Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2897
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Dipanker » 10 Sep 2017 07:17

Just checked her bio, she has a PHD from Columbia University and teaches Indian History at Rutgers. Columbia is one of the top university. So she does have the impressive credential to back her claims.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33462
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 10 Sep 2017 07:36

Dipanker wrote:Just checked her bio, she has a PHD from Columbia University and teaches Indian History at Rutgers. Columbia is one of the top university. So she does have the impressive credential to back her claims.

It is not degrees that make the person. Thousands of great people come out of unknown universities. The reputation of the University is made by greats and sullied by bums. That said I don't know what the hell Columbia university is. It has certainly produced biased trash like Trushcke just like Harvard has Witzel. If you admire the university - that is your prerogative - but I will choose what to see as "impressive", as is my prerogative.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1611
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby sudarshan » 10 Sep 2017 08:12

I too have a PhD from a well-known university (not in history though). Since we're throwing credentials around, I might as well toot my own horn a little. And the reason I'm tooting my horn, is so that what I say below doesn't get dismissed as "sour grapes."

I agree with shiv, a degree is great, but is not a reliable marker of merit. If the person harbors a systemic bias in his/her mindset, then the degree is not just useless, but actually something to be wary of - it is a credential which the person has earned, just so he/she can use that credential to push biased views.

It was rumored that the Soviets had a certain method in setting up spies. They would groom the spy for years and years, training him/her in English, in the native culture of the USA or UK, getting them to talk dollars and cents, even building mock-ups of areas in the USA or UK where the spy was later expected to live, etc. But it didn't stop there. The Soviets would also actively scout for "lost identities" of American or British citizens. These could be dead and forgotten people, whose deaths were mysterious, or who were lost for good. The Soviets would then prepare papers like passports and other ID, phone numbers, etc., all duplicating this dead and/or lost person. The spy who is groomed then simply takes on the identity of this lost soul, and takes up residence in the USA or UK. This could be a classic spy (information source), or a sleeper agent who is waiting to be activated on some do-or-die mission.

Kind of like Islamic sleeper cells.

Why do I mention this? Just to show that it is possible to do the grunge-work of acquiring a PhD, all the while harboring systemic biases (which are shelved during the academic process), and once the credential is set up, to use that credential to push the bias. I'm not saying that people consciously do this - but sub-consciously, it is very much possible for a biased or otherwise bad researcher to shelve those biases for the period of the degree, and then to revive them during the research or teaching career.

So, tread with caution when evaluating these degreed and pedigreed individuals. Look more at the pattern of their research and their methods, and particularly at any in-built biases, than at the bland degree statement itself.

I also say this - a PhD from a reputed university is not such a rarity anymore. Thousands or even tens of thousands of these PhDs are churned out every year. What distinguishes one such PhD-holding researcher from the next? Research quality. Which includes biases, obligation to funding sources, commitments to mortgages and other payments, commitment to the research itself, and many, many other such factors.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1295
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Pulikeshi » 10 Sep 2017 08:30

Dipanker wrote:Just checked her bio, she has a PHD from Columbia University and teaches Indian History at Rutgers. Columbia is one of the top university. So she does have the impressive credential to back her claims.


Now I am going to come off harsh, but it is not personal - just making a point for anyone who's interest is Bharat!

Please to research 'Bless India' (disappeared off the radar... but used to be a shady EJ operation in NE) - why is this important...
Well it was run by Nate Rehn (whose son Thane is apparently married to the motormama) Audrey Truschke and them all are EJ Southern Baptists...
But being married to a EJ husband or being part of 'soul harvesting' church should not make her less of a scholar...
after all many were historically worse: Max Muller et. al. :P :mrgreen:

Now as far as Columbia, Yale, Harvard, whatever... In logic minimally this fails in 'appeal to authority' (Motormama better read Aristotle first!)

Irrespective... anyone who shows up on twitter and claims "I have deep knowledge, language skills, & make well-supported arguments."
Caveat emptor! :P
Last edited by Pulikeshi on 10 Sep 2017 08:35, edited 1 time in total.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8450
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby UlanBatori » 10 Sep 2017 08:32

At least she has humility as a virtue..

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33462
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 10 Sep 2017 08:33

Every third parent I meet in India nowadays says that their son.daughter is in Johns Hopkins or Berkeley or Stanford. Decades ago Pakis put their kids in paid seats in those Univs and we are eating their crap nowadays. Since Desis admire some names much - the US plays us to create sepoys

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14383
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Karan M » 10 Sep 2017 08:56

shiv wrote:
Dipanker wrote:Just checked her bio, she has a PHD from Columbia University and teaches Indian History at Rutgers. Columbia is one of the top university. So she does have the impressive credential to back her claims.

It is not degrees that make the person. Thousands of great people come out of unknown universities. The reputation of the University is made by greats and sullied by bums. That said I don't know what the hell Columbia university is. It has certainly produced biased trash like Trushcke just like Harvard has Witzel. If you admire the university - that is your prerogative - but I will choose what to see as "impressive", as is my prerogative.


Shiv - very much like how the TSP guys would cite the great Chuck Yeager & "authoritative" Fricker to claim they won the air war against India.

