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.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33317
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 08:28

Please stop calling each other morons and dimwits lest others be tempted to decide which is true and which is unfair.. :D

..lead us not into temptation - for Allah is watching.

periaswamy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 51
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Sep 2017 08:35

Dipankar: Again it is you who is being the dimwit. Rotation of earth on axis equivalent to a day, is a day in any calendar whether in Hindu Calendar or any other. When these calendars were invented is not relevant, a day takes same amount of time.


That may well be the case, but you are providing a solid answer to the wrong question -- one that was not put to you.

The question you were asked was about the claim that "one yuga equals X million years", which seems to be rock solid according to you, since you are pretending that can be used to date all that you need to know about the dating of Indian texts. What is the basis for this yet unsubstantiated claim on your part? Or did you pull this out of some fancy magic hat of yours?

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1601
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

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

Postby sudarshan » 12 Sep 2017 08:36

Dipanker wrote:Seriously, It is you who is being moronic. How is the claim of 1+ million year indefensible when the Yugas are of specific time length? If Rama existed in Treta, we live in Kaliyuga, in between there was Dwapar roughly a million year long, ergo Rama lived at least 1+ million year ago. How is this a random claim?


So are you now officially adopting this stance, which, by the way, is totally contrary to the one adopted by SriJoy, the guy whom, not too long ago, you were +1-ing and cheering along with cries of "satyamev jayate"? As SriJoy has made clear a dozen times, it is 100% certain that there was no such thing as agriculture anywhere in the world before 9500 BC, and there is no chance of revising this dead-certainty with any future research. Wonder if he'll subject you to one of his rants now, with your 1+million year dating of the Ramayana :rotfl:.

periaswamy wrote:That may well be the case, but you are providing a solid answer to the wrong question -- one that was not put to you.


Periaswamy ji, I don't know if you're aware, but the apparent stupidity of some arguments on this thread or forum does not necessarily reflect on the poster. There are some CPI-ML agendas being pushed here, and cretinous as the argument(s) might sound, there might actually be some method behind the apparent madness. Please to note onlee.
Last edited by sudarshan on 12 Sep 2017 08:37, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33317
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 08:37

For "science" to work, one needs to get back to the original work that described a yuga as X years. For precision we would also need to work out whether the translation "year" is right and refers to the solar year. If someone has already done that we must look at all possible sources of that information.

So far as I have seen some guy comes along and says "yuga is X thousand or Y million years"

A second guy say "Ramayana was in blah yuga"

A third guy links the two and says Ramayana in blah yuga means X milion years

All this is 100% logical. But whether it is accurate or not is a different issue.

Science means the willingness to go back at what was said and try and see if
1. The translations were right
2. The meanings were interpreted correctly
3. What conclusions can be reached from the above
4. How do those conclusions line up with anything else that may be known

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33317
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 08:41

sudarshan wrote:Periaswamy ji, I don't know if you're aware, but the apparent stupidity of some arguments on this thread or forum does not necessarily reflect on the poster. There are some CPI-ML agendas being pushed here, and cretinous as the argument(s) might sound, there might actually be some method behind the apparent madness. Please to note onlee.

It is ironic that the same agenda is now being pushed by bigbig names from bigbig universities like Harvard and Columbia and their students, alumni and bhakts. I take it as an indicator that the structure they depended on is being undermined and taken over by a new set of people who use their logic and their methods to expose the strength, or weakness, of their foundations

periaswamy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 51
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Sep 2017 08:46

Sudarshan: There are some CPI-ML agendas being pushed here, and cretinous as the argument(s) might sound, there might actually be some method behind the apparent madness. Please to note onlee.


Sudharshan saar, Anyone who has had the misfortune of using "the story of civilization" in 10 standard many decades ago -- authored by lowlives like Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib and their ilk, and worse still, anyone who takes all their "research" as the truth, is liable to make such CPI-ML-type arguments. Hanlon's razor probably applies here. Then again, it is absolute disgust with the lies fed by the likes of Romila Thapar in history texts that motivates me want to start from scratch all over again.

Romila Thapar was awarded a fellowship by the US library of congress or some such garbage for her "authority on Indian history", which pretty much forces me to dismiss any and all "scholarship" coming from american sources.
Last edited by periaswamy on 12 Sep 2017 08:56, edited 1 time in total.

Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4193
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

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

Postby Arjun » 12 Sep 2017 08:52

:rotfl:

So Dipankar, who I thought was my comrade-in-arms for data-driven sociology, cleanly pole-vaults all the way above Shiv, Rajesh, Nilesh et al to a date of Million+ years for the Ramayana !!!

