syam wrote:SriJoy wrote:Sure. I am not sure what that has to do with anything. Euros jump on the horse theory because of a simple fact : vast regions of India has been KO-ed for a significant portion of the last 2000+ years, where we had a significant disadvantage in horses. the reasons for this are in a series of geo-strategic and technological barriers relating to horses,warfare tech,etc., but not well understood. Primarily to do with medieval importation of horses from CA. If India had good quality horses in large numbers, the turks and mughals would not have bothered to import horses from CA that they've left historical evidence of.
First of all, we have no evidence that tells about lack of horse culture in India. Most of the arguments intentionally ignore many evidences. Lets not go into same discussion again and again.
As long as people ignore spiritual aspects of it, they will never learn what Indian history is.
Idiot studies veda for years, but no use. Where is the spiritual enlightenment of British? It's like Monkey gets smart phone and chews on it and throws it away. Complete moronic behaviour.
Thanks shiv ji. I was browsing internet and found it accidentally. Surprisingly google indexed old thread and it is there in search results.
As long as we have above-bolded line in OOI or any such proposal, it will be laughed out of campuses worldwide and will always lose to Amt. Because the entire basis of a theory-even if partial/incomplete- is to present evidence. Not go by highly unscientific, 'no difference between faith/evidence' line of thinking that uses 'we don't have any evidence not to believe XYZ'. Amt proponents slant evidence their way, overlook contradictory evidence, etc but they still base their theory on evidence- just 'what evidence to choose and not choose' is where it becomes personal opinion- which is why History does not have the same credibility or rigour of Physics or Chemistry.
So the key to beating Amt, is to show light to contraditory evidence, creating a narrative that 'best fits evidence' etc. Not use semi-religious ' no counter evidence has been provided, so we will assume this book is true until counter evidence is provided' type of thinking. this has been the biggest roadblock to having academic and serious footprint for the OOI- because it is predominantly argued by religious folks who take a religious 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' stance and lose perspective that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' can be used to leave open logically consistent scenarios, but can never be in and of itself be used as reason to claim something is true.
One simply cannot ignore the fact that medieval India was extremely poor in horses. We have Portuguese monks travelling in India during Vijayanagara empire that gives count of 5x the manpower of Vijayanagara compared to say the Afghans or Uzbeks of that period, but 5-10x less horses too.
We also have written accounts of Khiljis, Lodhis and Mughals importing horses from Afghanistan. they even whine in their writings that India is a wretched land because 3 out of 5 horses imported don't live more than 2 years in the heat and humidity of India. A big part of Babur's hatred for Indian lands ( he didn't consider India to be jannat on earth, he thought Fergana was Jannat on earth and India was a resource-rich cess-pit of mosquitos, swamps and evil hindus) is due to this fact.
Euros simply project the strong evidence of India's poor horse resources in medieval age as 'always been the case and therefore, any reference for horses must come from a culture that was ground zero of horse culture'. they simply do not accommodate the possibility that if Indians were familiar with horses but had them in way too few numbers/found horses in periphery of Indosphere, it'd make sense to revere the horse in such a scenario too for a terrain (Indo-Gangetic plains) where having horses would prove a decisive mobility & tactical advantage.