Unfortunately many of these folks do have biases and it would be incorrect of us to assume they are automatically correct in everything they claim.

I would like to see how many years Ms Truschke has spent in India, how many Indian languages she fluently speaks and what deep cultural awareness she has of Indians, her actual field visits in India, whilst taking alternative viewpoints into account.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33462
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 10 Sep 2017 11:55

Karan M wrote:I would like to see how many years Ms Truschke has spent in India, how many Indian languages she fluently speaks and what deep cultural awareness she has of Indians, her actual field visits in India, whilst taking alternative viewpoints into account.

Not sure how many people read some fantastics posts of quotes by Gandharva that showed how "philology" (study of historical linguistics) in German way claimed to be a "science" where people could just look at books and writings detached from their cultural context and then create history out of them

Unfortunately it is as verbose as works of the late 19th century

viewtopic.php?p=2195319#p2195319
Then the same holds for the Indologist as for the classical philologist, to hew a trail through monstrous masses of literature, to cleanse the texts, to put the old and the new, as much as possible, in their place.” Indology specifcally was faced with the task of a “reconstruction” of “the history of India.


we philologists, in particular, the German philologists. Many of us have not seen India at all; for obvious reasons we cannot come so easily to Benares as one comes to Rome or Athens. Thus, we are all too exposed to the danger that something of the ultimate vitality of life is missing from the pictures that appear to us, that what we take to be the cloud trails of the Indian sky are ultimately only the vapors of our own study-rooms.”48 Nonetheless, Oldenberg argued that there was “rich compensation” for these shortcomings: “If we may not feel ourselves immediately certain of [possessing] a feeling for the Indian present, we nonetheless see with greater acuity in the distance of Indian antiquity, that is, in the period that is important, above all, to us. . . . We know the Hindu less well than our [British] colleagues, who live in his land and breathe his air. But to us, I declare, the opportunity has been given to know the Aryan of ancient India better than these [our colleagues].49”


It is with respect to this task that Oldenberg considered classical philology to be the science par excellence upon which Indology had to model itself. He concluded:


The new philology, with its critical methods, emphasis on a return to the sources of tradition, disdain for commentarial glosses or interpolations, and preference for literal and historical readings, held out the promise of revolutionizing the understanding of the Veda. It not only ofered to build incrementally on existing readings; it was a completely new approach, rooted in completely diferent expectations and in a completely diferent understanding of texts. Further, its aims were antithetical to those of the tradition: whereas tradition considered the Veda to be a revelation and a source of infallible knowledge concerning supersensible reality, philology would regard it as a human and historical testament.


The idea that books can be studied in isolation and a history cooked up is the kind of buggering that Indian history has received and the conviction of Indian that all that was right is on par with making rapist-looter Ghauri a great hero - signs of deep sepoyhood among Indians. The Vedas were not even books. They are sounds - to be transmitted orally, received aurally. But they were transcribed and later translated by Max Muller in London

And here a small titbit. It may or may not matter but I put it on record. While it was the first Germans who excelled in the linguistic chootiyapa - you find that the country in which the name Truschke occurs most commonly after the USA is Germany.

Prem Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1985
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Prem Kumar » 10 Sep 2017 13:14

Truschke is a student of Pollock & Doniger - great combination! Poor woman has attention-seeking issues. She hopes notoriety will succeed because her ability was found wanting. That's why she whitewashes Aurangazeb. She must love the hate-mail in a masochistic way.

Social Media has reduced her to a twitter troll.

Dipanker displays the sepoy syndrome of many Indians, who love degrees. This the same reason we fall for:

1) Guinness records
2) Ramon Magsasay Award
3) Booker prize
4) Nobel Peace prize
5) Fellowship at stink tanks
6) Green card


....I can go on, but you get the picture. The West knows this very well and dangles it like a carrot.

Many times, 3rd rate "scholars" get admission to Ivy Leagues precisely because they are willing to peddle a particular ideology. Ability can take a hike.

Forum members here will remember how that chootiya Witzel felt so threatened by Shrikant Talageri that he offered a scholarship at Harvard to Talageri provided he modifies his views. That's Harvard for you!
Last edited by Prem Kumar on 10 Sep 2017 23:48, edited 1 time in total.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1295
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Pulikeshi » 10 Sep 2017 22:45

Prem Kumar wrote:Forum members here will remember how that chootiya Witzel felt so threatened by Shrikant Talageri that he offered a scholarship at Harvard to Talageri provided he modifies his views. That's Harvard for you!


The practice of offering "titles & land & women" to modify views is an ancient feudal societies tradition -
Employed by Europe as well as India...
My two paisa - The chootiya is those who fall for it...
India and Indian interests demands the making of these Chootiyas of them not begrudge the devil's offer! :P :mrgreen:

Prem Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1985
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Prem Kumar » 10 Sep 2017 23:47

To Talageri's immense credit, he gave the middle-finger to Witzel

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9752
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 10 Sep 2017 23:51

Another gassy historian:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... ed/539310/
'
Gibbs’s article broadly consists of two parts. The first part details various old illustrations and writings from which the Voynich manuscript appear to be derived. In this section, Gibbs weaves in an impressive amount of autobiography, noting at various points that he is: a professional history researcher, muralist, war artist, former employee of Christie’s in the 1970s, and descendent of the great English herbalist Thomas Fromond—all of which are notable because they had some role in helping him find and interpret sources to solve the Voynich manuscript. (The style, which reminded me of Pale Fire, made some wonder if the whole article was just a work of satirical fiction.)

