree to this. They do not recognize the

religion

> as a great contribution on one hand and depict the Brahmins as a

set

> of eternal oppressors, who are responsible for all Hindu maladies.

For

> Marxists, Sanskrit is more of a linguistic symbol of such

oppression.

> Thus, they have started looking for other choices and came up with

> Buddhism as an alternative nominee for this honor.

>

> However, in this quest for ideological fix it somehow formulas, the

> world's view of the Indian history suffered. Ultimately, Basham

> describes the greatest Indian contribution to the cultural world is

> the community of Gypsies. Nothing could be more ironical!!!

>

> On the other hand, the Indian past is not all milk and honey, as

> depicted by traditionalists. Any society undergoes pain and

pleasure

> cyclically. Similarly, every historical figure has his or her own

set

> of characteristic idiosyncrasies – good and bad. They must have had

> something really note worthy in them, otherwise they could not have

> remained in the annals of history for so long. Nothing can be more

> fallible than trying to fit and justify the ancient societies into

> today's value systems. If our ancestors have behaved so and so, so

be

> it, if that is the truth.

>

> Why the readings by any historian of the Indian ancient past are

> always only partially true? No single element of this hoary past

had

> ever been presented in a holistically correct way.

>

> The possible explanation for this riddle is twofold – one, the

> chronology of the India always remained warbled, mostly thanks to

the

> biblical time limits. We can notice that the dating of some of the

> ancient events, like say Mahabharat war, is constantly being

revised

> pushing it into earlier times. I think the first group of colonial

> historians has placed MBh war sometime in 400 AD but now, the

people

> are conceding it as early date as 1400 bce!!! We are yet to

reconcile

> this with the traditional dating of around 3000 bce.

> The puranas and other scriptural evidences are almost rejected with

> regard to the chronology of the Indian past. This warbled history

> makes one jump to wrong conclusions, by falsely shrinking the

> historical time distances.

>

> The second and most painful reason for the wrong interpretations of

> the Indian History is the high level of polemics and intrusion of

> ideology into the realm of history erudition.

> Every school has insisted to interpret history not on the basis of

the

> events that have unfolded but on the basis of the ideology it

follows.

> This was true of colonial historians, true of Marxists, true of

> Christian missionaries, true of present western historians (and

their

> Indian followers) and sadly true of even traditionalists. Each of

> these schools talks as if they are the ultimate authority on the

> subject of Ancient India and every one else suffers from the

scholarly

> myopia. The deliberate and malafide methods of misinterpretations

of

> Indian history have done the greatest disservice to the field and

in

> fact, to the present generations in shaping their attitude and

> outlook. Without a doubt, this has become greatest bane.

>

> One of the very interesting corollaries of this feature is that

> today's ultimate word on ancient Indian history is not that of

> historians but of historical linguists, ideologists and

religionists.

> It is a different thing that some of them do don the garb of

> historians. While we should not reject the tools and readings of

> these groups in toto- lest we may be falling into the same trap

that

> these groups knowingly binding themselves in- nothing can be

sillier

> than say, a linguist or a theologist offering an ultimate dictum

on

> history issues, especially when these conclusions are not strictly

> based on scientific derivations

>

> Most of these schools do not want to consider the eternal

pluraralism

> of Ancient India. No doubt, many countries in the world today

enjoy or

> suffer cosmopolitan pluralism. But this pluralism is mostly modern

in

> its origin i.e. to say, the identity and the origins of both the

sons

> of the soil, the natives and of the immigrants is clearly known in

> almost all these countries. The bipolar division of native and

> newcomer is possible elsewhere in the world but not in India.

>

> In fact, the model of ancient substratum assimilation of a single

> homogenous group over another SINGLE native homogenous group is

highly

> improbable in this country, i.e. at any given point of time, there

are

> more than one group of people that were claiming themselves to be

> natives of this country and in today's India, it is really not

> possible to say who is the most original native and who is an

> immigrant, unless such immigration has occurred in

the " recent " past

> of say 2000 years. Thus, we have to reject the Single native theory

> that seems to be being imposed on this country.

>

>

> Kishore patnaik

> 98492 70729

>