Chuppa Rustom is a mild term for this. :lol:

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2877
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 09:18

periaswamy wrote:
That may well be the case, but you are providing a solid answer to the wrong question -- one that was not put to you.

The question you were asked was about the claim that "one yuga equals X million years", which seems to be rock solid according to you, since you are pretending that can be used to date all that you need to know about the dating of Indian texts. What is the basis for this yet unsubstantiated claim on your part? Or did you pull this out of some fancy magic hat of yours?


Wow Mr. Periaswamy, you have managed an entire post without hurling an insult! Congratulations to you, that is a improvement! Maybe we can have a civilized conversation after all?

Anyway converting Yugas into number of years should not be such a big deal given the yugas are measure of time with certain units. You can learn all about it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga

Don't we just love wikipedia!

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2877
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 09:23

Arjun wrote::rotfl:

So Dipankar, who I thought was my comrade-in-arms for data-driven sociology, cleanly pole-vaults all the way above Shiv, Rajesh, Nilesh et al to a date of Million+ years for the Ramayana !!!

Chuppa Rustom is a mild term for this. :lol:


I think you are misreading it.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2877
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 09:29

sudarshan wrote:So are you now officially adopting this stance, which, by the way, is totally contrary to the one adopted by SriJoy, the guy whom, not too long ago, you were +1-ing and cheering along with cries of "satyamev jayate"? As SriJoy has made clear a dozen times, it is 100% certain that there was no such thing as agriculture anywhere in the world before 9500 BC, and there is no chance of revising this dead-certainty with any future research. Wonder if he'll subject you to one of his rants now, with your 1+million year dating of the Ramayana :rotfl:.



1+ million year is time period when Rama actually lived, I am not claiming Valmiki wrote Ramayana a million+ year ago.

periaswamy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 51
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Sep 2017 09:43

Dipankar: 1+ million year is time period when Rama actually lived, I am not claiming Valmiki wrote Ramayana a million+ year ago.


And that is so because of the claim you pulled out of some orifice that a yuga is X million years? Sheer brilliance. The kind of quality in thinking that one only comes upon once every 2.5 milli-yugas. There are multiple versions of Ramayanas, and so each version can only shed light on when that version was written, and even these would likely pre-date everything that has been drummed as the truth in the existing narrative, but we will never know unless we look back at the older versions of various texts and date them in a logical and systematic. Sure this is not all that hard to comprehend, or not anything that you will find on wikipedia.
Last edited by periaswamy on 12 Sep 2017 09:52, edited 1 time in total.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2877
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 09:51

periaswamy wrote:
Dipankar: 1+ million year is time period when Rama actually lived, I am not claiming Valmiki wrote Ramayana a million+ year ago.


And that is so because of the claim you pulled out of some orifice that a yuga is X million years? Sheer brilliance. The kind of quality in thinking that one only comes upon once every 2.5 milli-yugas.


O.k. that didn't last too long!

Here, from the link:

Satya Yuga equals 1,728,000 years
Treta Yuga equals 1,296,000 years
Dvapara Yuga equals 864,000 years
Kali Yuga equals 432,000 years

periaswamy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 51
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Sep 2017 09:59

Dipanker: O.k. that didn't last too long!


Yes, yes, you quoted wikipedia, just great. Now collect a prize at the door. Which part of "dating the texts" do you find hard to comprehend? "dating the texts" has nothing to do with "Rama's existence", or is this concept overloading both your neurons?

The whole point is to see how far back the different versions of Ramayana were written, based on the observations made by the authors and written in their texts. Indian history was largely spread orally in the past, but if the details were put down faithfully in some version of ramayana or mahabharata, then it provides a better chance of working out a timeframe for when they were written or orated. That is all. All your rhetorical horsesh1t about yugas is irrelevant. Whether Rama lived 1 million years or 5 million years is not something that can be substantiated from the writings of people in the past 10000-20000 years -- it is amusing that such obvious points have to be spelt out.

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2877
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 10:22

periaswamy wrote:Yes, yes, you quoted wikipedia, just great. Now collect a prize at the door. Which part of "dating the texts" do you find hard to comprehend? "dating the texts" has nothing to do with "Rama's existence", or is this concept overloading both your neurons?