...
In the second part—only two paragraphs long—Gibbs gets into the meat of his solution: Each character in the manuscript is an abbreviated word, not a letter. This could be a breakthrough, but the TLS presents only two lines decoded using Gibbs’s method. Davis did not find those two lines convincing either. “They’re not grammatically correct. It doesn’t result in Latin that makes sense,” she says.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2897
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Dipanker » 11 Sep 2017 00:37

Is Indian interest served by this rewrite of history? Is it o.k. to rewrite history in the name of serving interest even if it is lie?
I strongly disagree with those who subscribe to such ideas! Truth must prevail - Saytamev Jayate! That should be our guiding principle.

Rajasthan rewrites history: Maharana Pratap, not Akbar, won Battle of Haldighati

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1611
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby sudarshan » 11 Sep 2017 01:01

Dipanker: personally, I don't interpret "Satyameva Jayate" as a guiding principle or motto, but as a statement of fact. I.e., regardless of what humans do or what their guiding principle is, the truth will still triumph. Not that humans shouldn't fight for truth.

That said:

1. How, specifically, is the topic you brought up relevant to this thread (out of India)? Isn't it better off in a general history thread? I guess the thread has been derailed so successfully by SriJoy that now anything goes here? Or is it your intention to show that everybody posting in favor of "Out of India" here is a liar, and you're just bringing up strawmen saying "see what big liars you all are? You subscribe to these historical rewrites?"

2. Is there any specific argument from you to show that the findings of that person, based on which the Rajasthan government decided to rewrite/correct history books, are wrong? Or do you subscribe to the notion that history must never be revised, regardless of new findings, and any revision is by default a lie?

I'm not saying that the specific claims that Maharana Pratap won the battle of Haldighati are 100% correct. But why should they be dismissed outright as "lies?" Maybe the Rajasthan govt. did find some merit in the man's arguments. Is that totally out of the question?

Please present your counters to the rewrite, if they have merit, then they will be accepted. No need to jump up and down yelling "lies! lies! damned lies!" with no reasoning from your side.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14383
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Karan M » 11 Sep 2017 01:49

^^ Great post Sudarshan, well articulated points.

Posting in large font & going on about satyemeva jayate (which ironically, the textbook writing left has never followed, least of all in India) and posting rhetorical strawmen arguments ("do you agree with this, if so you are against satyemeva jayate etc etc") is hardly a sensible approach.

krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5700
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby krisna » 11 Sep 2017 05:29

OT here
Dipanker wrote:Is Indian interest served by this rewrite of history? Is it o.k. to rewrite history in the name of serving interest even if it is lie?
I strongly disagree with those who subscribe to such ideas! Truth must prevail - Saytamev Jayate! That should be our guiding principle.

Rajasthan rewrites history: Maharana Pratap, not Akbar, won Battle of Haldighati


https://twitter.com/TrueIndology/status ... 7867303936

of course truth should be told No doubt with out falsifying information.

Akbar could never capture Mewar completely. Rana Pratap never surrendered till his death.
Actually after Battle of Haldighati 1576, Akbar dismissed his generals for failing to subdue and capture Mewar.
truth lies somewhere in between not with falsified history.


---------------------------------------------
win or loosing depends on the objectives of the plan initially proposed

Akbar specifically wanted to subdue Rana Pratap as he did not want his actions of marrying Hindu girls and acquiring alliances to fail. The rajputs were giving away their daughters for harems. meanwhile rana Pratap was stringly against it. he talked to many to avoid this nonsense. But to no avail.
Akbar saw naturally a threat to his rule and collapse of his marriage alliances. Also in larger interest destruction of his empire.

Hence set out with a large army much larger than Rana Pratap who was local king of small area called Mewar( see diagram). Rana Pratap to outwit Akbar army led them to a narrow area called Haldighati and fought there.

Objectives of Rana Pratap-- to avoid being a vassal of Mughal empire- he succeeded though he suffered greatly.

Objectives of Akbar- failed
1)He did not subdue Rana Pratap to surrender and accept his rule.
2)He failed Mewar conquest.
3) dismissed his generals post war which definitely hints at losing the war indirectly.

Depending on how one looks -- Rana Pratap won the war is not far fetched.



-----------------------------------------------------------

As quoted in my previous post-- lot of ballads are on Rana Pratap virtues and bravery against Mughals in Rajasthan depicting his war exploits and win. This runs contrary to sickular version of history.

my previous post
Recall similarly the period of Indian history. lot of destruction, rewriting of history by invaders.
Indians have devised ways of preserving its history through temples and its intricate carvings, symbols of beyone eras, poetries, baallads , different forms of dramas like yakshaganas, dance forms like kuchipudi, bhartanatyam and myriad other features. They have been refined and honed over time spanning centuries.
In fcat people say even if current form of Hinduism as is known is destroyed it has seeds of revival due to the redundancies built inot the system aas in above. History iss intermixed into all these.

