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

[Agnimitra]

^^^ Yes the Mauryas have definitely been alluded to as rising up from Shudra origins to an imperial power.

[Yagnasri]

How do we know brahmagupta and vishnugupta were Brahman?

Is there any reason to believe they are not???

[KLP Dubey]

How do we know brahmagupta and vishnugupta were Brahman?

Well, we can never know for sure but Brahmagupta was a mathematician in ancient India (and thus highly unlikely to be anyone but a brahman). Since I have not read his works, I do not know if he provides an autobiography in the introduction.

Chandragupta's brahman mentor's given name is said to be Vishnugupta (the epithets Chanakya and Kautilya refer to his lineage).

[Virendra]

@KLP Dubey ji,
Trying to not quote long posts again as there's not much to add. I think we are on different plains & there shouldn't be a lot of disagreement.
Will try to delineate things one by one, so it is clearer as to where we stand.

Continous, pure lineage drawdown from vedic kshatriya to medieval Rajputs :-
I've already said that even I don't believe that is possible, given the long timeline and twists that Indian society went through in it.
Quting the same from previous post again:

I don't claim there was some pure unbroken line coming from Ikshvaku/Rama or someone like that right till the medieval Rajputs. There has got to be twists in a tale this long.

So I don't see any disagreement here. Except the point that I think medieval Rajputs still have to be partial kshatriyas because of:
1) Geographic continuity with the clans mentioned by Panini, Kautilya and
2) Martial nature and other similarities of Rajput with these pre-decessors which I have already enumerated.

Agnikunda:-
We agree that it was a fiction.
We disagree on its implications towards ancestry of medieval Rajputs (as mentioned above).

Chauhans etc being Agnivanshis
As we already agree that in reality Chauhans may not have been Suryavanshis, Agnivanshis or any vanshis.
Point was - whether you pick literature or inscriptions, the sources marking them as Suryavanshis clearly predate the sources marking them as Agnivanshis.
You've said :

Just above you said that there is evidence from the 6th century that states Chahamanas to be of suryavansha, but practically everything you mentioned above is from the 12th century onwards.

On my part I do not understand your insistence in claiming that Rajputs are of suryavanshi etc descent

What I wrote in my previous post is :
-- Chauhans history goes as far back as the 6th century A.D. [That is because their progenitor and first few Kings are dated to that century]
-- The earliest attempt to call Chauhans as Agnivanshis comes centuries later in Raso.
-- In other words, prior to Raso, there is not a single shred of historical evidence that calls Chauhans as Agnivanshis.
-- Before that all the sources (and many even after) on Chauhan history either call them Suryavanshis or only give their Gotra.
All this was written to only state (against your assertion) that Chauhans were not "originally" marked as Agnivanshis.

Gurjara Pratihara origin/ancestry :-
I know that you didn't claim them to be foreigner. But the source (Google Book) you cited as very credible was making claims to that direction. Hence while responding to you, I tried to counter that source as well and also because they fall under thee Kshatriya/Rajput umberlla of topics.
Those were the only reasons to cover them. We agree that they are not foreigners.

I'm in office so may have missed a couple of things. Thank you for your reponse.

Regards,
Virendra

[Virendra]

Interesting discussion, KLPD ji and Virendra ji.

The fact of the matter is that when even the imperial Mauryas and Guptas were clearly not directly connected to any "suryavansha/chandravansha" lineages, it is totally absurd to think that such groups were quietly existing in Rajasthan for centuries without being recognized and suddenly rose up again.

I've come across a theory that the 'Vedic' age broke down and gave way to a 'Pauranic' age, when the kshatriya clans were sidelined and political power was usurped by certain Vaishya clans. They relate this to a supposed shift in the popular power of certain devatas also (Vishnu, versus Indra, etc). So according to this theory, these 'Rajputs' could be those earlier kshatriya lineages who had faded into obscurity and were then 'revived', while the Mauryas, Guptas, etc. were Vaishya clans that had grown powerful.

There are gaps in history from known ancient Kshatriyas to known medieval Rajputs. That much we have to concede.

But these gaps won't look as large and unexplainable if we focus on the kshatriya warrior clans that Ive covered in previous posts.
They have been identified by both Panini and Kautilya.
They resided in exactly the same geopgraphic zone as medieval Rajputs.
They fought foreign invaders (Indo-Greeks) like the medieval Rajputs fought the ones in their times.
They have other operational similarities with Rajputs as enumerated in earlier post.
Their history can be verified in the coins and inscriptions that identify them.
Whenever such clans would go into obscurity, it is because:
-- either there would be a strong monarchial center to subdue them and co-opt them in an Imperial structure or
-- there would be a strong invasion and they would turn vassals (temporarily).
Clans would bounce back as soon as the Imperials or invaders weaken.
New clans arose from within the old clans (same stock/ancestry) and there are cases of such clans even reviving with same name and location after being dormant.
Without some sort of continuity, it is not possible to maintain a clan/clannish order and keep bouncing back among numerous reversals over a long period of time.

When there is no evidence to prove a large scale wipe out of martial section of Indian society in north west between ancient kshatriyas and medieval rajputs.
When there is not evidence to say that large scale settlement of foreign martials took place here.
Then there is not reason to argue a complete disconnect (from ancient kashatriya to medieval rajput) either.
Mix up yes, but not complete disconnect.
Which is why I argued that medieval Rajputs may not be pure kshatriyas, but partial they are.

Regards,
Virendra

[Rony]

From T.S. Subramanian in Commieline on excavations in Saraswati (Ghaggar) basin

Harappan surprise

What has come as a bonus is the discovery of a fire altar, with a yasti (a shaft) in the middle. “The yasti is an indication that rituals were performed at the altar,” said Manjul. The yasti here is an octagonal, burnt brick. Although bones were found in the upper level of the deposits in this trench, it could not be ascertained whether they were sacrificial bones. The ASI team traced mud and ash layers at the lower level in the trench and also found a bead inside the fire altar. Pandey said fire altars had been found in Kalibangan and Rakhigarhi, and the yastis were octagonal or cylindrical bricks. There were “signatures” indicating that worship of some kind had taken place at the fire altar here.

According to Manjul, an important reason why so many Harappan settlements came up in the then Saraswati valley was its fertile alluvial plains. Besides, raw materials such as chert, clay and copper were available in the nearby areas.

It was puzzling, Manjul said, that while a lot of pottery belonging to the Mature Harappan period was found at Kalibangan, Baror, Binjor and 4MSR, no pottery belonging to the Late Harappan phase had been found in these and other nearby sites. “The Harappans deserted 4MSR, Binjor and Baror after the Mature Harappan phase. Why?” he asked. Another puzzle was that only the Late Harappan culture existed in the Suratgarh region in Rajasthan. “There is no continuity of the Harappan phases in the Ghaggar river valley. Did a migration take place towards Suratgarh after the Mature Harappan period? We have to find out the reasons why it happened,” Manjul said. (Baror, Binjor and 4MSR are contiguous sites. While Baror is about 20 km from Binjor and 4MSR, Kalibangan is 120 km from 4MSR. Kalibangan is 25 km from Suratgarh).

Again, there was no continuity between the Late Harappan phase and the PGW culture. To find out whether there was any continuity between the Late Harappan phase and the PGW culture, the ASI and the Institute of Archaeology excavated a trial trench in March 2015 in a mound called 86 GB, less than 2 km from 4MSR. There are several sites with PGW deposits within 20 km of 4MSR. “It is important to understand both the cultures, the Late Harappan and the PGW cultures, which are in independent horizons along the Ghaggar river,” Manjul said.

In February, when Frontline visited the area, all around the mound were vast stretches of wheat fields in bloom. Indeed, for 100 km from Kalibangan to 4MSR, wheat fields, watered by the aquifers of the Ghaggar river, stretch endlessly on either side of the road. Every trench has revealed structures such as walls and small rooms made of mud bricks. Most of the rooms have post holes, where posts stood more than 4,000 years ago to support the roof, or perhaps they held door jambs. The size of the mud bricks is in the ratio of 1:2:4, a typical Mature Harappan feature.

There are successive floor levels made of mud bricks, especially in the industrial area of the site. “It shows that whenever the original floor in which the Harappans were working got damaged, they built another floor over it. Between two floors, we have found a lot of ash, charcoal, bones, pottery and artefacts. There are katcha drains in some trenches,” Pandey said.

The trenches have thrown up remnants of ovens, hearths and furnaces, with white ash and soot embedded in the soil, testifying to the industrial activity of making beads at the site. Hearths were found both inside and outside the Harappan houses. Pandey offered an explanation: During winter, Harappans cooked inside their homes but in summer, they cooked outside. One trench revealed a deep silo, lined with mud, to store grains.

The number of idli-shaped terracotta cakes found in the ovens and hearths is incredible. “The presence of idli-shaped terracotta cakes in great numbers in ovens and hearths shows that they had a great role to play in baking many things,” Pandey said.

[Melwyn]

Was the Ramayana actually set in and around today’s Afghanistan?

Let us drop the preamble and get to the point now. If the Lanka mentioned in the Ramayana was not the Sri Lanka of today, where was it located? Where did Ram belong, for that matter? Wherever he may have lived, he was certainly not an inhabitant of what is the Ganges valley today, or of “Ramjanmabhoomi” Ayodhya. For, civilised man did not live in the forest-infested Ganges valley before the Iron Age, since there were no axes with which to clear the vegetation before iron was discovered. There were no swords either, which proves that the Ramayana, unlike the Mahabaharata, is not an epic of the Ganges valley. It makes no mention of swords – the bow and arrow are the primary weapons in it.

The primary objective of this essay is to point to the geographical location of the Ramayana. It is not the writer who has arrived at the answer, nor an Indologist like Max Mueller or even a historian or archaeologist. The person in question is Rajesh Kochhar, a physicist with an inclination for history, who has broken through the traditional techniques of history in his work The Vedic People – Their History and Geography.
....

How the Ramayana is different from the Mahabharata

The primary difficulty of discussing the ancient history of India lies in the necessity of first demolishing several well-established inaccuracies, such as the Aryan Invasion Theory, for instance. Spun by white men and broadcast by colonial historians, this old wives’ tale is still taught in schools and colleges, with half of any written work – measured in terms of paper, ink and effort - being expended on it. We shall not entertain it. We will only examine whatever can be determined through the social and geographical pointers available in the Ramayana.

There are two other fundamental differences between the Ramayana and the Mahabharata – in the rivers and in the divine pantheon. In the Mahabharata the Ganga and the Yamuna are almost ubiquitous, but they’re completely missing from the Ramayana. In the Mahabharata we see the powerful presence of the Hindu trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshwar – but they’re absent from the Ramayana. We do not find these two rivers and these three gods together in the Rig Veda.

However, the rivers and gods that are to be found in the Rig Veda are also to be found in the Ramayana – the rivers Saraswati and Sarayu, and the original trinity of Agni, Varun and Pavan. From this it is easy to surmise that the Ramayana is a Rig Vedic epic. Which period was this? It would not be correct to estimate this using our current calendar: it would probably not be possible either. An approximation can be made from the sequence of events.

...

What we learn from summer solstice

There are 49 cosmic hymns in the Rig and the Yajur Vedas whose meanings have not been explained. But one particular hymn from Vedanga Jyotish informs us that the longest day of the year, or summer solstice, comprised 18 periods of daylight and 12 of night. Day and night are of equal length on the Equator; in the higher latitudes, summer days are longer than nights.

The latitude at which the proportion of daylight and darkness is 3:2 is 34 degrees North. It is worth noting that the cities to be found around this latitude today are Herat and Kabul in Afghanistan. In other words, the place and time of the composition of the Vedanga Jyotish is the same as that of Vedic Afghanistan and Iran. This second piece of evidence offered by Rajesh Kochhar further strengthens the perception of the location and time of the Rig Veda.

In search of the rivers

Kochhar has deconstructed the Rig Veda in search of the Saraswati and the Sarayu, the two rivers also mentioned in the Ramayana. Here too our current history has come in the way.

There is a tiny river named the Sarayu in Uttar Pradesh, which flows into the Ghaghara, which in turn merges with the Ganga. Many people consider the rainwater-fed Saraswati in the Aravallis, flowing along the Ghaggar (not to be confused with the Ghaghara) basin the mythical Saraswati. On viewing the scans of North-Western India made by the Russian Landsat satellite between 1972 and ’79, it is natural to assume that the Ghaggar was a wide river. It flows into the Rann of Kutch.

The scan reveals the basin of a dried up older river, which is up to 8 km broad in some places. It was this that led to the hasty conclusion of this basin’s belonging to the original Saraswati.

From Neil Roberts’s The Holocene it is clear that the basin of this river widened to the north of the Rann of Kutch because of the accelerated movement of a glacier during the previous Ice Age. But deconstructing the Rig Veda doesn’t suggest any of this. The Saraswati has been referred to as non-perennial towards the end of the Veda. The original stream of the Ghaggar enters India from present-day Pakistan, drying up in the Thar desert. Kochhar believes this is the non-perennial Saraswati.

However, the Saraswati of the Rig Veda is extremely powerful, grinding rocks with sheer force. Its roar subsumes all other sounds. And the Sarayu of the Rig Veda is immensely wide and deep, the mother river. None of these descriptions matches the actual rivers in present-day India with those names.

Hymn No. 5 | 53 | 9 of the Rig Veda says, “May the Rasa, Krumu, Anitabh, Kuva or Sindhu not be able to stop you; let the deep Sarayu not be an obstacle.” The order of the rivers clearly moves from east to west. So the Sarayu undoubtedly flows to the west of the Indus.

Kochhar believes it is the 650-km river known as the Hari-Rud in Afghanistan, whose source is in the Hindu Kush mountains. It flows past the city of Herat and then for 100 km along the Iran-Afghanistan border before disappearing in the Karakom desert of Central Asia.

In the Avesta we find the Saraswati as the Harahaiti – the similarity in sound is noticeable – which enters Iran along the combined basin of the river Arghandar on the Afghan-Iran border and the river Helmand. According to Kochhar, it is this Helmand that is the Vedic Saraswati river.

The source of the Helmand is in the Koh-i-Baba mountain range. Flowing for 1,300 miles through the heart of Afghanistan, the Vedic Saraswati joins the Vedic Drijadbati or Arghandar. The Avesta identifies this wide river as the Hetumanta (or, in varations, as Setumanta). In Iran the Saraswati is named the Harahaiti, which flows into the inland lake Hamun-e-Sabari in the Saistan area of northern Iran.

[RamaY]

Was the Ramayana actually set in and around today’s Afghanistan?

I remember reading a similar proposal back in 1990-91 when I was in college during RJB agitation.

Any/every proposal is welcome for research and analysis. But the proposal must fit whole of Ramayana. It cant drop down to the levels where there is one guy named Roma lived in America so Ramayana must happened in Americas...

[Prem]

Was the Ramayana actually set in and around today’s Afghanistan?I remember reading a similar proposal back in 1990-91 when I was in college during RJB agitation.
Any/every proposal is welcome for research and analysis. But the proposal must fit whole of Ramayana. It cant drop down to the levels where there is one guy named Roma lived in America so Ramayana must happened in Americas...

Rome-ayana is happening for the last decade.

[svenkat]

Virendraji,
If you dont mind,can you list the clans common to Panini and Kautilya or point to some links?

[Vayutuvan]

How do we know brahmagupta and vishnugupta were Brahman?

Is there any reason to believe they are not???

No. That is the point. On another note, anybody who has gnyana (variously knowledge, learning, enlightenment) can be called a brahmana. May be both were born in vyshya households but transcended due to their accumulation of gnyana which is inline with the theory that caste was never a watertight as it is projected to be by the religions of the recent past mark 1, mark 2, and mark 3 abrahamics.

[KLP Dubey]

Which is why I argued that medieval Rajputs may not be pure kshatriyas, but partial they are.

Regards,
Virendra

We may be on the same page for most of the discussion, but I am still baffled by this contention of yours.

I am confident that Rajputs are 100% Kshatriyas but I fail to understand why you are arguing that they are at least "partial" Kshatriyas. Again, please consider the following:

1) Kshatriya means a group who takes political power, wields it, and protects Dharma and Veda.

2) Kshatriyas do not require imagined labels of "surya/chandra/naga/agni" etc "vanshas" which are mainly theoretical constructs built up by authors of the puranas. These constructs were designed to allow admission/co-opting of new groups to continue the age-old brahmana-rajanya nexus.

3) Basing Indian history (or bloodlines/descent of Indian caste groups) on such "vansha" classifications leads to fake history and just ends up as a discussion on "pride and prestige" of certain communities.

4) I am in full support of Sanskritization, but I am not in support of obscuring/denying the past. Successful Sanskritization of groups such as Rajputs etc is excellent and should be a model for other groups. Instead claiming that "we were Vedic Kshatriyas all along and were part of suryavansh etc" is shooting oneself in the foot in addition to propagating fake history.

[Virendra]

Virendraji,
If you dont mind,can you list the clans common to Panini and Kautilya or point to some links?

Few of the many martial republics that find mention in Kautilya's ArthaShastra are of Madrakas, Vrijikas, Lichchhivikas, Kurus, Panchalas and others.
It also says many of these clans were dominated by powerful Kambojas who are mentioned by Panini as well.
In Kautilya's words the khsatriya clan states were of two types:
- VartaSastropajivin Samghas (pure democracies)
- Raja.shabd.opajivin Sanghas (part democracy - part Monarchy)
Even Pali literature identifies the northwestern clans as 'Yodhajiva'

Panini has Vrjis against Kautilya's Vrijikas
Panini has Madraka against Kautilya's Madraka/Mudraka

Clan names may differ as do Kingdoms names from time to time. One dynasty falls and nother rises, so happens with clans too.
But it doesn't mean that there's no geographical, biological, geneological continuity. It is the same people, same geography and same martialness.
If you dig deeper you may find more parallels between Panini, Kautilya and Pali literature.

Regards,
Virendra

[Virendra]

Which is why I argued that medieval Rajputs may not be pure kshatriyas, but partial they are.

Regards,
Virendra

I am confident that Rajputs are 100% Kshatriyas but I fail to understand why you are arguing that they are at least "partial" Kshatriyas.

When I said partial, I meant from bloodline perspective, not from "Kshatriya is he who wields power" perspective.
This point of lineage came because you mentioned that vedic kshatriyas were gone and rajputs have been formed on a new base?

[vishvak]

Wonder why discussion here moves on to these topics.

The colonial story tellers and theory makers need to provide their own credentials - about history (texts in OLD English, OLD German, and so on and even earlier), about critique of their own history, about claiming to write books in Samskrit without even knowing the word "Samskrit" before 17th century, about civilizing people in India (& therefore reducing natives to racial/nomad life before AIT) while having no standards to show outside, about teaching false theories for hundreds of years, about hand waving as only evidence when standards are refereed to, and so on.

There is actually enough findings in Indus Valley Civilization archaeology (Shiv ling, Pashupati seals, worship of Krishna too probably besides various seals depicting elephants, peepal leaves, horse, and so on and so forth) to show cultural aspects very well. In fact, sacred literature such as Ramayana has been read in households for thousands of years, and it shows that one does not need to be in Europe to be civilized.

[peter]

Which is why I argued that medieval Rajputs may not be pure kshatriyas, but partial they are.

Regards,
Virendra

I am confident that Rajputs are 100% Kshatriyas but I fail to understand why you are arguing that they are at least "partial" Kshatriyas.

When I said partial, I meant from bloodline perspective, not from "Kshatriya is he who wields power" perspective.
This point of lineage came because you mentioned that vedic kshatriyas were gone and rajputs have been formed on a new base?

Why do you think the old names did not carry forward? Or why are the surnames different between then and now?

[peter]

We may be on the same page for most of the discussion, but I am still baffled by this contention of yours.

I am confident that Rajputs are 100% Kshatriyas but I fail to understand why you are arguing that they are at least "partial" Kshatriyas. Again, please consider the following:

1) Kshatriya means a group who takes political power, wields it, and protects Dharma and Veda.

...

But were rajputs the only kshatriyas? We also have a group designator of khatris. What about Jutts and other communities?

[KLP Dubey]

We may be on the same page for most of the discussion, but I am still baffled by this contention of yours.

I am confident that Rajputs are 100% Kshatriyas but I fail to understand why you are arguing that they are at least "partial" Kshatriyas. Again, please consider the following:

1) Kshatriya means a group who takes political power, wields it, and protects Dharma and Veda.

...

But were rajputs the only kshatriyas?

Are you being deliberately disingenuous? There are Kshatriyas in every part of India.

We also have a group designator of khatris. What about Jutts and other communities?

What is your question exactly ?

[ramana]

The Indo-European Controversy: Facts and Fallacies in Historical Linguistics by Asya Pereltsvaig and Martin W. Lewis
English | 2015 | ISBN: 1107054532 | 338 pages

Over the past decade, a group of prolific and innovative evolutionary biologists has sought to reinvent historical linguistics through the use of phylogenetic and phylogeographical analysis, treating cognates like genes and conceptualizing the spread of languages in terms of the diffusion of viruses. Using these techniques, researchers claim to have located the origin of the Indo-European language family in Neolithic Anatolia, challenging the near-consensus view that it emerged in the grasslands north of the Black Sea thousands of years later. But despite its widespread celebration in the global media, this new approach fails to withstand scrutiny. As languages do not evolve like biological species and do not spread like viruses, the model produces incoherent results, contradicted by the empirical record at every turn. This book asserts that the origin and spread of languages must be examined primarily through the time-tested techniques of linguistic analysis, rather than those of evolutionary biology.

[KLP Dubey]

Virendraji,
If you dont mind,can you list the clans common to Panini and Kautilya or point to some links?

Few of the many martial republics that find mention in Kautilya's ArthaShastra are of Madrakas, Vrijikas, Lichchhivikas, Kurus, Panchalas and others.
It also says many of these clans were dominated by powerful Kambojas who are mentioned by Panini as well.

BTW the Kambojas as mentioned by Panini, Manusmriti, Mahabharata, Raghuvansha (Kalidasa) etc are characterized as people who did not perform Vedic rituals ("fallen kshatriyas"). The Raghuvansha is based upon the mythical exploits of one Raghu of the suryavansha, who conquered the Huns and also obtained submission from the Kambojas in the northwest. It may be based loosely on the conquests of one of the Gupta emperors (probably Vikramaditya). These are all good signs that the Kambojas are Sanskritized people from the borders of ancient Bharat.

[Arjun]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... chaeology/

The Europeans seem to have figured out precisely how and when civilization reached them from the East. Farming was introduced to the hunter gatherers of Europe via Anatolia 6000 year before. All of Europe's languages came in from the Steppes some 1500 years after that. But - while this addresses the entry point into Europe, it still doesn't get to the place of origin of the ultimate root.

There's more work to be done. The genetic and linguistic data support the idea that Indo-European entered Europe via the steppes around 4,500 years ago, but "it's still not clear to me where the oldest branches" of the language come from, says Carles Lalueza-Fox, a geneticist at the University of Barcelona. Indo-European might have originated elsewhere, with the steppe route being just one of several ways that a root tongue made it to southern Europe, Iran, and India, Lalueza-Fox says.

The study's authors concede the point—but not the argument. "We don't know if the steppe is the ultimate source" of Indo-European language, Lazaridis says. "If we can get data from those regions, it will answer a lot of questions."

[peter]

We may be on the same page for most of the discussion, but I am still baffled by this contention of yours.

I am confident that Rajputs are 100% Kshatriyas but I fail to understand why you are arguing that they are at least "partial" Kshatriyas. Again, please consider the following:

1) Kshatriya means a group who takes political power, wields it, and protects Dharma and Veda.

...

But were rajputs the only kshatriyas?

Are you being deliberately disingenuous? There are Kshatriyas in every part of India.

We also have a group designator of khatris. What about Jutts and other communities?

What is your question exactly ?

Since Kshatriyas were in many parts of India what caused some to be rajputs, others Khatris (Panjaabis ) or Zats?

[peter]

Virendraji,
If you dont mind,can you list the clans common to Panini and Kautilya or point to some links?

Few of the many martial republics that find mention in Kautilya's ArthaShastra are of Madrakas, Vrijikas, Lichchhivikas, Kurus, Panchalas and others.
It also says many of these clans were dominated by powerful Kambojas who are mentioned by Panini as well.

BTW the Kambojas as mentioned by Panini, Manusmriti, Mahabharata, Raghuvansha (Kalidasa) etc are characterized as people who did not perform Vedic rituals ("fallen kshatriyas"). ....

Can you please give the exact quote from Panini and Mahabharata?

[Pulikeshi]

What is the relevance of this Kshatriyas controversy being discussed to OIT?
No it is not a serious question - it is cynical sarcasm onlee!

[Pulikeshi]

Interesting even if it were a coincidence.
Is there a more formal study of Indian swords and similarities to their Western and Eastern counterparts?

[peter]

What is the relevance of this Kshatriyas controversy being discussed to OIT?
No it is not a serious question - it is cynical sarcasm onlee!

Many Kshatriyas are designated as foreigners by respectable historians world over including Indians.

Gujars are termed same as Khajars.
Rajputs as white Huns

so on so forth. This debate is identical to the AIT/OIT.

Even on this thread Shri Dubey has alluded to that a system existed where <fill in the blank> could be converted to Kshatriyahood or perhaps rajputhood.

If such a system was in vogue in the first millenium AD then no reason to doubt that this system was in vogue way back when the first Aryan invasionists were supposed to have invaded?

[Pulikeshi]

This is a response from a friends who does not post on BRF:

Many Kshatriyas are designated as foreigners by respectable historians world over including Indians.

Who are foreigners? If someone from todays Iran, Afghanistan, Paksistan, Tibet, Mongolia, Burma, etc historically came into the Northern part of Indian sub-continent would you consider them foreigners?
If so, why apply modern notions of nation-states, religion and history to a time when the whole world belonged to us

If such a system was in vogue in the first millenium AD then no reason to doubt that this system was in vogue way back

Today, during Ganapathi pooja - people have "cricket Ganesha" so that means in ancient India, Ganesha worship also incorporated foreign ideas.
What kind of a nonsensical statement is the one above? Your statement is intellectually similarly flawed!

If foreigners (whatever this means to you) were incorporated in medival times in India and you have proof that these foreigners were Iranian or Turks or Aliens or whatever, then how do you linearly drawn this back in history to a time when the very same historians say these Aryans were pastoral nomads roaming the steppes of Ulanbatoris friends.... You are launching balloons and expecting a intellectual reply?

... when the first Aryan invasionists were supposed to have invaded?

How many Aryan invasionists invaded? I have seen and talked to many invasionists, but never found evidence for any invasion
What if I suggested to you that a great region of Eurasia rests on one cultural substrate, that it is ours and interconnected.
There will be a time when genetics will prove this to be the case.
Who is a foreigner then?

[peter]

This is a response from a friends who does not post on BRF:

Many Kshatriyas are designated as foreigners by respectable historians world over including Indians.

Who are foreigners? If someone from todays Iran, Afghanistan, Paksistan, Tibet, Mongolia, Burma, etc historically came into the Northern part of Indian sub-continent would you consider them foreigners?
If so, why apply modern notions of nation-states, religion and history to a time when the whole world belonged to us

If such a system was in vogue in the first millenium AD then no reason to doubt that this system was in vogue way back

Today, during Ganapathi pooja - people have "cricket Ganesha" so that means in ancient India, Ganesha worship also incorporated foreign ideas.
What kind of a nonsensical statement is the one above? Your statement is intellectually similarly flawed!

If foreigners (whatever this means to you) were incorporated in medival times in India and you have proof that these foreigners were Iranian or Turks or Aliens or whatever, then how do you linearly drawn this back in history to a time when the very same historians say these Aryans were pastoral nomads roaming the steppes of Ulanbatoris friends.... You are launching balloons and expecting a intellectual reply?

... when the first Aryan invasionists were supposed to have invaded?

How many Aryan invasionists invaded? I have seen and talked to many invasionists, but never found evidence for any invasion
What if I suggested to you that a great region of Eurasia rests on one cultural substrate, that it is ours and interconnected.
There will be a time when genetics will prove this to be the case.
Who is a foreigner then?

You had asked how this debate on Kshatriyas is relevant to AIT thread. I described to you what "mainstream" historians believe/write and hence made an effort to show the connection but obviously it is too dense for you to grasp it.
Your cricket ganesha example is silly.

It would serve you and your friend well if you acquainted yourself with some books on AIT to grasp that the rajput making example at Arbud is invoked constantly by the AIT side in support of AIT.

If you don't even understand what is being debated why show your ignorance?

[KLP Dubey]

Can you please give the exact quote from Panini and Mahabharata?

Manusmriti 10.43-44: (I do not have time for using the transliteration scheme)

shanakaistu kriyaalopaadimaa kshatriyajaatayah
vrishalatvam gataa loke brahmanaadarshanena ca
paundrakaashchoudradravidaah kaambojaa yavanaah saakaah
paaradaapahlavaashciina kiraataa daradaah khashaah

Running translation: "Due to the failure to perform the sacred rituals, and not seeking guidance from brahmanas, the following Kshatriya groups have fallen to the status of shudras (vrishalas): the Paundrakas, Choudra, Dravidas, Kambojas, Yavanas, Shakas, Paradas, Pahlavas, Chinas, Kiratas, Daradas, and Khashas."

[KLP Dubey]

What is the relevance of this Kshatriyas controversy being discussed to OIT?
No it is not a serious question - it is cynical sarcasm onlee!

In deriving support for OIT from the Puranas and Ithasas, some people are taking too seriously the "lineages" of Kshatriyas mentioned in those works, and even claiming continuous bloodlines down to the modern Kshatriya groups in India. This is fake history. The real history is that of continuous Sanskritization of new groups and peoples within (and outside) Bharat. This must continue in order to promote the spread of Dharma in India and outside.

[peter]

Can you please give the exact quote from Panini and Mahabharata?

Manusmriti 10.43-44: (I do not have time for using the transliteration scheme)

shanakaistu kriyaalopaadimaa kshatriyajaatayah
vrishalatvam gataa loke brahmanaadarshanena ca
paundrakaashchoudradravidaah kaambojaa yavanaah saakaah
paaradaapahlavaashciina kiraataa daradaah khashaah

Running translation: "Due to the failure to perform the sacred rituals, and not seeking guidance from brahmanas, the following Kshatriya groups have fallen to the status of shudras (vrishalas): the Paundrakas, Choudra, Dravidas, Kambojas, Yavanas, Shakas, Paradas, Pahlavas, Chinas, Kiratas, Daradas, and Khashas."

Does Panini say the same about Kambojas? What does Mahabharat say about fallen Kshatriyas?

[Tuvaluan]

It would serve you and your friend well if you acquainted yourself with some books on AIT to grasp that the rajput making example at Arbud is invoked constantly by the AIT side in support of AIT.

<snip> going on about AIT still, after it has been proven to be utter trash, yelling at others for being ignorant. How precious. <snip> is not going to stop his trolling on this topic and throwing up random BS and pretending AIT is still bestest theory, so don't feed the troll. <snip> is most definitely not interested in listening, if that was not obvious already.

Why should anyone get acquainted with BS like AIT? That only legitimizes a line of thinking that has already been proven to be spurious and accepted as such even by the likes of Romila Thapar, who has now graduated to "aryans strolling down south for a good time" theory or AMT (Aryan Migration Theory).

[peter]

What is the relevance of this Kshatriyas controversy being discussed to OIT?
No it is not a serious question - it is cynical sarcasm onlee!

In deriving support for OIT from the Puranas and Ithasas, some people are taking too seriously the "lineages" of Kshatriyas mentioned in those works, and even claiming continuous bloodlines down to the modern Kshatriya groups in India. This is fake history. The real history is that of continuous Sanskritization of new groups and peoples within (and outside) Bharat. This must continue in order to promote the spread of Dharma in India and outside.

Your statement has a fundamental contradiction. Why would "new groups" be "allowed" to become Kshatriyas? If they were invaders then presumably they could have forced the Brahmanas but we see no such examples in the case of Greeks, Kushans, Sakas or Turks/Mughals and British. In any case the victorious invaders would stamp their own beliefs rather than be stamped by the beliefs of the conquered.

So who exactly were these new groups of people that you keep alluding too?

[Tuvaluan]

Look at how he is pretending that the mughals and the british did not stamp their own beliefs on the local populace, and continues to pretend he is asking "challenging" questions. That's quite funny, actually. Invaders can only stamp their own culture on the locals (just poining out the obvious), not make tweaks on local caste structures because that is not their goal as invaders. The last thing anyone should do is take this turd seriously...just sets the stage for further trolling...of course, in his own mind, he is a legend who has crushed everyone on this thread and convincingly demonstrated the absolute truth of the AIT with his probing questions to all the heathains out here.

If there was an intent to contribute positively, then the first thing to do is not invoke bogus theories that have been proven false, and destroy the continuity of the thread with utter nonsense that was spewed in the context of bogus theories like AIT. This is like two people trying to discuss matter and energy in physics, and some fool coming up with questions like "lightning was known to be the handiwork of Flaturtha, the god of lightning and thunder, so why don't you read the works of flaturtha before you proceed to discuss these matters. There is a fundamental contradiciton in your discussion -- everyone knows that god creates lightning, so your claim that ignores this previous work is ridiculous". That is the level of peter's contribution with his frequent invocation of AIT and other nonsense.

[vishvak]

The real history is that of continuous Sanskritization of new groups and peoples within (and outside) Bharat.

The real history could be that Bharat is melting pot of Dharmic people (thereby genetic variations and similarities outside) that are ethnically cleansed from areas where invaders schemed with pseudo seculars and pretenders of all types to usurp culture under various excuses. A few weeks back I did see an episode from a TV serial (Maharana Pratap) wherein some Mughal general interrogates a Hindu Rajput in brutal fashion, and then suddenly there is a small scene of fixing nails on his hands, out of nowhere! Such twisted representation of stealing credit from very honorable conduct as Rajput (in not divulging info) and twisting it into something else seems to be the order of the day. By the way, I don't 'believe' much on Sanskritization of new groups that actually just out there pretending to be serious about it. It may not be possible against huge odds and very very limited resources available. Similar to how, after Mahabharat war and Krishna leaving his mortal body, Pandavas and Draupadi perform coronation Parikshit as king and then leave for heaven instead of themselves fighting another bunch of barbarians invading Dwarika. It is for the new generation to learn from example and not presume that every time an avatar will come calling.

[ramana]

t no need to get angry. No personal name calling.

[Pulikeshi]

Ok, will be hard to play an umpire between two people - so here are my responses... will get you hers in a bit.

You had asked how this debate on Kshatriyas is relevant to AIT thread. I described to you what "mainstream"

historians believe/write and hence made an effort to show the connection but obviously it is too dense for you to grasp it.

Flat Earth Theory was also main stream, what to do onlee!
The Europeans took longer to undertand the nature of the universe!

Your cricket ganesha example is silly.

Yes and so is yours - exactly my point! My friends' point is that there are no laws in Social Sciences....
You seem to be confused on a simple point - if the original inhabitants of India were invaded, it is they who conferred the Kshatriya title on the invaders per your vacuous theory - then the idea of Kshatriya was inherent in India, Sanskrit was already there, not with the so called marauding nomads Aryans that did not know nothing about home and sacred hearth. Or did the Aryans confer the Kshatriya title on themselves?

It would serve you and your friend well if you acquainted yourself with some books on AIT to grasp that the rajput making example at Arbud is invoked constantly by the AIT side in support of AIT.

If you don't even understand what is being debated why show your ignorance?

My ignorance is better than your grasp at straws!

[Pulikeshi]

Why would "new groups" be "allowed" to become Kshatriyas? If they were invaders then presumably they could have forced the Brahmanas but we see no such examples in the case of Greeks, Kushans, Sakas or Turks/Mughals and British. In any case the victorious invaders would stamp their own beliefs rather than be stamped by the beliefs of the conquered.

So who exactly were these new groups of people that you keep alluding too?

So you agree that Indians invaded South-East Asia and that is why there are Balinese, Viet, Combodian and Javanese Kshatriyas?

[Pulikeshi]

It would serve you and your friend well if you acquainted yourself with some books on AIT to grasp that the rajput making example at Arbud is invoked constantly by the AIT side in support of AIT.

If you don't even understand what is being debated why show your ignorance?

Here is my friends response:

Even the Purusha Sukta uses "Rajanya" not Kshatriya - in the recited Vedas no mention is made of any Kshatriya lineages or Vamsams, it is only in the later Puranic and Ithihasa that all this is mentioned. So there is no relevance to AIT, at that time that Wastern Indologists presume AIT to have occurred, there is no mention of any Kshatriya lineages - also the rituals prescribed - nyagrodha danda (Banyan - Ficus Indica) could not have existed in the Steppes anyway... so what is this confusion of extrapolating medieval arguments to a time when these arguments would make no sense!

[Tuvaluan]

Ramanaji, this guy has been destroying every train of thought before it leaves the station by bringing in AIT nonsense, and getting all snotty about it too, so just giving him a taste of his own medicine. He has read some garbage written by outsiders and thinks it is quite alright to pretend to derisively put down anything that is not from his own "school" of thought. When he won't accept AIT is bogus, and there is plenty outside this thread for that, what is the point in allowing him to bring in AIT and associated garbage over and over again?

If there is to be any progress, then the first thing is to stop pretending that AIT is a valid theory -- it is not. Certain trolls seem to be intent on just derailing anything by pretending that the AIT's garbage is something everyone should know about before making other claims. If that is allowed, then plenty of avenues for trolls to just destroy any continuity by stating "AIT says X so you are all saying a lot of nonsense"..end of story. Anyway, feeding trolls seems to be part of this thread's motivation going by all the troll-feeding. Do AIT trollers really need to be convinced? and to what end? whatever.

For example, why would mughals or the british care to force people from being caste X to caste Y? How is this even a legitimate response to what was said before, which was entirely in the local context of people moving between castes, a version of local history that is not being allowed to be spelt out. Why should this kind of stupid nonsense from peter be tolerated, more than it has already? I would like to hear more about how and why these migration between castes occurred and what was the rationale behind all that, if possible. Ossification of people in their own castes seems inevitable if castes became associated with power and influence, rather than quality/skill of the person -- not that I agree with any of these concepts as being desirable today or ever. But it was something that existed in the past, and may even exist right now in societies everywhere in a different form....anyway, the "scholarship" of foreigners on this topc is useless, to say the least, and trying to understand something new here instead of some AIT cr@p.