The whole point is to see how far back the different versions of Ramayana were written, based on the observations made by the authors and written in their texts. That is all. All your rhetorical horsesh1t about yugas is irrelevant. Whether Rama lived 1 million years or 5 million years is not something that can be substantiated from the writings of people in the past 10000-20000 years -- it is amusing that such obvious points have to be spelt out.


Here is what Valmiki writes (Hypothetical):

Rama and Sita are sitting in the garden of their cottage at Panchvati sipping their evening tea. Stars are shining bright ( no electricity back then). Rama notices that Alpha Lyra is at certain RA and DEC in certain part of the sky.

Fast forward to 2017, a certain researcher reads Ramayana, plugs in the value of RA and DEC for Alpha Lyra in his/her StarGazer software and comes up with a date of 17th July 13,457 BC.

Does this date Valmiki or Rama/Sita?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15627
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 12 Sep 2017 10:27

Dipanker wrote:
sudarshan wrote:So are you now officially adopting this stance, which, by the way, is totally contrary to the one adopted by SriJoy, the guy whom, not too long ago, you were +1-ing and cheering along with cries of "satyamev jayate"? As SriJoy has made clear a dozen times, it is 100% certain that there was no such thing as agriculture anywhere in the world before 9500 BC, and there is no chance of revising this dead-certainty with any future research. Wonder if he'll subject you to one of his rants now, with your 1+million year dating of the Ramayana :rotfl:.



1+ million year is time period when Rama actually lived, I am not claiming Valmiki wrote Ramayana a million+ year ago.


who told you this?? yechuri or daniel raja??

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2877
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 10:32

chetak wrote:
Dipanker wrote:
1+ million year is time period when Rama actually lived, I am not claiming Valmiki wrote Ramayana a million+ year ago.


who told you this?? yechuri or daniel raja??


I learnt that during my school years reading books.

periaswamy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 51
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Sep 2017 10:38

Dipankar: Does this date Valmiki or Rama/Sita?


That is not really relevant, because the observation made in the text was made by some human at some point in time, which indirectly points to a point in the past when such tales came into being in India of yore.

The strongest statement that can be made is that the observation was made at a specific date by the author or someone who narrated a tale to the author, and this observation is to be placed in the timeline along with other such observations from the text. Taken together, these dates will place a lower bound (the earliest observation) on when the story came into existence and an upper bound (the latest observation) . This is an improvement over the current state of affairs where these historical texts are being wrongly dated by motivated "researchers" who have no interest in the truth.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15627
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 12 Sep 2017 10:45

Dipanker wrote:
chetak wrote:
who told you this?? yechuri or daniel raja??


I learnt that during my school years reading books.


That's right, books written by unwashed commies :wink:

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2877
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 10:57

chetak wrote:
Dipanker wrote:
I learnt that during my school years reading books.


That's right, books written by unwashed commies :wink:


Nope, they were all my grandmother's book, straight from Gita Press, Gorakhpur.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15627
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 12 Sep 2017 11:06

Dipanker wrote:
chetak wrote:
That's right, books written by unwashed commies :wink:


Nope, they were all my grandmother's book, straight from Gita Press, Gorakhpur.


BS

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2877
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 11:11

chetak wrote:
Dipanker wrote:
Nope, they were all my grandmother's book, straight from Gita Press, Gorakhpur.


BS


Shame on you for calling it BS, because I told you the truth.

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4751
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

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

Postby Yayavar » 12 Sep 2017 11:12

shiv wrote:
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.


You tell me if Dunkirk was a win? and if so how?
It was retreat but not a rout like in Haldighati. More casualties than the enemy too in both cases.

Regarding rhetoric - you herr doktor are quite guilty of it many a time :). You are talking of retreat vs loss but the original reference in the article linked is to Rana 'won' at Haldighati.

I had fun writing the quoted passage but rephrasing as a man of science - Haldighati was a retreat with heavy losses but not a rout. Rana was able to regroup and fight against the mughals again even though he did not win that day at Haldighati.(btw, I've driven through that area to Nathdwara).
Last edited by Yayavar on 12 Sep 2017 11:42, edited 1 time in total.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15627
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 12 Sep 2017 11:21

Dipanker wrote:
chetak wrote:
BS


Shame on you for calling it BS, because I told you the truth.


same here.

are you denying that unwashed commies rigged our history and our textbooks??

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2877
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

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

Postby Dipanker » 12 Sep 2017 11:32

chetak wrote:
Dipanker wrote:
Shame on you for calling it BS, because I told you the truth.


same here.

are you denying that unwashed commies rigged our history and our textbooks??