Despite large scale destruction of Indian libarries and educational institutions by both Christian and Islamic invaders and rewriting their history superimposed on Indian ones, still there is some spark about olden times.
Due to this and the overwhelming presence of anti Indian forces ruling for long time , things have not been alright overall. I have to appreciate the ingenuity of our forefathers that despite such large scale destruction, they had the brilliance to have some form of history stored in various forms.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33462
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 11 Sep 2017 07:12

Dipanker wrote:Is Indian interest served by this rewrite of history? Is it o.k. to rewrite history in the name of serving interest even if it is lie?
I strongly disagree with those who subscribe to such ideas! Truth must prevail - Saytamev Jayate! That should be our guiding principle.

History is written by someone. After a century or two it will never be known whether that person was telling the truth or not even if every one of his peers says "wah wah wah this is all true"

I have seen a lot of parsimonious blather about "science" on this thread by SriJoy - but one solid principle in science is to go back to basics and cross check whether original work fully met the standards of rigor. In history one finds that there are many versions and typically only one gets promoted.

When it comes to the Quran - no editing or revision is allowed. That is dogma. If history is treated like the Quran then it is also dogma. Please re examine your post and answer your question for yourself rather than throwing it at others like rhetorical question that will only shame you for asking.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33462
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 11 Sep 2017 07:18

It can be argued, as a corollary to the fact that there can be multiple versions of a historic record from various viewpoints, that history itself should merely be an approximate indicator of the past simply because it can never ever document everything that could be documented. Claiming it to be a deadly accurate unchangeable document is like - well I won't say it again :lol:

Is this a revisionist viewpoint? Yes.

Is this effort sure to fail? Ask an astrologer about what the nakshatras say. Science won't give you an answer. :rotfl:

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9752
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby A_Gupta » 11 Sep 2017 07:52

Dipanker wrote:Is Indian interest served by this rewrite of history? Is it o.k. to rewrite history in the name of serving interest even if it is lie?
I strongly disagree with those who subscribe to such ideas! Truth must prevail - Saytamev Jayate! That should be our guiding principle.

Rajasthan rewrites history: Maharana Pratap, not Akbar, won Battle of Haldighati


We should do our best to stick to the truth.

That said, history is rarely the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In fact, it never is.

Further, history rarely helps with human societies to flourish. It distorts a people's vision, and traps them in the past. The burden of history reduces a society's ability to adapt to changing circumstances. But history is like nuclear weapons. If the other side has it, you better have it too, or they will make you go extinct. Just don't get attached to it (nukes or history); there is zero virtue in it; and understand its purpose is only to ensure survival in the face of those who would wield these as weapons against you. If history was a good, then it would have been tacked on somewhere within dharma, artha, kama, moksha.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1611
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby sudarshan » 11 Sep 2017 08:12

Karan M wrote:^^ Great post Sudarshan, well articulated points.

Posting in large font & going on about satyemeva jayate (which ironically, the textbook writing left has never followed, least of all in India) and posting rhetorical strawmen arguments ("do you agree with this, if so you are against satyemeva jayate etc etc") is hardly a sensible approach.


Thank you saar. Yes, these people simply latch onto whatever slogan is convenient for the moment. Used to be "garibi hatao," now that the mood is along other lines, "satyameva jayate" it is. It's as self-serving as it gets.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33462
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 11 Sep 2017 08:17

Using the expression "satyameva jayate" to insist that one particular writing of history is THE right one is chicanery. It is, ironically, an insistence that one viewpoint is "Satyam". It is also a misunderstanding of the term which means "Truth will triumph". It does not mean "This version of the story is the truth which should triumph" and be accepted forever

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2897
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Dipanker » 11 Sep 2017 09:00

krisna wrote:OT here
Dipanker wrote:Is Indian interest served by this rewrite of history? Is it o.k. to rewrite history in the name of serving interest even if it is lie?
I strongly disagree with those who subscribe to such ideas! Truth must prevail - Saytamev Jayate! That should be our guiding principle.

Rajasthan rewrites history: Maharana Pratap, not Akbar, won Battle of Haldighati


https://twitter.com/TrueIndology/status ... 7867303936

of course truth should be told No doubt with out falsifying information.

Akbar could never capture Mewar completely. Rana Pratap never surrendered till his death.
Actually after Battle of Haldighati 1576, Akbar dismissed his generals for failing to subdue and capture Mewar.
truth lies somewhere in between not with falsified history.


---------------------------------------------
win or loosing depends on the objectives of the plan initially proposed

Akbar specifically wanted to subdue Rana Pratap as he did not want his actions of marrying Hindu girls and acquiring alliances to fail. The rajputs were giving away their daughters for harems. meanwhile rana Pratap was stringly against it. he talked to many to avoid this nonsense. But to no avail.
Akbar saw naturally a threat to his rule and collapse of his marriage alliances. Also in larger interest destruction of his empire.

Hence set out with a large army much larger than Rana Pratap who was local king of small area called Mewar( see diagram). Rana Pratap to outwit Akbar army led them to a narrow area called Haldighati and fought there.

