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.
Brilliant!! Provides strong OIT support and demolishes several AIT lies. I love how multidisciplinary scientists from India are taking apart AIT.
Lie #1: the original lie. There was no Saraswati. There was only an Indus civilization
Lie #2: there was a Saraswati, but it was the corrupted version of Harahvaiti, which was a river in Afghanistan that the Aryans first encountered
Lie #3: Saraswati river existed. But it was seasonal. The civilization depended on monsoon rains & were subject to the vagaries of the river
Reality #1: Saraswati existed. In modern times, the Gaggar Hakra flows in its paleochannel. The original river is very ancient: 80k years old
Reality #2: It was big & perennial from 80kya - 20kya. Importantly, it was perennial 9kya - 4.5 kya (Saraswati/Harappan civilization time window)
Reality #3: It supported the most extensive Bronze Age civilization
Reality #4: The Rig Veda spoke of this very same, massive Saraswati river, that was "as wide as the ocean" & "flowed from Himalayas to the sea"
Reality #5: Since the Saraswati started breaking up around 4500 years ago, it marked the zenith & subsequent decline of the Harappan civilization
Reality #6: The above dates place Rig Veda comfortably prior to 4500 years ago
Reality #7: After 4500 years ago, the Saraswati civilization de-urbanized, people moved upstream and downstream of the river
Disappointed in above article. Repeatedly makes the claim of "Rig Veda mentions Yahweh multiple times," but doesn't present a single verse in corroboration.
Does the Rig Veda really mention Yahweh?
If the word Yahweh had been used only infrequently in Hindu scriptures, we might have assumed that it was an orchestrated import. But on the contrary, the word appears dozens of times in the Rig Veda, in multiple declensions, as a noun, a verb, an adverb or an adjective.
You'd think a claim like the above would be easy to back up with verses.
One of the commenters seems to have torn into the author of that article. I wish the comment hadn't been that rude, but I agree with the gist of it.
Either the author took Swarajyamag for a ride, or somebody took the author himself for a ride. Either way, Swarajyamag's credibility has taken a hit in my eyes, if they're going to publish such arrant nonsense as the above with no oversight or cross-checking.
sudarshan wrote:Rig Vedic references to Yahweh?Disappointed in above article. Repeatedly makes the claim of "Rig Veda mentions Yahweh multiple times," but doesn't present a single verse in corroboration.Does the Rig Veda really mention Yahweh?
If the word Yahweh had been used only infrequently in Hindu scriptures, we might have assumed that it was an orchestrated import. But on the contrary, the word appears dozens of times in the Rig Veda, in multiple declensions, as a noun, a verb, an adverb or an adjective.
You'd think a claim like the above would be easy to back up with verses.
That link does quote verses with locations, thanks. And there are also a lot of "yahvah"s in those verses. The correspondence with "Yahweh," if any, is at best tenuous, just based on similar sounds. Anyways....
Another Breakthrough -
introgression of indicine-derived DNA into Central Italian white cattle breeds, possibly as the result of several gene flow events during agro-pastrolist Out of India Migration about 8000 years ago.
I'm not sure this book has been mentioned so far - I've just finished reading `The Sarasvati Civilisation' by Maj Gen GD Bakshi .
Its free on Kindle unlimited - though I would urge Rakshaks to buy it.
The author needs no introduction and I've had the pleasure of knowing him personally - one of the few writing on this subject, who has a pro India / Indic view.
The book has a great deal of research across multiple disciplines - geology, archaeology, remote sensing, religious texts, linguistics etc.
Impressive that he has moved from writing on military subjects to a book in this area- which required a huge amount of research at the age of 70
with no backup (a good editor would have add more value though). A must read for all true Indians and a book that needs to be widely publicised.
"There was no Aryan invasion or migration but movement was happening throughout from the beginning of agriculture in South Asia....neither Steppes pastorals nor Iranian farmers contributed to the South Asian ancestry," he said.
According to him, in Rakhigarhi samples they found that Harappans were not carrying any genetic signatures from Iranian-related ancestry. Genetically, Steppe introgression has not happened until 1000 BCE. Mixing with Steppes was gradual and not sudden and thus rejects the invasion or replacement of the local South Asian with Steppes.
Prof Shinde said that it was also evident that there was a significant movement of Harappans towards Central Asia. There is presence of Harappan-like ancestry in Turkmenistan and Iran contemporary to Mature Indus Valley era. The genetic results also indicate that Vedic knowledge was indigenous and not brought by so-called Indo-Aryans.
Nick Allen has repeatedly shown that in many parallel motifs in the Mahabharata and in Homer’s epics, the Indian version contains a spiritual element lacking in the European version.
So, yoga existed in the Indo-European homeland, but the Greeks lost it.
The logical explanation, which stares him in the face but which he as an invasionist fails to draw, is that this dimension was lost in the rough and tumble of the trek to their historical habitat.
The most precious elements are the ones that get lost most easily, such as in a corpse, where the brain starts disintegrating at once whereas the skeleton can last for centuries.
Similarly, the twists in the story were more or less preserved but the subtle yoga teachings in it were gradually forgotten, with only a remnant like the Single Eye reminding of it.
In that case, India was their common homeland, but only the stay-behind Indians had the comfort of a stable situation where they could preserve the most subtle layer of their stories.
The invasionist explanation would be that the Aryan barbarians did not have this profound layer to their narratives, but reinterpreted these once they interiorised the native Indian tradition of yoga.
This is not impossible, but in that case they would not so much have added a new content to their old stories, but adopted the appropriate aboriginal stories that transmitted the yoga doctrines.
This promising first impression needs to be verified in closer research, informed by a knowledge of Indian spirituality.
Sharing some amazing new insights by a Russian Archaeologist Dr. Alexandr Semenenko. His work/book promises to be as pathbreaking as those of Shrikant Talageri.
Key points
1) AIT crapologists have been lying about Sintashta/Andronovo "war chariots". Dr. Semenenko shows that historically, there has been a difference between a horse-drawn cart (vs) a horse-drawn war chariot. All the archaeological evidence we have from Sintashta etc are meagre wheel fragments. Based on less than 1/8th of a wheel fragment, an entire war-chariot with axles, stands, scaffolding etc has been cooked up. They're most likely carts.
2) He affirms that the Sanauli chariot is a true horse-drawn war chariot. Its body/wheels have been extremely well preserved and satisfy the requirements of a war chariot. Not to mention other finds in the grave like antenna swords, copper helmets etc
In case Shri Nilesh Oak is still following this thread, or if somebody has his ear (assuming he isn't already aware of this - for all I know, he might even be a mover behind this):
darshan wrote:
Keshubhai Patel reappointed as Chairman of Shri Somnath Trust for one more year https://www.deshgujarat.com/2020/09/30/ ... more-year/
...
Prime Minister Narendrabhai Modi during the meeting suggested to plan a development project with scientific basis regarding Indian dating of Shri Krishna era, Dwapar to Kaliyug shift and Vaikunth of Shri Krishna, while discussing the development of Golok Dham in Somnath, the place where Shri Krishna left his body.
...
An excellent article that talks about the missing link between Harappan civilication and the Vedic people. Provides good evidence about how the fire altars at Kalibangan etc were really Vedic altars. Also debunks claims by charlatans like Anthony who tried to make Kurgan burials look like Ashwamedha sacrifice
Michael Witzel has published paper critiquing Talageri Ji's work. It has 10 points where Talageri ji is wrong according to to Witzel. At places you fell like you are reading a tabloid website and not an academic paper, I only eyeballed it. I cannot wait for Talageri Ji to respond to this and tear it apart. I will just wait for Talageri Ji's response and not waste my time reading this.
Edit:
Link removed.
Last edited by ashbhee on 06 Oct 2020 00:24, edited 1 time in total.
Request you to kindly remove the link. Let's link Talageri's response, which is sure to come as you mention.
Witzel is a long-in-the-tooth joker. No need for us to give publicity to his garbage
All these years, Western Indologists were afraid of taking on Talageri because of his rigor. So, they pretend like he & his work don't exist. Witzel is now asking for it.
Prem Kumar wrote:Request you to kindly remove the link. Let's link Talageri's response, which is sure to come as you mention.
Witzel is a long-in-the-tooth joker. No need for us to give publicity to his garbage
All these years, Western Indologists were afraid of taking on Talageri because of his rigor. So, they pretend like he & his work don't exist. Witzel is now asking for it.
Researcher Chakraborthy confirms pervasive milk-product-usage in the Indus Valley Civilization from at least as far back as 2500 BCE!!
Its interesting to note that the earliest lactase-persistence in Europe was discovered in an individual there between 2450 and 2140 BCE
In conjunction with genetic, textual (Rig Vedic) & archaelogical data about how Zebu bulls colonized the West, the picture is becoming very clear. Pastoral Indus Valley people moved West, gave them cattle-rearing techniques and brought language/civilization to them.
New paper by Gyaneshwar Chaubey & others. They analyzed ancient-mtDNA from Mesopotamia and demonstrate that these are descendants of people from the Indian Subcontinent. The aDNA is from samples ranging from 2500 BCE till 500 AD.
The authors also say that its possible that the Sumerian civilization was founded by Indian immigrants (though more proof is needed)
For instance, it is commonly accepted that the founders of Sumerian civilization came from the outside of the region, their exact origin is, however, still a matter of debate. It is suggested that migrants of Iranian, Indian [32], [33] or even Tibetan affinity [34] founded the Sumerian civilization, which suggestion can be supported by comparing the Tibeto-Burman and Sumerian languages [35]. The migrants could have entered Mesopotamia earlier than 45 centuries ago, during the lifetime of the oldest studied individual, as the Tibetan Plateau was peopled more than 20 Kyrs ago [21], [36]. However, one also should consider the possibility that studied individuals belonged to the groups of itinerant merchants moving along a trade route passing near or through the region, since a recent comparative study of strontium, oxygen, and carbon isotopes content in enamel indicates that people from Indus Valley were present in southern Mesopotamia 3 Kyrs BC [37].
Not directly related to OIT but some of you might find this interesting.
11th century Kannada inscription referring Bangalore by its name. This is from the time of Ganga dynasty.
Dr. Gyaneshwar Chaubey demolishes another dumb lie by Witzel. Readers of this forum would recall Witzel's half-baked theory about how Mundas were the original inhabitants (the "Adivasi" bunkum) of India.
Y-chromosome analysis by Dr. Chaubey has shown that the Munda-founders entered India from South East Asia as recent as 3000 BCE. There were 4 founders who likely brought in the Munda languages & the Tibeto-Burman language into India
Brilliant paper by Kalyan Sekhar Chakraborthy et al. Demonstrates with high rigor the consumption of milk & milk-products in mature Harappan times at the very least & possibly going back to 6000 BCE when cattle domestication was first done in the region.
Analysis was done based on absorption of fatty acids in the pottery used for cooking/storing. Pottery samples are from what is modern-day Gujarat
Implications
1) Pastoralism/cattle-herding was well developed in the IVC, likely before any other civilization & certainly the Steppes
2) Lactose tolerance mutation likely evolved in Indian subcontinent and it spread from here to the West
3) The paper shows that the cattle didn't forage in the wild but consumed agricultural crops. Supports the Rakhigarhi aDNA & other studies, which show that agriculture was an independent development in the IVC and likely predated even that in the Fertile Crescent. Busts another myth that India *imported* agriculture knowhow from the Fertile Crescent
Noob question, which occurred to me when typing away on another thread. Asking from a position of ignorance (but with genuine curiosity), so please go easy.
With these linguistic "proofs" of AIT - would it be worthwhile pointing out the vast difference between Indian scripts, and other scripts the world over, including the Greek one? The difference isn't just in the shape of letters or the letters themselves, it is in the entire paradigm of representing sounds by letters.
The current Greek and Latin scripts (the latter being derived from the former, and the former being derived from earlier Asiatic scripts) - these both have distinct vowels and consonants, which are never combined. Letters don't change shape, and there is a distinction between upper case and lower case letters.
Indian scripts have vowels and pure consonants, and then they have letters which combine a consonant with a vowel. With the use of hooks and other marks to indicate which vowel is being blended with the consonant. Tamil has hooks ("kokki"), "leg" markers ("kaal"), and dots ("pulli"s). Devanagiri has hooks, chandramas, dots, legs (to lengthen "a" sounds to "aa") etc. A vowel-consonant combo (sorry - don't know technical terms here, just making up my own terminology) is a distinct letter by itself. And there is one-to-one correspondence between a written letter and a spoken sound. This is true of scripts all over India (so far as I know - I'm no expert).
All the above is distinct from the current European paradigm. Modern European languages, which have adopted the Latin or Greek script, also have dots, accents, graves etc., but these basically serve to adapt Latin letters to represent sounds distinct to those languages. And most European languages today don't have one-to-one correspondence between written letters and spoken sounds. Vowels are distinct from consonants, never fused to make a new letter. So they get away with using 24 symbols. Whereas Tamil has 247 symbols (not counting other symbols added on to represent sounds which exist in Sanskrit, but not in traditional Tamil - such as "sa," "ha," "sha" etc.).
The other thing about European languages: this letter "h." It softens or modifies consonant sounds. So "t" is softened by adding an "h" and becomes "th," a totally distinct consonant. Or "s" becomes "sh" when the "h" is added. Russian has no "h" per se, but it does have two distinct modifiers, the "soft sign" and the "hard sign," which soften or harden consonants.
To be fair, Tamil has the above, to some extent. In a sense, the use of the "kaal" mark to lengthen an "a" consonant to "aa" is kind of the same thing. On top of that, the "ou" sound (like in "Gouri") - "Gouri" in Tamil can be read as "Gelari" since that letter combination is used to represent that sound. Or the distinct "ayudha ezhutthu" (literally - "weapon letter" - since this looks like the three dots on the face of a shield) - this is often used in combination with the "pa" consonant to represent "f" sounds, which are otherwise not native to Tamil.
Bottomline - the scripts are vastly different, in fact the paradigms on which the scripts are based are themselves different, between India and Europe. Within India, the paradigms are largely the same. Within Europe, the paradigms are again similar. So what "Indo-European?"
sudarshan wrote:
With these linguistic "proofs" of AIT - would it be worthwhile pointing out the vast difference between Indian scripts, and other scripts the world over, including the Greek one? The difference isn't just in the shape of letters or the letters themselves, it is in the entire paradigm of representing sounds by letters.
I am not linguist by any means but can read, write, speak, understand 2 Indian languages (Telugu & Hindi) and one foreign language (English). I can also speak and understand (but not read/write) Tamizh. Because of my exposure to Hindi, I can read Devanagari script. These days I have taken to reading Samskrith on Twitter I find Samskrith difficult but can understand the gist of a tweet.
Sudarshanji, now that you mention the differences between Greek/Latin & Samskrith, from my limited perspective, words in English have spelling & pronunciation. Telugu, Hindi, Samskrith do not have either.
And there is one-to-one correspondence between a written letter and a spoken sound.
Words in these Indian languages are written as they are spoken and spoken as written. Also, none of the Indian languages I know, have a concept of uppercase and lowercase. This must be due to the influence of Samskrith. If Samskrith doesn't have spelling/pronunciaation/cases, why would Telugu/Hindi have it?
I am certain this is so in other Indian languages. Speakers/natives of other languages may confirm if it is the same in their languages.
la.khan wrote:words in English have spelling & pronunciation. Telugu, Hindi, Samskrith do not have either.
Agree in general, but didn't get the above bit. I think you meant to say - in English, spelling and pronunciation aren't consistent or one-to-one, whereas in Indian languages they mostly are?
In Tamil, there is ambiguity between "ka" - "ga", "sa" - "cha", "pa" - "ba" etc. So a written word can be pronounced in multiple ways, in that sense, there is no one-to-one between spelling and pronunciation. But a spoken word can only be written in one way. My personal theory is that the original Tamil only had "ka", "cha", and "pa", and the "ga", "sa", and "ba" came about due to exposure to Sanskrit, so the same letter was adapted to represent those new sounds. If I got that wrong - sorry, no offence to anybody, it's just my personal theory.
Indian scripts have vowels and pure consonants, and then they have letters which combine a consonant with a vowel. With the use of hooks and other marks to indicate which vowel is being blended with the consonant. Tamil has hooks ("kokki"), "leg" markers ("kaal"), and dots ("pulli"s). Devanagiri has hooks, chandramas, dots, legs (to lengthen "a" sounds to "aa") etc. A vowel-consonant combo (sorry - don't know technical terms here, just making up my own terminology) is a distinct letter by itself. And there is one-to-one correspondence between a written letter and a spoken sound. This is true of scripts all over India (so far as I know - I'm no expert).
la.khan wrote:words in English have spelling & pronunciation. Telugu, Hindi, Samskrith do not have either.
Agree in general, but didn't get the above bit. I think you meant to say - in English, spelling and pronunciation aren't consistent or one-to-one, whereas in Indian languages they mostly are?
Maybe, I was wrong earlier when I said Indian languages have no spelling. Just to clarify, words in Indian languages are spelt when writing or read or spoken. Whereas in English, words are spelt when written, pronounced when read and/or spoken.
The gist of my argument is that European languages have spellings & pronunciations while Indian languages only spell. These languages are different in script, syntax, sound, ethos etc. Hard to imagine these languages coming from the same source of some mythical PIE
sudarshan wrote:In Tamil, there is ambiguity between "ka" - "ga", "sa" - "cha", "pa" - "ba" etc.
That is a problem only with Tamizh, AFAIK. Other south Indian languages, certainly Telugu, Kannada, Oriya, and Marathi, do not have that problem. It is a 5x5 grid. They are all phonetic. Tamizh is an odd language out.
Haven't paid much attention to scripts in IE languages and their relationships. But I'd assume that, since scripts always evolve later than spoken language, any similarities would be the result of subsequent migrations from India (post-IE language dispersal from India)
If there aren't similarities, it could also be because people just used the local script to write a foreign language. Example in India: for a long time, Sanskrit was written in Malayalam script in Kerala. Even today, we see people writing Hindi/Tamil in English script in Twitter/WhatsApp etc.
Another area to investigate would be the numeral system and if they are similar in IE regions.
When it comes to scripts, the Indian system (Sanskrit, Hindi, Tamil etc) are much more evolved than the Latin script. The arrangement of consonants in Sanskrit is based on where the sound is created inside the human body (i.e, places of articulation starting from glottal and proceeding to velar, palatal and dental). Tamil has a very similar arrangement. Pretty sure that it was the result of knowledge-sharing within India.
Example:
Sanskrit: Ka, kha, gha, Gha, Gna
Tamil: Ka, nga, cha, nja
The a, b, c, d system in English is a jumbled mess which is neither phonetically organized, nor are the vowels & consonants separated. Looks like the ideas from India were borrowed but the logic was forgotten.
Yes, Tamil even classifies the consonants as "vallinam, mellinam, and idaiyinam" (meaning - strong, soft, and intermediate), depending on the effort needed to pronounce them, basically, place of articulation (don't know which is glottal/ palatal etc. - I'm not familiar with those terms). The standard formula taught in schools is "ka-sa-da-dha-ba-Ra vallinam; nga-nya-na-NA-ma-Na mellinam; ya-ra-la-va-zha-La idaiyinam."
@VT - Tamil being odd in that respect, could be interpreted to mean that Tamil is much older, hence making do with a more limited consonant set, until other languages gained experience in required and possible consonants. Don't know how true that theory is, don't want to start any language wars. Malayalam might be similar to Tamil (guessing).
If you look at how ka-sa-da-tha-pa-ra pronunciation is sequenced, the place of articulation starts from the throat and gradually moves forward. Just like it happens for Sanskrit. That's a solid pointer that the speakers of these languages interacted and ideas were shared.
Tamil having a limited consonant set might not mean its older. So far, all evidence points to Sanskrit being older (example: there is no Tamil artifact that's older than say the Vedas). But since spoken language goes back several millennia, one never knows.
Its possible that Sanskrit might have developed various consonants because of a wider sphere of interaction with people over a larger geography. So, innovations might have been adopted from all over before the language got formalized. Just a theory, of course....
sudarshan wrote:Noob question, which occurred to me when typing away on another thread. Asking from a position of ignorance (but with genuine curiosity), so please go easy.
With these linguistic "proofs" of AIT - would it be worthwhile pointing out the vast difference between Indian scripts, and other scripts the world over, including the Greek one? The difference isn't just in the shape of letters or the letters themselves, it is in the entire paradigm of representing sounds by letters.
If you have not listened to Srikanth Talageri's lectures, that should be your first stop.
sudarshan wrote:In Tamil, there is ambiguity between "ka" - "ga", "sa" - "cha", "pa" - "ba" etc.
That is a problem only with Tamizh, AFAIK. Other south Indian languages, certainly Telugu, Kannada, Oriya, and Marathi, do not have that problem. It is a 5x5 grid. They are all phonetic. Tamizh is an odd language out.
___________________________________
There are clear rules of grammar which specify pronunciation of consonants in Tamil
We normally use the soft syllable in the beginning of a word , while the hard syllable is used when the consonant comes in the middle of a word
For example, Kadal - sea - soft ka
Thangam - hard ka in the middle
The ka and ga are the same Tamil consonant
It is another thing that many Tamil speakers forget the rules and make a mess while speaking Tamil
Hindi having gender for all objects is because of its Sanskrit parentage. But Sanskrit has strict rules on whether a noun is masculine, feminine or neuter. Not sure if Hindi has such rules.
Some Indo-European languages display this property (like Spanish) while some don't (like English)
Prem Kumar ji, why are you also using the "IE" terminology?
@hanumadu ji: In many European languages, nouns are taught together with the definite article. For example, the German word for chair being "Stuhl," but is always presented as "Der Stuhl." So if you asked a German speaker "how do you say 'chair?'" the answer would be "Der Stuhl." Likewise "Der Arm" is arm, "Der Bleistift" is pencil, "Das Auto" is for car, "Der Baum" is for tree, "Die Hand" is for hand. So learning the noun with the article (Der, Die, Das for M/F/N) from the beginning helps remember the gender. Likewise in French - Le/ La is "baked in" when learning the nouns (French only has M/F, no neuter).
In Russian, there are no definite articles (like in all Indian languages) so one can't do that. However, Russian has relatively consistent rules - any noun ending in a hard consonant is masculine, ending in -a or -ya is feminine, and ending in -o or -e is neuter (though there are exceptions).
I think S. Indians have a hard time with Hindi, because there don't seem to be consistent rules for determining gender, and also - there are no definite articles to learn with the nouns, to remember the gender.
I find Samskrith difficult but can understand the gist of a tweet.