If you think that is the case, read multiple sources and triangulate. In anycase reading multiple sources is always recommended. Commies may not be the only one involved in rigging.

periaswamy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 51
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

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

Postby periaswamy » 12 Sep 2017 11:39

While multiple sources works well for news items and current affairs, it does not work as well in academic settings, especially in the social sciences. Multiple sources may be mirage when it comes to Indian history, which is a point that has been made before. Some guy writes some nonsense in paper X, and X is quoted by 10 other jokers, each of whom writes a book or teaches someone who writes a book, and soon all these "multiple sources" are repeating the same falsehoods. The popularity of the "aryan race" and "dravidian race" is a testament to this kind of tactic by western "indologists" -- everything spread by the tools in the western universities about India smells wrong, not least because these oiseaules do their "research" after visiting India for a couple of months and then pretending to have a "deep knowledge" of India, much like Audrey Truschke and the rest of the Sheldon Pollock crowd. They may have some valid points to make, but they cannot be trusted to be an unbiased source when it comes to India's history...it is up to Indians to create an alternative collection of research and thinking that can challenge these "indologists" in the long run.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15627
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 12 Sep 2017 11:39

Dipanker wrote:
chetak wrote:
same here.

are you denying that unwashed commies rigged our history and our textbooks??


If you think that is the case, read multiple sources and triangulate. In anycase reading multiple sources is always recommended. Commies may not be the only one involved in rigging.


you are absolutely right.

It was the commies and the malsis.

they are both great pals until the malsis turn on them, as they have done in every case around the world, where ever they have collaborated, and exterminated the commies like cockroaches they are, when their purpose has been served.

BTW, read the article in full, it will surely warm the cockles of your commie "heart".


Left's Infiltration Into Education: The Great Betrayal by our Educators


The profound hypocrisy of our contemporary academic community, centred in and around the urban Indian universities, is that it obstinately, even somewhat obsessively, glorifies a set of ideas that were already redundant by the end of the 1950s when the world started to gather itself up from the horrors of the second world war. We are talking about Marxism here, an ideology that fanned the paradigm changes in the social and political arena of several European and American (both of the North and South continents) countries in the early twentieth century. The big battleground was obviously located in Eastern Europe where giants of the medieval, Christian European world like Russia capitulated before socialism.

The socialist political aggression from Soviet Russia asserted itself after tasting victory in the Second World War, following which it had invaded and occupied several other small Eastern European countries while many others like the DDR (also known as East Germany in an erstwhile era) were planted with governments that made sure that these countries functioned as the satellite states of the Soviet Russia. It was the bloodbath taking place in these years between early 1940s to mid-1950s that effectively unmasked the socialist agenda, which had managed to sell itself as the harbinger of an egalitarian world order till that time.

But by the mid-1950s communism and socialism had become equivalent with genocide, totalitarianism and quite ironically, fascism in Europe. No sane person in Europe could possibly identify himself/herself as a communist or socialist without being dubbed an enemy of humanity itself. Intellectuals like Jean Paul Sartre in France, who had championed the cause of the political Left in their respective countries, now had to publicly denounce his association with the socialist movement. It really was a difficult time for French and other European intellectuals (who were looked up to by the rest of the populace as iconoclasts keeping a watchful eye on the functioning of society and providing honest, harsh criticism as and when required a sort of human moral compass) to be true to their political and cultural inclinations and at the same time be regarded seriously by the society at large.

They could not have risked their relevance, because otherwise who would take them seriously? Europe had experienced the war crimes, genocides and all sorts of excesses committed by the Red Army in Poland where six million people were slaughtered when Stalin decided to invade the central European country at the close of the Second World War. By most accounts, communism is held responsible for the genocide of nearly 100 million human beings the world over, (McGrew 2000) leaving no space for its patent excuse of moral equivalence with crimes against humanity perpetrated by other regimes. In order to give an idea of the magnitude of the loss, it will be enough to cite that Nazism had killed 25 million, (McGrew 2000) a quarter of the total death caused by the forceful implementation of Karl Marx's utopian political and economic philosophy.

The Great Betrayal

And yet, most of the educators in the universities and other institutes of higher learning in Urban India are unapologetic about their ideological affiliation, just like their American and French counterparts. Most of these Indian academics and intellectuals unabashedly identify their politics as Left-wing often as that of the Far Left even a trend which is increasingly becoming prominent in premier universities, especially among the disciplines of social science and humanities, because the epidemic is passed from one generation of educators to the next one being trained by them, in an unbroken chain of (and highly loyal network of) guru shishya parampara, or really the perversion of it.

Many consider themselves as subscribing to the ideology of the New Left, a diverse entity which is unified mainly by two principles: its above-board denunciation of the Soviet, and its surreptitious sleight of hand in reshuffling the classical Marxist binary division of the world of humans as bourgeoisie and proletariat into the bipartite oppressor and the oppressed. This new formulation of classical Marxism enables the New Left to bank on any and every fault line that has the potential to divide humans into two mutually and inherently hostile groups fighting each other for capturing power. Thus the New Left’s focus on gender yields male vs. female; its (postmodernist) analysis of sexual orientation begets gay vs. straight; the same treatment when applied on race produces white vs. black; postmodernist cultural criticism fosters a conflict-ridden world of cultural supremacy vs. multiculturalism; neo-leftist scholarship on international relations proffers a narrative of residents vs. immigrants, and a similar take on religions pits Non-Muslim vs. Muslim.

The keyword in each of these cases (and an endless string of possibilities of similar conflictual binaries) cited here is: conflict – that key which Marx had used to understand and explain “the history of all hitherto existing society”. (Marx and Engels 1848) He called it struggle between the two classes.

The Fallout

Professors offering courses that expose young Indian students to the ideological neologisms of the postmodernism-fuelled New Left also often uninhibitedly encourage them to subscribe to the same. In fact, some relatively new disciplines like Women Studies necessarily require the student to subscribe to the postmodern outlook, often so congruous with the ideology of the New Left, to do well in their exams. These disciplines necessitate indoctrination into the leftist ideologies that underlies their existence.

Unquestionable, dogmatic faith in the New Left's ideological position serves as a precondition for mastering these academic disciplines, since the disciplines themselves are little more than courses carefully designed to orient the young and unsuspecting entrants to colleges and universities toward a career as full-fledged social justice warriors. By example of lived lives, these educators, located in India's premier centres of higher learning, inspire their students to take up antinomian attitudes, avant-garde lifestyles and a sceptical mindset. The end result of it all is the perpetuation of colonisation of Indian minds, and the furthering away of ever new cohorts of bright Indians from their roots, heritage and national character.

Sadly in India, the Old/classical Left has managed to coexist side by side with the New Left due to India's relative inexperience of Red terror as a major source of atrocious regime (except in West Bengal, where the repression of the communist CPI(M) regime continued for four decades from the seventies, started off conspicuously by the reign of terror unleashed by a battle for power between Naxalites-Maoists, the Communist party of India and the then ruling Congress government; while the Maoists have not been able to capture administrative power in any level of the Indian administration so far, even though they reportedly run parallel sarkars in their own pockets of influence in the hinterlands of India obscured by dense forests or lack of transport and communication). This has only helped in compounding the problem, for it is a standard practice of mainstream as well as underground political parties in India to use the students’ participation in campus politics as a front cover to propagate their ideological and political agendas among the budding minds.

The political parties in India depend heavily on campus politics for a talent-hunt to regularly select, nurture, induct and refurbish new individuals into their leadership. Even a cursory glance at the backgrounds of several successful Indian politicians would support this information. Without going into the merits/demerits of campus politics, let us suffice in saying that politicisation of the curriculum and a huge imbalance in the ideological representation among the educators are acting as enormous deterrents to establishing an organic connection between the young individuals and potential accountable citizens of India and their cultural heritage. It is an impediment to the process of decolonisation of the Indian mind (to borrow the famous phrase by Ngugi Wa Thiong’o), and is spawning what has been frequently and derisively dubbed as ‘Macaulay’s children’. That is naturally creating a void in their intellectual and cultural tutelage as well as destroying the much sought after open-minded interventions to the discourses around India’s civilizational character, nipping them in the bud. Instead, what we are producing, at public expense, is a pool of trained resource personnel impeccably equipped with ideology, strong international network and all required skills to aggressively take on the idea of India’s cultural integrity, civilizational existence through history and its sole unifying parameter – Hinduism. These specimens are proving to be postmodernist and/or neo-leftist giants or minions, depending on their individual capacities, who are entirely antagonistic and openly hostile to their own roots. This accounts for a great threat to the survival of India’s civilizational character. Policymakers and the concerned ministries responsible for developing India’s pool of human resource should take note of this situation and must intervene, without further delay. Perhaps it is not without substance to feel, with great apprehension, that it is already too late

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33317
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 12:50

Yayavar wrote:You tell me if Dunkirk was a win? and if so how?
It was retreat but not a rout like in Haldighati. More casualties than the enemy too in both cases.

Regarding rhetoric - you herr doktor are quite guilty of it many a time :). You are talking of retreat vs loss but the original reference in the article linked is to Rana 'won' at Haldighati.

I had fun writing the quoted passage but rephrasing as a man of science - Haldighati was a retreat with heavy losses but not a rout. Rana was able to regroup and fight against the mughals again even though he did not win that day at Haldighati.(btw, I've driven through that area to Nathdwara).

In fact rhetoric is the only tool that can be used against rhetoricians. You took my (rhetorical) bait. Dunkirk is not the point, but what do you have to say about the points made by the author of the view that it was a victory. Is he lying? He has made some claims to support his view. Are you able to rebut him, or are you stating what you believe to be true from earlier reading?

Here is a quote
Dr Sharma based his findings on land records from the 16th century saying for a year after the June 18, 1576 battle, Maharana Pratap distributed land in villages near Haldighati by handing out land rights inscribed on copper plates that has the signature of the diwan of Eklingnath.

The man argues that the land remained in control of the Maharana and claims to offer contemporary physical documents as proof

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33317
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 13:03

Dipanker wrote:
Here is what Valmiki writes (Hypothetical):

Rama and Sita are sitting in the garden of their cottage at Panchvati sipping their evening tea. Stars are shining bright ( no electricity back then). Rama notices that Alpha Lyra is at certain RA and DEC in certain part of the sky.

Fast forward to 2017, a certain researcher reads Ramayana, plugs in the value of RA and DEC for Alpha Lyra in his/her StarGazer software and comes up with a date of 17th July 13,457 BC.

Does this date Valmiki or Rama/Sita?

Would you be able to cite reasons why the date should not be taken as possibly true, pending corroboration from multiple sources including other such references in text and corroboration of the geographic and other information in the text with current paleobotanical and paleoclimate studies?

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 12 Sep 2017 19:28

RajeshA wrote:Marco Polo does not belong to 13th century at all, but to the 7th century, and this is me talking and not Vedveer Arya. Why do you think historians have always doubted the veracity of Il Milone?!


Historians doubt the veracity of some of Marco Polo's claims. Because some of it doesn't add up and he made hyperboles. Simple.
No-matter how you look at it, Marco Polo is not from 7th century. His writings make it clear- he is not even using the same Italic dialect from 7th century.

Ha ha. Go read up then! There are loads of solar eclipses recorded in Chinese history! If you can't find on your own, you can always read Vedveer Arya's article.


You misunderstand. Chinese recording solar eclipses is irrelevant to Chinese writing down a date. their dates are not tied to solar or lunar eclipses. they are tied to regnal dates- i.e., '4th year of King so-n-so's reign' type of dating.


SriJoy wrote:
In fact, the Yavana kings mentioned in Asoka's rock edicts, have an extremely dubious mapping to Macedonian-Greek kings which followed Seleucus. For one thing, one wonders why would Ashoka be talking about some non-entity small time little king of Libya. Also there is quite some controversy about the dates of these kings, when are they to be considered contemporary to Ashoka, and that too, all at the same time. One only need to scrape the surface and one knows just how hollow and fragile these mappings really are.

Perhaps another interesting observation is that Greek sources are completely silent on Ashoka. There is nothing on him! Why is that? Wasn't he a neighbor, friend, adversary to all those "Greek" kingdoms? Greeks being silent on Ashoka mean nothing. Not all kings are mutually acknowledged in primary literature. Harshavardhana's writer mentions nothing about Chinese embassy. Chinese emperor records sending embassy to Harsha.
Vatican records sending embassy to Il-Khan. Il-Khans do not record said embassy. So what ? its pretty much common sense that unless ruler X and ruler Y are involved in a major fashion, one may not record the other sending any itty-bitty embassy.

If you want to do some serious repudiation of Vedveer Arya's claims, then you can take the two papers, read them and show why his alternative explanations are wrong!


Ashoka mentions kings who received his embassy. No controversy exists in historic circles regarding these kings and its a far more complete theory than Vedveer Arya's unsubstantiated claims. We have independent corroboration of the Yavana kings, from Greco-Roman sources.

i've already shown how Vedveer Arya is wrong regarding the dating of Harsha. I've shown how we can date Pulakeshi II independently, tracing back from Jatavarman Pandya and we still come to 600s AD date. If you cannot handle refutations, you should not ask for it.

When you come out of your Macaulayite brainwashing and wish to do some serious discussion, rather than regurgitate old school arguments, which Vedveer Arya has already shown as conflicting, then do write!
[/quote]

trying to arbitarily backdate world history and cooking up BS- like Yuan dynasty started earlier (despite the fact that all Yuan and northern yuan kings are accounted for, via Mongolian chronology), means nothing.
As for Vedveer Arya, i have very little time for people who are not experts in their said field. Vedveer is not a historian,he is a Von-Daniken type hack trying to make a quick buck by publishing BS.
Last edited by SriJoy on 12 Sep 2017 20:13, edited 1 time in total.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 12 Sep 2017 19:33

shiv wrote:Clearly he has the time and motivation to come on here, read and rant. Something upsets him a great deal and his objections are mainly about the motivations of people, their ignorance and his own qualifications. He has made at least four promises to produce facts and data and now I know that these will not come.


I have already said many times in this thread what upsets me- your admitted behaviour of cooking up history to prop up your self-worth/ego- something you openly admit to doing (cooking up history to support your viewpoints). that is what upsets me. Should be clear as daylight that those who pursue objective history, are p!$$ed off at people like you, who subvert history to serve a lie.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 12 Sep 2017 19:35

vnms wrote:This dude, SriJoy, claims that he has "has decades of learning history and formal history education under his belt".

So, after spending decades in the field of studying history, did he go back to college and get his engineering degree and move into the software field?

I'm confused onlee.

PS: It might be unpopular here, but I really pity this dude. He is the perfect metaphor for the saying:
"Dhobi ka kutta, na ghar ka, na ghat ka".


I got engineering degree. then picked up history, when i was posted in wilderness for months at end. Ended up getting a degree in it over time (not hard taking one course or so a semester for years). Finally when wifey got tired of me going off for months/weeks into wilderness, i transitioned into software.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 12 Sep 2017 19:39

peter wrote:
SriJoy wrote:
Can you clarify your question ?

Sure. There are many astronomical observations in Mahabharata. Winter solstice, eclipses, sequence of repeating eclipses, movement of pole star etc.

If you were to identify the dates for each of the observation and some of these observations may be satisfied on multiple dates what distribution of dates do you expect?


If i were to trust that these dates are original to the work (which i don't), i'd expect some dates to have multiple repeats and a convergence of dates resulting from multiple observations converging on a single date.

But as i said, i do not trust these dates in a book, which is 80% not original.
I find those who trust it, are all hindus- which is confirmation bias, similar to muslims trusting the koran, christians trusting the bible, etc.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 12 Sep 2017 19:42

Pulikeshi wrote:
SriJoy wrote:Your type of distortions will remain 'fringe historical fiction' until - if- your type of people manage to utterly destroy the academic system we have in place and revert to ignorant religious rantings of cavemen and taking those on face-value. the world we live in, you, Nilesh, this Vedveer guy etc. will only ever matter on this topic, over the internet. In official setting, i will overrule all of you- because i have an actual degree in this topic and you guys don't.And Kazanas will overrule me when it comes to history. Because he is a professor and i am a lowly minor degree. Just like how when it comes to engineering, i will overrule 99% people here officially and when it comes to medicine, you will overrule me and 99% here on official basis.


Having been on this forum since its very beginning, and having fought a few pitched battles meself...
must say this diatribe above takes the cake! :rotfl:
In the real world none of all of us matter, self-inflated egos aside...
anonymity protects the pedestrian/mediocre as much as the scholar/successful
The system of History itself has undergone massive changes in how it approaches the subject and there are enough documented works to accommodate this evolution in what is essentially a 'social science' ~ What is the need to ironically put it on a "religious" pedestal of infallibility?

I'd take the caveman's ranting any day to avoid the neophyte religious zealotry you claim for the academic system called "History!"
Listening to the former is to see him making a fool of himself, listening to you is making a fool of all of us! :evil:

You are welcome to your opinion and voice, but you are drowning out even the open-minded and skeptical in your blind dogmatic belief in History!


this thread and my posts in this thread are a direct refutation to your charge of 'blind dogmatic belief in history'. I've already said many times history is like onion shopping- trick is knowing what is reliable and what isn't. Which comes from learning about primary and secondary sources of a given instance in history.
But i don't expect someone, who's self-admitted view of history is for the sole purpose of aggrandizing his ancestors- to understand these concepts.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 12 Sep 2017 19:53

periaswamy wrote: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.


It is only 'sound' when we do it to unmodified works. When we do it to works that are self-admittedly not original, its not sound. Since nakshatras come with an agenda- auspicious/unlucky- we see no basis to assume they are original to the work. Infact, they cannot be original to the Mahabharata, since tha mahabharata itself admits that 80% of the current work, is later addition.

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).


explain to us, why these assumptions are valid for religious literature, as religious literature has a very obvious component of BS to control society. Ramayana,mahabharata, like all religious literature, are not objective, lost papers. they are used as a tool of worship and power-play.
So if Ramayana, Mahabharata are assumed true, so should all other religious literature.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 12 Sep 2017 19:55

Gus wrote:
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'.


History has changed. With due investigation of first hand sources, discovery of new sources, etc.
Not because it suits someone's agenda or with lurid claims of 'whole world is ignorant of missing 600 years of history'.

the implication is too ludicrous to hold true and since the source that is making such claims is proven to engage in academic dishonesty- some of which I've underlined, its easy to dismiss.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 12 Sep 2017 19:57

Yayavar wrote: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.


Maharana Pratap can easily lose the battle of Haldighati and still win the war.
Never head the phrase 'won the battle but lost the war' ?

Look no further than Napoleon's invasion of Russia - he won the battle of Borodino. Lost the war. Same can apply to the Mughals.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 12 Sep 2017 20:03

periaswamy wrote:
"Seriously, It is you who is being moronic. How is the claim of 1+ million year indefensible when the Yugas are of specific time length? If Rama existed in Treta, we live in Kaliyuga, in between there was Dwapar roughly a million year long, ergo Rama lived at least 1+ million year ago. How is this a random claim?"


The "year" is a contruct of the Roman calendar, which came after these yugas and other measurements of time -- so what is this fountain of knowledge you quaffed from that makes you so cocksure that the translations of 1 yuga is X million years are correct? Did that come from someone from Columbia and Harvard, in which case it must be true...otherwise, if you are a skeptic and not a dogmatic dimwit, you will demand to validate and verify these things in more ways than one, to be certain that your understanding of the past is as close to the truth as is realistically possible.



Are you claiming that before the Roman calendar, nobody had the concept of a year ? Are you claiming that ancient Indians/Babylonians etc. did not have the concept of a year ? Yes/no please.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 12 Sep 2017 20:06

periaswamy wrote:
Dipankar: Does this date Valmiki or Rama/Sita?


That is not really relevant, because the observation made in the text was made by some human at some point in time, which indirectly points to a point in the past when such tales came into being in India of yore.

The strongest statement that can be made is that the observation was made at a specific date by the author or someone who narrated a tale to the author, and this observation is to be placed in the timeline along with other such observations from the text. Taken together, these dates will place a lower bound (the earliest observation) on when the story came into existence and an upper bound (the latest observation) . This is an improvement over the current state of affairs where these historical texts are being wrongly dated by motivated "researchers" who have no interest in the truth.


False. the strongest statement that can be made, is a book that serves religious purpose and has been continuously modified through the ages, cannot be assessed for original material, without finding another copy of the said book from said time-frame and making a comparative analysis.

Your assumption rests on the material being original. In case of Mahabharata, that is a false claim. In case of Ramayana, the claim is unsupported.
Onus lies on you, if you claim a date is original, to show us why it is original and not inserted later on, in a text we know is modified.

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4751
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

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

Postby Yayavar » 12 Sep 2017 20:11

SriJoy wrote:
Yayavar wrote: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.


Maharana Pratap can easily lose the battle of Haldighati and still win the war.
Never head the phrase 'won the battle but lost the war' ?

Look no further than Napoleon's invasion of Russia - he won the battle of Borodino. Lost the war. Same can apply to the Mughals.


Did I say anything different? The comment from me is that he did not win that battle but eventually won.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 12 Sep 2017 20:15

Yayavar wrote:
SriJoy wrote:
Maharana Pratap can easily lose the battle of Haldighati and still win the war.
Never head the phrase 'won the battle but lost the war' ?

Look no further than Napoleon's invasion of Russia - he won the battle of Borodino. Lost the war. Same can apply to the Mughals.


Did I say anything different? The comment from me is that he did not win that battle but eventually won.


Which then, would make Rajasthan state council's assessment, that Maharana pratap won Haldighati, to be wrong, correct ?


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], SSharma and 32 guests