Objectives of Rana Pratap-- to avoid being a vassal of Mughal empire- he succeeded though he suffered greatly.

Objectives of Akbar- failed
1)He did not subdue Rana Pratap to surrender and accept his rule.
2)He failed Mewar conquest.
3) dismissed his generals post war which definitely hints at losing the war indirectly.

Depending on how one looks -- Rana Pratap won the war is not far fetched.



-----------------------------------------------------------

As quoted in my previous post-- lot of ballads are on Rana Pratap virtues and bravery against Mughals in Rajasthan depicting his war exploits and win. This runs contrary to sickular version of history.

my previous post
Recall similarly the period of Indian history. lot of destruction, rewriting of history by invaders.
Indians have devised ways of preserving its history through temples and its intricate carvings, symbols of beyone eras, poetries, baallads , different forms of dramas like yakshaganas, dance forms like kuchipudi, bhartanatyam and myriad other features. They have been refined and honed over time spanning centuries.
In fcat people say even if current form of Hinduism as is known is destroyed it has seeds of revival due to the redundancies built inot the system aas in above. History iss intermixed into all these.

Despite large scale destruction of Indian libarries and educational institutions by both Christian and Islamic invaders and rewriting their history superimposed on Indian ones, still there is some spark about olden times.
Due to this and the overwhelming presence of anti Indian forces ruling for long time , things have not been alright overall. I have to appreciate the ingenuity of our forefathers that despite such large scale destruction, they had the brilliance to have some form of history stored in various forms.


You are making it too complicated. We are talking who won the battle of Haldighati.

Let us make it simple and just focus on the battle of Haldighati.

So the battle of Haldighati is fought between two guys, A and B, and at the end of the battle B runs away from the battlefield to save his dear life.

So who won the battle of Haldighati? A or B? Answer should be pretty obvious, no?

Now by some convoluted logic if you come up with the answer "B won the battle" then you are violating the principle of "Satyamev Jayate!"

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33462
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 11 Sep 2017 09:47

Dipanker wrote:You are making it too complicated. We are talking who won the battle of Haldighati.


Please sir. It is you who are violating your own principle of satyameva jayate

This was your original post
Dipanker wrote:Is Indian interest served by this rewrite of history? Is it o.k. to rewrite history in the name of serving interest even if it is lie?
I strongly disagree with those who subscribe to such ideas! Truth must prevail - Saytamev Jayate! That should be our guiding principle.

Rajasthan rewrites history: Maharana Pratap, not Akbar, won Battle of Haldighati

You were talking about "Is it OK to rewrite history"

Now you move the goalpost and ask:
who won the battle of Haldighati?


Please read the paper you have yourself linked and state why the researcher is wrong and what proof you can provide about who ran away to rebut what the researcher claims

In the absence of serious rebutting of what you have posted, making rhetorical arguments here is an indicator of your own inability to support your contention

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2897
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Dipanker » 11 Sep 2017 20:03

I fail to see how I can be alleged of "shifting the goalpost" when the question of "who won the battle of Haldighati" is part of my original post as an example of attempt to rewrite history with added presentational emphasis .

In fact for emphasis, this part of the text is bolded, in bigger font, and purple in color. You just can't miss it!

Per historical account, RanaPratap did escape from the battlefield, and anybody who escapes the battlefield can not be considered victor of that specific battle. So, no, RanaPratap did not win battle of Haldighati.

Now did he win the broader "war" though? If losing more than 1/2 of the kingdom, not surrendering and being on the run to avoid capture, by some convoluted logic can be considered winning the war, then sure he won the war!

That said, I do consider him worthy of our respect because at least he stood up for his principles and fought for his independence.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1161
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby peter » 11 Sep 2017 21:06

Dipanker wrote:....

Per historical account, RanaPratap did escape from the battlefield, and anybody who escapes the battlefield can not be considered victor of that specific battle. So, no, RanaPratap did not win battle of Haldighati.

Did the war stop when Pratap left?

Dipanker wrote:Now did he win the broader "war" though? If losing more than 1/2 of the kingdom, not surrendering and being on the run to avoid capture, by some convoluted logic can be considered winning the war, then sure he won the war!

Do you know what happened to the general leading the mughal army at Haldighati after the war was over?

How did the "victorious" mughal army fare after the war?

What did they eat?

Where did they live? Did they capture any of Pratap's territory? Which forts did the winning mughal army capture?

Dipanker wrote:That said, I do consider him worthy of our respect because at least he stood up for his principles and fought for his independence.

The impact is much larger. People still sing about Pratap and Man Singh is reviled. Though if you believe the brilliant minds at JNU then Man Singh was the statesman and Pratap an imbecile.

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 120
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby periaswamy » 11 Sep 2017 21:10

Dipanker: Per historical account, RanaPratap did escape from the battlefield, and anybody who escapes the battlefield can not be considered victor of that specific battle. So, no, RanaPratap did not win battle of Haldighati.


Are you being deliberately daft, ji? The whole point is that "historical accounts" need to be challenged to ensure that it withstands scrutiny, analogous to Karl Popper's view of how science needs to operate.

The claim seems to be that Mewar retained its independence and did not surrender to Akbar's forces until the death of Rana Pratap, much like that small village in Gaul that withstood the might of the Romans under Chief VitalStatistix. Analogously, Akbar did not win his battles with Rana Pratap, surely? even if we accept that Rana Pratap was not the winner.

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 120
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby periaswamy » 11 Sep 2017 21:19

If we ignore all the pseudo-scientific garbage from Srijoy and his acolytes, it seems to me that Mr. Nilesh Oak's strategy to interpret existing data in written tales from the past in conjunction with new scientific understanding of this is pretty sound. In my view, Mr. Oak has recasted the problem of dating the mahabharata and ramayana as a constraint satisfaction problem, which maybe familiar to people who have read about "operations research", a very practical field used very commonly in all walks of life these days.

Basically, we assume that some series of events spanning decades or centuries lie in some range [X,Y] where X and Y can be initialized to say -18000CE and 2000 CE. We also have to assume that the people who wrote these texts were just making truthful observations of their own reality (moronic nonsense about "why couldn't they have made up their observations" should be treated with contempt because such questions are never asked about the observations made by those cherished in the western narrative, and there is no need to hold Indians of the past to a different standard).

That said, each observation can be treated as a constraint that provides one or more possible dates for the event, and as even a novice in OR knows, the more you constrain a problem, the harder it gets to find a feasible solution. So if we arrive at an interval of dates between say -10000CE and -8000CE that satisfies all constraints, the burden is on those who challenge this interval to provide proof of whatever alternative solution they have to solve this constraint satisfaction problem.

We also have to explain what observations do not fit this interval and why, in order to ensure that the ensuing historical narrative is solid. That said, "satyameva jayate" requires human beings to challenge existing "truths" to ensure that the real truth pervades in the end...after all, if everyone sat with their thumbs up their Musharrafs, existing narratives will never change or be challenged. JMT.
Last edited by periaswamy on 11 Sep 2017 21:22, edited 1 time in total.

Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7948
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Gus » 11 Sep 2017 21:20

shiv wrote:When it comes to the Quran - no editing or revision is allowed. That is dogma. If history is treated like the Quran then it is also dogma.


It is very apt that you use Quran. Quran itself is claimed as 'revelations written down unmuted'. But we know that compilation was done by Uthman decade plus after Muhammed died. There was a mini version of 'council of Nicea' sort of thing happening here as well.

It is ironical that the ones who keep saying "nope you can't change our traditional theories and worldview despite changes to the underlying assumptions, and the progress we have made in understanding our past. We cannot change, ever, we should not change, we should resist this etc" ..call themselves 'liberals' and berate the 'conservative'.

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4759
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Yayavar » 11 Sep 2017 23:10

The Maharana won in the end. He beat the Mughals through guerilla warfare and head-on battles at other places and got most of Mewar back (except Chittor).

At Haldighati though he had to retreat but without a rout. He had gambled but could not push through the advantage. At most one can quibble on whether that battle was a loss as he retreated to fight another day.
But win he did not in that particular battle.

Man Singh or Akbar did not win in the larger sense as they could not rout the enemy. They also withdrew fearing ambushes in the hills. Mughals lost many a men later to starvation and poisoned wells - it is interesting reading.

Patel said (I rephrase as I dont remember the exact comment) that if there was one princely state that could legitimately stay independent it was Mewar. No other princely state had that right. That is the greater win of Maharana in the long run.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2897
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 06:07

Dating Ramayana is pointless exercise when we already know Lord Sri Ram lived at least a million year ago, given that he lived in Treta yuga, we live in Kali yuga, in between there was Dwapar yuga which was roughly 1 million year long. Models are only as good as their underlying principles, garbage in, garbage out. In case of Ramayana I find the 1+ million years figure more acceptable that any other figure because it involves a straightforward math than some sophisticated OR nonsense.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33462
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 12 Sep 2017 06:14

Dipanker wrote:Dating Ramayana is pointless exercise when we already know Lord Sri Ram lived at least a million year ago, given that he lived in Treta yuga, we live in Kali yuga, in between there was Dwapar yuga which was roughly 1 million year long. Models are only as good as their underlying principles, garbage in, garbage out. In case of Ramayana I find the 1+ million years figure more acceptable that any other figure because it involves a straightforward math than some sophisticated OR nonsense.

Saying "This is my opinion" is one thing.

Saying that others views are nonsense because they differ from my opinion is what you are doing here. And you are the guy who claims to be "protecting history" from revisionists.

Amazing how upset people get when new thoughts are shown to them - especially thoughts coming from a Hindu/Indian viewpoint that threaten the gospel truth they have been taught to follow..

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33462
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 12 Sep 2017 06:16

Yayavar wrote:
At Haldighati though he had to retreat but without a rout. He had gambled but could not push through the advantage. At most one can quibble on whether that battle was a loss as he retreated to fight another day.
But win he did not in that particular battle.

Dunkirk was a tactical retreat. Or was it defeat? Rhetoric seems to be the hallmark of people who discuss things in the sphere of the humanities.

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1611
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby sudarshan » 12 Sep 2017 06:34

Dipanker wrote:Dating Ramayana is pointless exercise when we already know Lord Sri Ram lived at least a million year ago, given that he lived in Treta yuga, we live in Kali yuga, in between there was Dwapar yuga which was roughly 1 million year long. Models are only as good as their underlying principles, garbage in, garbage out. In case of Ramayana I find the 1+ million years figure more acceptable that any other figure because it involves a straightforward math than some sophisticated OR nonsense.


Periaswamy saar, please note, OR is all nonsense :P. You're better off with straightforward math.

Dipanker, is the entire field of OR nonsense, or only OR which is applied to dating of Hindu epics? Please clarify.

Also please answer this question. If research shows that the traditional dating of the Ramayana based on the Mahayuga cycle is wrong, what should we do? Is it okay to discard tradition then? Or should we all dogmatically hold onto the tradition (like the Abrahamic religions) in spite of any evidence to the contrary? Oh wait - you are against any revisions to history as it currently stands, right? I forgot.

We've been through this Mahayuga concept vs. other concepts of yugas before. Nilesh Oak talked about it in the archaeo-astronomy thread also.

Also, Indians were perfectly okay with holding onto the 1+million years dating of the Ramayana, until the western revisionists came along and told them "chee chee, what superstition onlee, how can this silly epic possibly be 1 million years old? Go with science - your epic is only 1000 years old." Now the Indians are latching onto that "scientific dating" game and beating the earlier scientific Europeans at it, and all of a sudden, folks like you come along to get Indians to go back to that 1+million years date, which has already been labeled and discarded as "superstition" by the great scientific western minds. What gives? Shiv saar has already talked about this in an earlier post.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33462
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 12 Sep 2017 06:35

From Audrey Truschke on Twitter
https://twitter.com/AudreyTruschke/stat ... 8912293894
Audrey Truschke‏Verified account @AudreyTruschke

Audrey Truschke
The Hindu Right attacks me because I'm quite dangerous to them. I have deep knowledge, language skills, & make well-supported arguments.


Interestingly this is a new line of rhetoric - boasting about oneself instead of staying on topic. Seen it here and I wonder if there is a link between these great rhetorical warriors. "You are jealous of my knowledge and degrees"
Last edited by shiv on 12 Sep 2017 06:37, edited 1 time in total.

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 120
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby periaswamy » 12 Sep 2017 06:37

Dipanker: Dating Ramayana is pointless exercise when we already know Lord Sri Ram...(witless vomit deleted)


One need not buy into the religious aspects of texts to consider that the author(s) would have made observations of the night sky, or of their environment and incorporated it in their texts, to provide a clue to when the texts could have been written. Besides, sarcasm is not a substitute for reasoning -- you have clearly not read the claims being made by Mr. Oak before you decided to pull down your pants and expose your genius to everyone on this board.

In case of Ramayana I find the 1+ million years figure more acceptable that any other figure because it involves a straightforward math than some sophisticated OR nonsense.


No one other than you is claiming that these texts are 1 million years old, and definitely not any of the useful posts I read as I shoveled the mountain of vomit from Srijoy and friends out of the way -- hyperbole is not a substitute for a reasoned argument. What we can say after such a method is "the texts were written before X and after Y"...and try to make X and Y as close together as possible -- if there are multiple dates for events then more possible events that can be mapped need to be used to help with the task.

It is not "sophisticated OR" unless you are one of those that need to remove your socks to count to 20. I mention OR to point that such techniques are commonplace and practical and used on a daily basis in human life today, and that using observations in the text to map to other events that have dates associated them with other means is a good way to narrow the interval in which the text was likely written.

(NOTE: "all analogies are wrong", the problem of dating such texts is actually an inverted version of how problems are framed in OR -- we add more and more observations from the text to narrow down the interval during which the observations could have been made.)
Last edited by periaswamy on 12 Sep 2017 06:49, edited 1 time in total.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2897
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 06:49

shiv wrote:
Dipanker wrote:Dating Ramayana is pointless exercise when we already know Lord Sri Ram lived at least a million year ago, given that he lived in Treta yuga, we live in Kali yuga, in between there was Dwapar yuga which was roughly 1 million year long. Models are only as good as their underlying principles, garbage in, garbage out. In case of Ramayana I find the 1+ million years figure more acceptable that any other figure because it involves a straightforward math than some sophisticated OR nonsense.

Saying "This is my opinion" is one thing.

Saying that others views are nonsense because they differ from my opinion is what you are doing here. And you are the guy who claims to be "protecting history" from revisionists.

Amazing how upset people get when new thoughts are shown to them - especially thoughts coming from a Hindu/Indian viewpoint that threaten the gospel truth they have been taught to follow..


IMO you are nitpicking here, when I write "I find blah blah" I am exclusively talking about myself, not for anybody else, "I find" should not mean "everybody else finds", "the whole world finds" etc. you get the drift.

The gospel truth about Haldighati battle was taught to me in my village middle school in India, the book certainly was written by Indian writers. More I learnt in later years by reading volumes of material, again all by Indian writers, both in vernacular and in english. Hindu/Indian viewpoint is not preserve of only a select group of people, it belongs to all Hindus/Indians.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33462
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 12 Sep 2017 07:08

Dipanker wrote:
IMO you are nitpicking here, when I write "I find blah blah" I am exclusively talking about myself, not for anybody else, "I find" should not mean "everybody else finds", "the whole world finds" etc. you get the drift.

The gospel truth about Haldighati battle was taught to me in my village middle school in India, the book certainly was written by Indian writers. More I learnt in later years by reading volumes of material, again all by Indian writers, both in vernacular and in english. Hindu/Indian viewpoint is not preserve of only a select group of people, it belongs to all Hindus/Indians.

Pointing out that I am "nitpicking" only indicates that you were caught with your pants down on a little matter of detail which you admitted when I pointed it out by "nitpicking". You did say that dating the Ramayana is "pointless" and then stated your belief about the correct date.

And remember that your school. your university and your pedigree, your degrees, your profession and the nationality of your teachers have no bearing on what may be right or wrong or at best controversial
Rhetorical argumentative constructs such as the following must be left out and note that you have yourself made two of the following
1. My degree is better than your no degree
2. ABC University is a great University and ergo its alumni have credibility
3. My teachers were of Indian nationality and therefore my view has weight
4. My language and argumentative skills are better than yours

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2897
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 07:22

shiv wrote:
Dipanker wrote:
IMO you are nitpicking here, when I write "I find blah blah" I am exclusively talking about myself, not for anybody else, "I find" should not mean "everybody else finds", "the whole world finds" etc. you get the drift.

The gospel truth about Haldighati battle was taught to me in my village middle school in India, the book certainly was written by Indian writers. More I learnt in later years by reading volumes of material, again all by Indian writers, both in vernacular and in english. Hindu/Indian viewpoint is not preserve of only a select group of people, it belongs to all Hindus/Indians.

Pointing out that I am "nitpicking" only indicates that you were caught with your pants down on a little matter of detail which you admitted when I pointed it out by "nitpicking". You did say that dating the Ramayana is "pointless" and then stated your belief about the correct date.

And remember that your school. your university and your pedigree, your degrees, your profession and the nationality of your teachers have no bearing on what may be right or wrong or at best controversial
Rhetorical argumentative constructs such as the following must be left out and note that you have yourself made two of the following
1. My degree is better than your no degree
2. ABC University is a great University and ergo its alumni have credibility
3. My teachers were of Indian nationality and therefore my view has weight
4. My language and argumentative skills are better than yours


Let me try to to put it another way, see if you can get it right this time!

Dating of Ramayana IMO is pointless because we already have a date for it, and that is million+ years, the date we have always known. So if somebody tells me Ramayana only 14,000 ybp old because some girl was walking in front of some guy, I am not interested.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2897
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 07:28

periaswamy wrote:
Dipanker: Dating Ramayana is pointless exercise when we already know Lord Sri Ram...(witless vomit deleted)


One need not buy into the religious aspects of texts to consider that the author(s) would have made observations of the night sky, or of their environment and incorporated it in their texts, to provide a clue to when the texts could have been written. Besides, sarcasm is not a substitute for reasoning -- you have clearly not read the claims being made by Mr. Oak before you decided to pull down your pants and expose your genius to everyone on this board.

In case of Ramayana I find the 1+ million years figure more acceptable that any other figure because it involves a straightforward math than some sophisticated OR nonsense.


No one other than you is claiming that these texts are 1 million years old, and definitely not any of the useful posts I read as I shoveled the mountain of vomit from Srijoy and friends out of the way -- hyperbole is not a substitute for a reasoned argument. What we can say after such a method is "the texts were written before X and after Y"...and try to make X and Y as close together as possible -- if there are multiple dates for events then more possible events that can be mapped need to be used to help with the task.

It is not "sophisticated OR" unless you are one of those that need to remove your socks to count to 20. I mention OR to point that such techniques are commonplace and practical and used on a daily basis in human life today, and that using observations in the text to map to other events that have dates associated them with other means is a good way to narrow the interval in which the text was likely written.

(NOTE: "all analogies are wrong", the problem of dating such texts is actually an inverted version of how problems are framed in OR -- we add more and more observations from the text to narrow down the interval during which the observations could have been made.)


The 1+ million year is age of Ramayana, the period of Rama not the book, the context should have made it clear.

If you go by the length of the yugas, you can use simple math, you won't need OR. That is good enough for me!

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33462
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby shiv » 12 Sep 2017 07:30

Dipanker wrote:
Let me try to to put it another way, see if you can get it right this time!

Dating of Ramayana IMO is pointless because we already have a date for it, and that is million+ years, the date we have always known. So if somebody tells me Ramayana only 14,000 ybp old because some girl was walking in front of some guy, I am not interested.

You want "me" to get it "this time" in a way that I am not getting it. You are repeating yourself hoping that repetition can blast its way into a person's mind like repetition of the Quran

You say "we already have a date for it"

Maybe you do. I don't. Please speak for yourself. We are talking about an epic whose date as per the Roman calendar is not mentioned anywhere within the text. You believe a particular date and that is your right. But you will have to leave me out of it. I hope my "not getting it" does not upset you as much as it seems to be upsetting you.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests