Jats are 15% of Punjab's population
rsh...@globalserve.net
The Sikh Jats in Punjab make up only 15% of Punjab's population. There
are more Jat Hindus than there are Jat Sikhs in India. The rest of the
Sikhs in Punjab are Ramgarhias, Khatris, Aroras, and lower class Sikhs
like Gurupdesh Singh. That brings the total to 53% of the Sikh
population in Punjab. The Punjabi Hindus make up the rest of Punjab;
consisting of Brahmans, Rajputs, Jats, Khatris etc... The population
of Muslims is null in Punjab, India. During the 1947 partition, most
Muslims were slaughtered by the Sikhs and Hindus in Punjab, India; at
the same time the Sikhs and Hindus were killed in so-called Pakistan
by the Muslims.
RS
**************************************************
"Courage is resistance to fear, mastery
of fear - not absence of fear."
Mark Twain
**************************************************
BD
rsh...@globalserve.net wrote:
>The Sikh Jats in Punjab make up only 15% of Punjab's population. There
>are more Jat Hindus than there are Jat Sikhs in India. The rest of the
>Sikhs in Punjab are Ramgarhias, Khatris, Aroras, and lower class Sikhs
>like Gurupdesh Singh. That brings the total to 53% of the Sikh
>population in Punjab. The Punjabi Hindus make up the rest of Punjab;
>consisting of Brahmans, Rajputs, Jats, Khatris etc... The population
>of Muslims is null in Punjab, India. During the 1947 partition, most
>Muslims were slaughtered by the Sikhs and Hindus in Punjab, India; at
>the same time the Sikhs and Hindus were killed in so-called Pakistan
>by the Muslims.
>
And where did u get this information from....local RSS
newsletter..maybe.
Look at 1991 GOI census; Jat Sikhs are actually 43% of the population
in Punjab and the overall Sikh population is close to 60%.
BD
rsh...@globalserve.net
On Sun, 30 Mar 1997 22:41:01 -0600, Kanwar Dhaliwal
<kdha...@coewl.cen.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Why dont you just assume your beliefs to be the facts and be at peace
>with yourself. Stop wasting everybody's time here cause you don't belong
>on this newsgroup.Sharma jee, ghar jao kyonke raat de baraan baj gaye
>han.
Mr. Dhaliwal, I have historical facts of our family ten generations
back in Punjab. Probably longer than your family has been in Punjab! I
don't think you belong in this newsgroup, I think you should pack up
your bags and go to soc.culture.rajasthan where more of your people
are. Stop wasting your time, I think you need to get laid!!! Sexual
frustration results in hatred, envy and jealousy. You Kanwar are
sexually frustrated.
Dayanand
BD (dhal...@wwnet.com) wrote:
: rsh...@globalserve.net wrote:
:
: >The Sikh Jats in Punjab make up only 15% of Punjab's population. There
: >are more Jat Hindus than there are Jat Sikhs in India. The rest of the
: >Sikhs in Punjab are Ramgarhias, Khatris, Aroras, and lower class Sikhs
: >like Gurupdesh Singh. That brings the total to 53% of the Sikh
: >population in Punjab. The Punjabi Hindus make up the rest of Punjab;
: >consisting of Brahmans, Rajputs, Jats, Khatris etc... The population
: >of Muslims is null in Punjab, India. During the 1947 partition, most
: >Muslims were slaughtered by the Sikhs and Hindus in Punjab, India; at
: >the same time the Sikhs and Hindus were killed in so-called Pakistan
: >by the Muslims.
:
: >
:
: And where did u get this information from....local RSS
: newsletter..maybe.
No, he gets it from the Hindoostani Ministry of Truth.
ukko...@cc.memphis.edu
Sharma writes:
> Mr. Dhaliwal, I have historical facts of our family ten generations
> back in Punjab. Probably longer than your family has been in Punjab! I
> don't think you belong in this newsgroup, I think you should pack up
> your bags and go to soc.culture.rajasthan where more of your people
> are. Stop wasting your time, I think you need to get laid!!! Sexual
> frustration results in hatred, envy and jealousy. You Kanwar are
> sexually frustrated.
What rubbish Sharma! It's not Kanwar. It is Kauwa of Dhaliwal village.
Shelly
ukko...@cc.memphis.edu
rsh...@globalserve.net writes:
> The Sikh Jats in Punjab make up only 15% of Punjab's population. There
> are more Jat Hindus than there are Jat Sikhs in India. The rest of the
> Sikhs in Punjab are Ramgarhias, Khatris, Aroras, and lower class Sikhs
> like Gurupdesh Singh. That brings the total to 53% of the Sikh
> population in Punjab. The Punjabi Hindus make up the rest of Punjab;
> consisting of Brahmans, Rajputs, Jats, Khatris etc... The population
> of Muslims is null in Punjab, India. During the 1947 partition, most
> Muslims were slaughtered by the Sikhs and Hindus in Punjab, India; at
> the same time the Sikhs and Hindus were killed in so-called Pakistan
> by the Muslims.
Even if your figures are not accurate (figures reported for %age of Punjab's
population that is Hindu range from 35 to 49%), they do explain the
methodology of the Khalistan movement. Even if an outstanding 100% of the
Sikhs begin supporting the separatist movement, the opposition would still
be too significant to make Khalistan automatically viable. The fact is that
the Khalistanis at the most had only enjoyed pockets of support among the
rural Jats. For the movement to make even the barest impact, it was imperative
quash anything of a democratic nature. And that is exactly what happened.
Their power came not through civilian mandate, but through murder, religious
persecution, hit lists, ethnic cleansing and the threat of terror.
This was the core policy. Their victims were not unfortunate sods
"caught in the crossfire." They were part of the design. It was
practically inconceivable for them to have made a mark via an alternate
mode.
Shelly
Dayanand
ukko...@cc.memphis.edu wrote:
:
: What rubbish Sharma! It's not Kanwar. It is Kauwa of Dhaliwal village.
:
: Shelly
heh heh heh the anonymous bahman bigot dares to insult a nettor who is
proud enough to use his real last name, how about you shelly kochar(?)
what are you so ashamed of - was your mommy a devdasi who got screwed by a
horny brahmin and left you a bastard???
Jaspreet S. Bains
rsh...@globalserve.net wrote:
>
> [ deleted ]... The population
> of Muslims is null in Punjab, India. During the 1947 partition, most
> Muslims were slaughtered by the Sikhs and Hindus in Punjab, India; at
> the same time the Sikhs and Hindus were killed in so-called Pakistan
> by the Muslims.
>
>
>
>
> **************************************************
> "Courage is resistance to fear, mastery
> of fear - not absence of fear."
>
> Mark Twain
> **************************************************
Cheers,
J.S.Bains.
Dayanand
ukko...@cc.memphis.edu wrote:
:
: Even if your figures are not accurate (figures reported for %age of Punjab's
: population that is Hindu range from 35 to 49%), they do explain the
Typical hindoostani propoganda and denials - at most, hindus comprise
30% of Punjab's population, the rest being Sikhs, Moslem and others.
Many hindus fled shitting their dhotis over the last few decades as
sikhs began to assert their rights.
KSP GILL
How do you know? Khalistani propoganda! I was just in Punjab, India
last year. My evidence is far superior than what is written on paper.
KSP GILL
On 2 Apr 1997 14:20:46 GMT, 4h...@qlink.queensu.ca (Dayanand) wrote:
>ukko...@cc.memphis.edu wrote:
>:
>: Even if your figures are not accurate (figures reported for %age of Punjab's
>: population that is Hindu range from 35 to 49%), they do explain the
>
>Typical hindoostani propoganda and denials - at most, hindus comprise
> 30% of Punjab's population, the rest being Sikhs, Moslem and others.
>Many hindus fled shitting their dhotis over the last few decades as
>sikhs began to assert their rights.
Dream on buddy! There about 45% Punjabi Hindus and hardly any Muslims
in Punjab, India!
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <33449f6c...@news.globalserve.net>,
rsh...@globalserve.net (KSP GILL) wrote:
>On 2 Apr 1997 14:20:46 GMT, 4h...@qlink.queensu.ca (Dayanand) wrote:
>
>>ukko...@cc.memphis.edu wrote:
>>:
>>: Even if your figures are not accurate (figures reported for %age of
Punjab's
>>: population that is Hindu range from 35 to 49%), they do explain the
>>
>>Typical hindoostani propoganda and denials - at most, hindus comprise
>> 30% of Punjab's population, the rest being Sikhs, Moslem and others.
>>Many hindus fled shitting their dhotis over the last few decades as
>>sikhs began to assert their rights.
>last year. My evidence is far superior than what is written on paper.
>
According to the 1991 census, the Punjabi population is 68% Sikh. The
remaining 32% are Dalits, Caste Hindus (OCs), Muslims, and Christians.
The OCs generally make up 7% of Hindus (based on Mandal Commission report
using 1941 census data - last time caste statistics were gathered).
Therefore, of the remaining 28% non-Sikhs (subtracting Muslims/Christians),
7% x .28% = 2% are OCs. The remaining 26% of Punjabis - Dalits - are
recorded as "Hindus" by the Castecracy. They began to be dubbed "hindus"
since the late 19th century by OC idealogues/politicians for political
reasons; previously, Brahmins would not even allow them into their temples as
they were considered "polluted".
Punjabi Dalits (26%) are culturally, ethnically, and linguistically very close
to Sikhs. They were never invited by elitist and supremacist organization
such as the Arya Samajists ("Aryan Society") and RSS to come join their
temples, schools and civic associations. These are all "ganga-based"
organizations set-up during the late 19th century by Bengalis/Poorbias with
racial complexes ("Arya-envy") and imported into Punjab after the region's
annexation to the British empire in 1857.
Punjabi Dalits are also now politically independent of OCs, having formed
their own political parties like the BSP headed by Dalit leaders. In the new
Punjabi political scene, they are more "friendly" and allied to "Sikh" parties
than right wing chauvanistic "Hindu" parties supported by Arya Samajists/RSS
OCs of Punjab.
Now that Sikhs and Dalits (68% + 26% = 94%) have smartened-up and "found their
political feet", they dont actually care what the 2% "gangooized" Punjabi OCs
think or do! Over the past 5 decades, Punjabi OC's have rejected the Punjabi
language/culture for the Hindi and the "dasu-culture" of gangasthan. They
will politically be a non-entity in the near future. In fact, they are the
ones who will need "Sikh sympathy/support" in the future now that central
power is swaying to the Dalits and their Muslim allies and the Akalis/Dalit
alliance had carried state power in Punjab. So, they should use the time to
start deliberating between the Gurdwara or the Sant Ravidass Mandirs of
Punjabi Dalits.
Regards,
Gurupdesh
P.S. By the way, Ravidass Mandirs keep the Guru Granth Sahib since the
Bani of Sant Ravidass (a "Shudra") is recorded there. They also
dont keep Brahmin priests. Infact, Punjabi Dalits are no longer
"Hindus" in any Brahmanical sense. Therefore, Punjab's population
is 98% non-Brahmanical. It is in fact a rare sight to find a Brahmin
temple these days in Punjab.
N. Tiwari
Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
: P.S. By the way, Ravidass Mandirs keep the Guru Granth Sahib since the
: Bani of Sant Ravidass (a "Shudra") is recorded there. They also
: dont keep Brahmin priests. Infact, Punjabi Dalits are no longer
: "Hindus" in any Brahmanical sense. Therefore, Punjab's population
: is 98% non-Brahmanical. It is in fact a rare sight to find a Brahmin
: temple these days in Punjab.
And despite this cultural and numerical dominance, Guru_pradesh_singh_ji
would have us believe that Bhayaas, and Gangoo bhais are messing
up with aamaar sonaar punjab beyond redemption.
--
Nachiketa Tiwari
Dayanand
KSP GILL (rsh...@globalserve.net) wrote:
: >Typical hindoostani propoganda and denials - at most, hindus comprise
: > 30% of Punjab's population, the rest being Sikhs, Moslem and others.
: >Many hindus fled shitting their dhotis over the last few decades as
: >sikhs began to assert their rights.
: How do you know? Khalistani propoganda! I was just in Punjab, India
: last year. My evidence is far superior than what is written on paper.
:
Well in that case my sincerest apologies ;-)
p.s. you need help.
One Step
Aaaah, Jassa/Dayand AKA Eunich Pinku decldes to fawn fake civility,
alright foodoo, let's see how long you can be decent and civilized, you
have been the king of rude buttholes for 2 years now but I'll give you
the benefit of the doubt and back off and observe. I utterly dislike
your filth and obnoxious responses to the bulk of the people on this NG,
but perhaps even your baboon ass is capable of evolution. Let us see.
Anindya Ghoshal
Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
: >
: According to the 1991 census, the Punjabi population is 68% Sikh. The
: remaining 32% are Dalits, Caste Hindus (OCs), Muslims, and Christians.
: The OCs generally make up 7% of Hindus (based on Mandal Commission report
: using 1941 census data - last time caste statistics were gathered).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your information is wrong. The last time that caste info. was gathered
was in 1931 and Mondol Commission's report was based on that. It had been
proven to be a highly faulty document that its data hadn't accepted
by many state governments including West Bengal, Orissa, Assam etc.
Since 1931 there had been a three-fold explosion of Indian populace,
and due to different reasons this population increase is not at all
uniform throughout India. Like increase in population in UP, Bihar
is much higher than West Bengal or in any state in South. Obviously,
thus different strata of the society will have different increase depending
on several parameters. Your data also doesn't take into account the
exchange of population that took place during partition in Punjab,
Sindh and Bengal. Given usage of little intelligence you'll find
that your statistics about castes is totally faulty.
: Therefore, of the remaining 28% non-Sikhs (subtracting Muslims/Christians),
: 7% x .28% = 2% are OCs. The remaining 26% of Punjabis - Dalits - are
: recorded as "Hindus" by the Castecracy. They began to be dubbed "hindus"
: since the late 19th century by OC idealogues/politicians for political
: reasons; previously, Brahmins would not even allow them into their temples as
: they were considered "polluted".
: Punjabi Dalits (26%) are culturally, ethnically, and linguistically very close
: to Sikhs. They were never invited by elitist and supremacist organization
: such as the Arya Samajists ("Aryan Society") and RSS to come join their
: temples, schools and civic associations. These are all "ganga-based"
: organizations set-up during the late 19th century by Bengalis/Poorbias with
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: racial complexes ("Arya-envy") and imported into Punjab after the region's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: annexation to the British empire in 1857.
Oh Mister Knowledgeable, please be more explicit about your so preciously
held theories of the "organizations" set-up during the late 19th Century
by Bengalis/Poorbias...beneath that contempt your racist bigoted is
cleverly been manifested several times on the net. It had been a year
and half, since you Sir, had failed dismally to put any supportive argument
on your previous claim about Vivekanand having spread hatred against
other religions!! If you want, one can dig up the relevant articles
about your claim from USENET archives. FYI in Bengal today, these
caste-based things are totally redundant things and much thanks to those
great reformers of 19th Cent., for whom, you show your highly uneducated
despise. We have no problems if you want to be another religious fundee
of just another shade and class...just squirm back to your fundee-rat-hole
and to the Century you belong to!!
rgds,
Anindo.
--
-------------------------------------
email address: agho...@eng2.uconn.edu
http://www.eng2.uconn.edu/~aghoshal
--Life is a series of stochastic errors.
Sapuran Singh Gill
> And despite this cultural and numerical dominance, Guru_pradesh_singh_ji
> would have us believe that Bhayaas, and Gangoo bhais are messing
> up with aamaar sonaar punjab beyond redemption.
>
> --
> Nachiketa Tiwari
census statistics are always within the control of the government in
power. statistics are massaged to suit the govt.
statistics on religion are usually published at least 4-5 years after
all the other data has been published.
caste data is excluded so that the 3-4 % brahmin-bania ruling clique can
hang on to power whilst the other 96 % hold out their begging bowls in
order to get any 'burkiyan' left over after the clique has finisdhed
stuffing themselves.
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <5iesgk$l...@bellboy.ucc.uconn.edu>,
agho...@eng2.uconn.edu (Anindya Ghoshal) wrote:
>Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
>: >
>
>: According to the 1991 census, the Punjabi population is 68% Sikh. The
>: remaining 32% are Dalits, Caste Hindus (OCs), Muslims, and Christians.
>: The OCs generally make up 7% of Hindus (based on Mandal Commission report
>: using 1941 census data - last time caste statistics were gathered).
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Your information is wrong. The last time that caste info. was gathered
>was in 1931 and Mondol Commission's report was based on that. It had been
To the best of my recollection, the Mandal commision report uses
1941 census data. This census was carried out by British authorities
and collected caste statistics. The next census was carried out in
1951 by the Congress regime and did not collect caste identity;
only religious affiliation. All scheduled castes/tribes (separate
categories prior to the 1931 census) have been declared "Hindus".
A question: why would the Mandal commision use 1931 census data,
when 1941 data was available for projections?
>proven to be a highly faulty document that its data hadn't accepted
>by many state governments including West Bengal, Orissa, Assam etc.
>Since 1931 there had been a three-fold explosion of Indian populace,
>and due to different reasons this population increase is not at all
>uniform throughout India. Like increase in population in UP, Bihar
>is much higher than West Bengal or in any state in South. Obviously,
>thus different strata of the society will have different increase depending
>on several parameters. Your data also doesn't take into account the
>exchange of population that took place during partition in Punjab,
>Sindh and Bengal. Given usage of little intelligence you'll find
>that your statistics about castes is totally faulty.
Actually caste proportions today are based on projections based
on caste numbers from the 1941 census. These estimates assume a uniform
growth in population and are actually upwardly biased in reporting the
number of OCs (7%) since the Dalit/Untouchable populations has been
growing faster than the middle class. Also, in 1941, OCs were 7%
of "Hindus"; so movements in population in Punjab/Bengal (less than
15% of population) wouldnt have effected their proportion (7%) among Hindus
in India; although "Hindus" as a whole became a larger proportion of the
Indian pop. Prior to 1947, Muslims made up 25% of the southasian pop,
after 1947, they became 12% in the Indian Union.
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <5iesgk$l...@bellboy.ucc.uconn.edu>,
agho...@eng2.uconn.edu (Anindya Ghoshal) wrote:
>Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
>: to Sikhs. They were never invited by elitist and supremacist organization
>: such as the Arya Samajists ("Aryan Society") and RSS to come join their
>: temples, schools and civic associations. These are all "ganga-based"
>: organizations set-up during the late 19th century by Bengalis/Poorbias with
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: racial complexes ("Arya-envy") and imported into Punjab after the region's
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: annexation to the British empire in 1857.
>
>
>Oh Mister Knowledgeable, please be more explicit about your so preciously
>held theories of the "organizations" set-up during the late 19th Century
>by Bengalis/Poorbias...beneath that contempt your racist bigoted is
>cleverly been manifested several times on the net. It had been a year
>and half, since you Sir, had failed dismally to put any supportive argument
>on your previous claim about Vivekanand having spread hatred against
>other religions!! If you want, one can dig up the relevant articles
I missed this portion of your sarcastic remarks.
Why are you forgetting Dayananda - whose Guru was Vivekananda.
Dayananda founded the Arya Samaj ("Aryan Society") in the 19th
century. During this period, many newly western-educated pro-Brahmanical
idealogues (founders of Arya Samaj, RSS, Hindumahasaba, etc.) from Bengal and
the East (regions under British control prior to the mid-19th century) took
advantage of the British Raj to develop a new identity and consiousness for
themselves after reading the history of Vedic Punjab (1500-300 B.C.) in
colonial history books. OC idealogues/politicians began to envision
themselves as the Aryans of Vedic Saptha Sindhva (ancient Punjab) and this new
racial mythology was used to revitalize old - albiet subdued -
idealogy/ambitions of Brahmanical supremacy and hegemony. In their
"new Hindu Nation" (Hindusthan), the OCs (7%) - the "superior castes" - viewed
themselves as the "rightful" ruling class and elites of this imperialistic
set-up.
As the British empire expanded during the 19th century, this new historical
identity was quickly exported from the East to Punjab, Gujarat and other parts
of India through new schools and associations being set up by various OC
organizations like the Arya Samaj ("Aryan Society"), RSS,
Hindumahasabha, etc. outfits now in operation in the major cities/towns
throughout southasia. Urbanized OCs soon afterward began to get ideological
indoctrination (into their new identity - "Aryans" and new language -
"Sanscritized Urdu" or "Hindi") and education from these associations and
schools.
This is how Arya Samaj arrived in Punjab in the late 19th century. The holy
book of Arya Samajis, written by Dayananda, is called "Satya Prakash" ("true
light"). One only has to read a few of its pages spewn with hate and insults
against all the world's religions (including Christianity, Islam, Buddhism,
Jews, Sikhism) to get a glimpse into his psychotic and hateful mind.
Many members of the OC community may have outgrown the hate/elitism of these
organizations (which are still very active), but the vast majority of OCs have
not.
rsh...@accessv.com
Garbage snipped. Does Gurupdesh mean Garbage?
You need to get laid buddy and get a life you ugly son of a bitch.
Spreading false lies makes you look like a fool which you are. Too bad
you are a Muslim lover or else you would be more credible.
Anindya Ghoshal
Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
: In article <5iesgk$l...@bellboy.ucc.uconn.edu>,
: agho...@eng2.uconn.edu (Anindya Ghoshal) wrote:
: >Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
: [ . . . deleted . . .]
: >: to Sikhs. They were never invited by elitist and supremacist organization
: >: such as the Arya Samajists ("Aryan Society") and RSS to come join their
: >: temples, schools and civic associations. These are all "ganga-based"
: >: organizations set-up during the late 19th century by Bengalis/Poorbias with
: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >: racial complexes ("Arya-envy") and imported into Punjab after the region's
: >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >: annexation to the British empire in 1857.
: >
: >
: >Oh Mister Knowledgeable, please be more explicit about your so preciously
: >held theories of the "organizations" set-up during the late 19th Century
: >by Bengalis/Poorbias...beneath that contempt your racist bigoted is
: >cleverly been manifested several times on the net. It had been a year
: >and half, since you Sir, had failed dismally to put any supportive argument
: >on your previous claim about Vivekanand having spread hatred against
: >other religions!! If you want, one can dig up the relevant articles
: I missed this portion of your sarcastic remarks.
: Why are you forgetting Dayananda - whose Guru was Vivekananda.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Vivekananda was not Dayananda's guru!! I would request you to
read more before blabbering again!! Neither was there any type
of census held in India in 1941..the British Govt. was at war
in 1941 and the last census in British India was held in 1931.
: Dayananda founded the Arya Samaj ("Aryan Society") in the 19th
: century. During this period, many newly western-educated pro-Brahmanical
: idealogues (founders of Arya Samaj, RSS, Hindumahasaba, etc.) from Bengal and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Where are you reading this history from !! Sir!! RSS was founded in Nagpur,
Arya Samaj in North India...Hindu Mahasabha owes its roots to UP.. You
need to brush-up your knowledge alot !!
: the East (regions under British control prior to the mid-19th century) took
: advantage of the British Raj to develop a new identity and consiousness for
: themselves after reading the history of Vedic Punjab (1500-300 B.C.) in
: colonial history books. OC idealogues/politicians began to envision
: themselves as the Aryans of Vedic Saptha Sindhva (ancient Punjab) and this new
: racial mythology was used to revitalize old - albiet subdued -
: idealogy/ambitions of Brahmanical supremacy and hegemony. In their
: "new Hindu Nation" (Hindusthan), the OCs (7%) - the "superior castes" - viewed
: themselves as the "rightful" ruling class and elites of this imperialistic
: set-up.
Never read BS in my life....I'll just cite one small example of the Vidyasagar
in the 19th Cent. reform movement. Vidyasagar fought for the widow remarriage
Act despite opposition from the Sanatan Dharmacists in 1850's ...led a
movement to ban polygamy amongst Kulin Brahmins in 1870's..spend a lifetime
working for women's education movement..Vidyasagar was cursed to hell by
several Sanatan Dharmacists..I cannot imagine the BS that Mr
Gurupudesh Singh concocted about the Reform movement of 19th Cent..and
his ""Ayra envy " theory of the reformists from Bengal is downright
racist piece of junk!!
: As the British empire expanded during the 19th century, this new historical
: identity was quickly exported from the East to Punjab, Gujarat and other parts
: of India through new schools and associations being set up by various OC
: organizations like the Arya Samaj ("Aryan Society"), RSS,
: Hindumahasabha, etc. outfits now in operation in the major cities/towns
: throughout southasia. Urbanized OCs soon afterward began to get ideological
: indoctrination (into their new identity - "Aryans" and new language -
: "Sanscritized Urdu" or "Hindi") and education from these associations and
: schools.
: This is how Arya Samaj arrived in Punjab in the late 19th century. The holy
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Find out the dates that Viveknanda lived and please read more about the
Bengal Renaissance movement. you'll know why your knowledge
about Renaissance movement is downright crap...it might be news to
you to know that the movement was started not by an OC but an Eurasian
English Professor of Presidency College of Calcutta, Henry Louis Vivian
Derozio.
: book of Arya Samajis, written by Dayananda, is called "Satya Prakash" ("true
: light"). One only has to read a few of its pages spewn with hate and insults
: against all the world's religions (including Christianity, Islam, Buddhism,
: Jews, Sikhism) to get a glimpse into his psychotic and hateful mind.
: Many members of the OC community may have outgrown the hate/elitism of these
: organizations (which are still very active), but the vast majority of OCs have
: not.
The problem with most of the nettors in newsgroups is that they speak on
subjects they hardly know anything about .....Mr. Gurupudesh
Singh's theory of OC based philosophies is a perfect example..Cornell Univ.
possesses one of the finest collections of history books on the sub-continent..
Mr. Singh is advised to consult them for his further knowlege on the subject
matter..till then au revoir.
Soumitra Bose
Anindo , actually I am very interested to know , where do these people
get all these cock-and-bull cocakamania .Evern if it is written in some
special Arya Samaj boook , who writes them and who reads them , are they
published by some responsible publisher or authenticated by some
university. We know the RSS part , they have their own outfit, they only
ask their followers to go by that solely.OR are these things merely
dreams out of insomnia ????But we must know some sort of source ,
otherwise we have to congratulate Gurpudesh for his fantasitc imagination
, so detail, it is a work of art.
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <5jul7j$p...@bellboy.ucc.uconn.edu>,
Yes he was. Dayananda read the works of Vivekananda and had a
great deal of respect for him. I will try to find a reference
when I get the time. But you side-stepped! Are you disputing the hate
present in Dayanada's (founder of Arya Samaj) crowning glory "Satya Prakash"
which insults all the founders of the world's religions including Christ,
Mohammed, Nanak, Buddha. This book rivals the "Mein Kamf" of Nazis.
In fact, Satya Prakash has very generous references to him.
>read more before blabbering again!! Neither was there any type
>of census held in India in 1941..the British Govt. was at war
>in 1941 and the last census in British India was held in 1931.
>
>: Dayananda founded the Arya Samaj ("Aryan Society") in the 19th
>: century. During this period, many newly western-educated pro-Brahmanical
>: idealogues (founders of Arya Samaj, RSS, Hindumahasaba, etc.) from Bengal
and
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^
>
>Where are you reading this history from !! Sir!! RSS was founded in Nagpur,
Definetly not from books written by "historians" with their Alma Mater
at Hindu Benaras Univerity or the pseudo-secular nest of pro-Brahmanical
historians at places like JNK.
>Arya Samaj in North India...Hindu Mahasabha owes its roots to UP.. You
>need to brush-up your knowledge alot !!
And you should start reading more carefully: I said above that these
organizations were based on the ideological/historical views of newly
western-educated "Bengalis/Poorbias" from the orthodox castes (OC)
community. Prior to 1800, the British Empire ("India") was confined to this
region (Banglasthan and Poorbiasthan: currently the countries/states
of Bangladesh, Bengal, Bihar, eastern United Provinces - later named
"Uttar Pradesh" in 1947) of southasia.
However, all these organizations (RSS, AryaSamaj, Hindumahasabha) derived
their "intellectual nourishment" from the neo-Brahmanism engineered by
the types of Vivekananda, Dayananda, etc. Some were more radical, others
less, but all encompassed a strong pro-OC (7%) hegemonic and elitist view
of society and history.
>
>: the East (regions under British control prior to the mid-19th century) took
>: advantage of the British Raj to develop a new identity and consiousness for
>: themselves after reading the history of Vedic Punjab (1500-300 B.C.) in
>: colonial history books. OC idealogues/politicians began to envision
>: themselves as the Aryans of Vedic Saptha Sindhva (ancient Punjab) and this
new
>: racial mythology was used to revitalize old - albiet subdued -
>: idealogy/ambitions of Brahmanical supremacy and hegemony. In their
>: "new Hindu Nation" (Hindusthan), the OCs (7%) - the "superior castes" -
viewed
>: themselves as the "rightful" ruling class and elites of this imperialistic
>: set-up.
>
>Never read BS in my life....I'll just cite one small example of the
Vidyasagar
>in the 19th Cent. reform movement. Vidyasagar fought for the widow remarriage
>Act despite opposition from the Sanatan Dharmacists in 1850's ...led a
>movement to ban polygamy amongst Kulin Brahmins in 1870's..spend a lifetime
>working for women's education movement..Vidyasagar was cursed to hell by
>several Sanatan Dharmacists..I cannot imagine the BS that Mr
>Gurupudesh Singh concocted about the Reform movement of 19th Cent..and
>his ""Ayra envy " theory of the reformists from Bengal is downright
>racist piece of junk!!
There was a definite elitist and hegemonic pro-OC basis to all
this activity. Also, all the civic associations and schools set up
by these organizations during the late 19th and 20th century was for the
benefit of the 7% OC caste cliques. "Lower caste Hindus" (Dalits/Harijans) who
make up 85% of "Hindus" were totally excluded from all this
reformist social/religious/political activity.
The reforms attempted to "modernize" the OCs under a neo-Brahmanical
ideology and identity founded on claims/myths of being the "Aryans"
of Saptha Sindhva (Vedic Punjab, 1500-300 B.C.). The new proud racial
identity created by early OC ideologues/historians in the Bengal/eastern U.P.
region (thousands of miles south/east of Punjab) was propagated among
OC ranks as new regions of southasia fell under the control of the expanding
British Empire.
The "socio-religious" reforms of these organizations were aimed at erasing
the caste-barriers among the OCs (Brahmin/Bania/Kayasth - "twice born"
castes) to produce a bigger socially and politically amalgamated
"super caste" which viewed itself as "superior" to other communities (94%) -
even those which constituted the traditional dominant groups. These
"reforms" never attempted to integrate the Dalits/untouchables (85%) with the
Brahmins/Kayasths/Bania community on an equal basis.
>
>: As the British empire expanded during the 19th century, this new historical
>: identity was quickly exported from the East to Punjab, Gujarat and other
parts
>: of India through new schools and associations being set up by various OC
>: organizations like the Arya Samaj ("Aryan Society"), RSS,
>: Hindumahasabha, etc. outfits now in operation in the major cities/towns
>: throughout southasia. Urbanized OCs soon afterward began to get
ideological
>: indoctrination (into their new identity - "Aryans" and new language -
>: "Sanscritized Urdu" or "Hindi") and education from these associations and
>: schools.
>
>: This is how Arya Samaj arrived in Punjab in the late 19th century. The holy
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Find out the dates that Viveknanda lived and please read more about the
Since you now. How about giving the periods for both V and D?
>Bengal Renaissance movement. you'll know why your knowledge
>about Renaissance movement is downright crap...it might be news to
>you to know that the movement was started not by an OC but an Eurasian
>English Professor of Presidency College of Calcutta, Henry Louis Vivian
>Derozio.
I covered this point in the earlier post. I mentioned that
"During this period, many newly western-educated pro-Brahmanical idealogues
(founders of Arya Samaj, RSS, Hindumahasaba, etc.) from Bengal and the East
(regions under British control prior to the mid-19th century) took advantage
of the British Raj to develop a new identity and consiousness for themselves
after reading the history of Vedic Punjab (1500-300 B.C.) in colonial history
books."
So who first started the "ball rolling" is immaterial now, but who has been
wilfully and enthusiastically "playing with it" is. The 7% OCs are the ones
who currently derive their sense of "identity" and "superiority" from it and
they are the ones who have been "playing with it". Just open an Indian
school text if you want proof.
>
>: book of Arya Samajis, written by Dayananda, is called "Satya Prakash"
("true
>: light"). One only has to read a few of its pages spewn with hate and
insults
>: against all the world's religions (including Christianity, Islam, Buddhism,
>: Jews, Sikhism) to get a glimpse into his psychotic and hateful mind.
>
>: Many members of the OC community may have outgrown the hate/elitism of
these
>: organizations (which are still very active), but the vast majority of OCs
have
>: not.
>
>The problem with most of the nettors in newsgroups is that they speak on
>subjects they hardly know anything about .....Mr. Gurupudesh
>Singh's theory of OC based philosophies is a perfect example..Cornell Univ.
>possesses one of the finest collections of history books on the
sub-continent..
>Mr. Singh is advised to consult them for his further knowlege on the subject
>matter..till then au revoir.
>
Thanks for the advise, but you should also practice what you preach.
Mo
The Arya Samaj has tried hard to reconvert the lower caste Muslims
through the Shudi movement . It does NOT believe in the caste system .
Vajpayee is an Arya Samaji and the most liberal Indian politician -
and one who cried when the Babri Mosque was demolished -and not
crocodile ones either.
Not one Arya Samaji I have met knows or cares anything about Satya
Prakash. It is NOt read at Arya Samaj funcitons. The only thing read
are Sanskrit scriptures which nobody understands and so can thankfully
think of other things.
All Arya Samajis I know go to the Gurudwara as well and take part in
Langars.
Gurupardesh is a typical paranoid monotheist , making up enemies where
none exist.
Jim K Jacob
Dear Mo,
If you read it carefully all its says is that it "rivals" Mein
Kampf! Read the posts more carefully.
Jim
On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Mo wrote:
> How can Dayanand who lived in the 1800s praise the 'Mein Kampf'
> written in 1941 ??? Was he a prophet too , are we never to be free
> of these plague of Prophets ??
> How can Vivekanada be a Guru of Dayanand as the latter died before the
> Viv was born unless Dayanand was yet another damn Prophet who had
> knoweldge of the Guru who would arrive. ?
>
> The wise Gurparadesh wrote :
Mo
How can Dayanand who lived in the 1800s praise the 'Mein Kampf'
written in 1941 ??? Was he a prophet too , are we never to be free
of these plague of Prophets ??
How can Vivekanada be a Guru of Dayanand as the latter died before the
Viv was born unless Dayanand was yet another damn Prophet who had
knoweldge of the Guru who would arrive. ?
The wise Gurparadesh wrote :
Muslim
On Thu, 01 May 1997 03:56:27 GMT, 10033...@compuserve.com (Mo)
wrote: ( Re: Neo-Brahmanism )
>>.As for the Quran even though Mohammed thought christians
>and jews were misguided, he had still great respect for them. <,
>
>Oh yeah ?? !! Try explaining away these 'revelations' which
>Mohammed allegedly received from a loving compassionate Allah .
>
>
>5/13 Jews are deceitful except for a few of them
Mo, you are really incredible The Ayah 5/13 is saying:
"But forgive them and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth
those who are kind".
>5/82 Jews and pagans are the most implacable enemies of Muslims
Indeed you are making fool of yourself as usaul, the Ayah is saying:
"strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the
Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt
thou find those who say we are Christians..."
and you Mo is a good example for what the ayah means
>5/57 do not seek friendship of the infidels and those who were given
>the Book before you
you are really *low*.
"take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for
mockery or sport....."
> Try and explain all that away. Satya Prakash does not say anything
>near enough - not that I have read it . Just heard somebody mention a
>couple of lines in it..
>
everything have a cure except stupidity and hatred of low people like
you.
<Muslim>
Shelly
Mo writes:
> Not one Arya Samaji I have met knows or cares anything about Satya
> Prakash. It is NOt read at Arya Samaj funcitons. The only thing read
One of the goals of the Arya Samaj was to introduce a semblance of
academic credibility to Hinduism. Books not known to have been written
by any of the eminent Rishis, such as the Puranas, forfeited
scriptural recognition. A harsh move perhaps, but one deemed essential
to differentiate the finer texts from vagabond Hinduism (murti
worship, deifying books, Nam japo rituals, and keeping quacks such as
Sai Baba or Rajneesh at bay e.t.c.). It was in the interest of
preserving credibility and purity over the centuries that a strict
hiearchy of authority was agreed upon, for the first time. Books of
religious authority would include Vedas, upanishads and shastras among
others. Where along this authority lineage would the Satyarth Prakash
fit, if at all?
I ask with the fact in mind that the Arya Samaj favoured institutions
and principles over guru glorification, to the extent that only a
portion of Dayanand's ideas were incorporated into the Arya Samaj.
Regards,
Shelly
Mo
>.As for the Quran even though Mohammed thought christians
and jews were misguided, he had still great respect for them. <,
Oh yeah ?? !! Try explaining away these 'revelations' which
Mohammed allegedly received from a loving compassionate Allah .
5/13 Jews are deceitful except for a few of them
5/82 Jews and pagans are the most implacable enemies of Muslims
5/57 do not seek friendship of the infidels and those who were given
the Book before you
5/51 believers take neither Jews or Christians for friends . Whoever
of you seeks their friendship shall become one of them
Pardee
Agreed, and as you have probably noticed the Arya Samaj turned out to be
as susceptible to dilution as any organization over time, whether
institutional or Guru/shishya type, etc. A focus on principles though is
always superior to a cult of personality worship, however since
principles seem too slippery for the mass of us monkeys to grasp or hold
onto, historically we tend to slide back to mere personality worship due
to our inherent laziness.
Pardee.
P.S. Of the Hindu texts, the Upanishads seem to have the least BS and a
more crytallized exposition of Brahman than the "The Vedas" which should
rightly be retitled "For Foodoos."
Shelly
Pardee wrote:
> P.S. Of the Hindu texts, the Upanishads seem to have the least BS and a
> more crytallized exposition of Brahman than the "The Vedas" which should
> rightly be retitled "For Foodoos."
Even though the nuances of old Sanskrit may have been lost forever, it
is exceedingly evident from any Vedas translation that it is no more
sensible than the ramblings of a schizophrenic. So much so, that a
Rishi compared it to a thick jungle, entry into which will only result
in getting lost. I wonder what criterion many Hindus use to place it
at the apex of all scriptures. To even bother to read the Vedas in
this day and age would be a most collosal waste of mental energy
(frankly, I feel Playboy magazine is more informative than a perusal
of these confounding books texts in a primitive age).
The Upanishads too are not all that crystal in their message. However,
they do present provactive arguments on creation theories, the nature
of existence, the maya concept, monotheism and monism and Socrates
like philosophy.
Regards,
Shelly
Pardeep
Shelly wrote:
>
> Pardee wrote:
>
> > P.S. Of the Hindu texts, the Upanishads seem to have the least BS and a
> > more crytallized exposition of Brahman than the "The Vedas" which should
> > rightly be retitled "For Foodoos."
>
> Even though the nuances of old Sanskrit may have been lost forever, it
> is exceedingly evident from any Vedas translation that it is no more
> sensible than the ramblings of a schizophrenic. So much so, that a
> Rishi compared it to a thick jungle, entry into which will only result
> in getting lost. I wonder what criterion many Hindus use to place it
> at the apex of all scriptures. To even bother to read the Vedas in
> this day and age would be a most collosal waste of mental energy
> (frankly, I feel Playboy magazine is more informative than a perusal
> of these confounding books texts in a primitive age).
Heh heh, I couldn't agree more (about Playboy that is).
> The Upanishads too are not all that crystal in their message. However,
> they do present provactive arguments on creation theories, the nature
> of existence, the maya concept, monotheism and monism and Socrates
> like philosophy.
> Regards,
> Shelly
Actually I should say some Upanishads because there are some that are
downright cryptic and then there are others that state ln very clear
terms that Brahman manifests himself in different forms and giving the
form seminal intelligence fools himself into the illusion that he is a
separate entity in that form.
But by the end of the passage the Rishis state clearly what is Brahman
and end by saying that it is you, you are Brahman. There are some texts
where no matter where the aspirant looks, he sees the same entity
everywhere, Brahman in the cow, in the Sun, in the grass, everywhere
there is Brahman, this is possibly symbolic or experiential.
Then you have cases where the pupil outgrows the teacher in learning and
the roles are reversed in pursuit of truth where the former teacher is
now the pupil of his former pupil who has become his teacher. The Rishis
of the Upanishad come across as a crotchety, grumpy and skeptical lot,
they shunned organized religion, cut out the corrupt Brahmin middlemen
and perceived that Brahmin is everywhere directly.
Not all passages of the Upanishad are that crystal clear though, but the
underlying theme again and again is that we all reside in a never
changing field which in this case is termed Brahman and that we all in
reality are Brahman just as the wave comes from the ocean, lives for a
moment and then goes back. In the whole process the wave is still the
ocean and the ocean is still the wave, there is only a difference of
form.
Religious concepts with current technology cannot be proven in the lab,
however a unified field behind all existence has a higher probability of
being closer to reality than the personal Gods of the dualists, this
statement is based upon the use of logic in the absence of quantifiable
proof (as with evolution which still cannot be proven in the lab due to
the scope of the hypothesis).
I would refer the passages that are most crystal, but unfortunately a
friend borrowed my copy 2 weeks ago. From all scriptures that I have
seen which essentially at their core talk about one formless creative
force, a few of the Upanishads have stated this in the most crystal
clear manner I've seen thus far without any of the usual cryptic
paradoxical baloney. Unfortunately the Upanishads were absorbed
ultimately by the Brahmins, but the message is simpler and clearer than
any other scriptures I've personally read and the authors come across as
rebels of sorts. This is hardly a shot in the arm for Hindus though
becase they erroneously focus more on the Vedas which are really all
about social conditioning.
Pardeep.
amit kothari
Gurupdesh Singh wrote:
>
> In article <5i3sat$hmt$2...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>,
> >: Bani of Sant Ravidass (a "Shudra") is recorded there. They also
> >: dont keep Brahmin priests. Infact, Punjabi Dalits are no longer
> >: "Hindus" in any Brahmanical sense. Therefore, Punjab's population
> >: is 98% non-Brahmanical. It is in fact a rare sight to find a Brahmin
> >: temple these days in Punjab.
> >
> >would have us believe that Bhayaas, and Gangoo bhais are messing
> >up with aamaar sonaar punjab beyond redemption.
> >
> civilization, the Vedic civilization (1500 - 400 B.C.) was an ancient Punjabi
> civilization, and the Buddhist Ghandhara civilization (100 B.C. - 600 A.D.)
> blossomed in ancient Punjab/Afghanistan. Still, however, Punjabis do not
> claim that their forefathers thousands of years ago:
> - invented advanced mathematics (e.g. calculus, abstract topology,
> differential equations, etc.) centuries before Gauss, Descartes, Fermat,
> etc.
> - invented modern engineering and could launch rockets, flew battle
> helicopters (udhan-khatolas) centuries before NASA
> - developed the biological sciences to such an advanced level that
> they could train monkeys soldiers (Ramayana) and use weapons
> (stupid modern scientists cant even teach them to talk)
> - could perform animal to human transplants (e.g. Lord Ganesh)
> - developed Newtonian mechanics and theory of relativity centuries
> before Newton and Einstein came along
>
> However, supremacist Brahmanoids and their chamchas frequently make all
> these ludicrous claims about the "wisdom" and "intellect" of Brahmins.
> (Even Indian school texts are littered with such pro-Brahmanical
> propaganda).
>
> So, who is "beyond redemption"!
From where did u learn this load of bull shit. Nobody in their right
mind would call this as achievements of "ancient punjabis". The wise men
who wrote the vedas and other books had a much broader outlook than u
think.
Better get your facts straigth first and then talk about "ancient
Punjabi civilization".
Best regards,
Amit
Shelly
Neil Ghosh wrote:
> I agree with Amit on this...how the hell can you use the present to define
> the past? It's like using feminist propaganda to go back and accuse Adam
> of sexism because he desired a mate. And another thing, this 'pro-Punjabi'
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> garbage is just as bad as 'Irish Pride' groups or another cultural
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> nationalist groups.
>
> Neil
Go stuff yourself. We are social creatures and group allegiances among
us are unavoidable. Of the various sorts, one's nationalist allegiance
makes most social and economic sense. We would be unable to function
as an effective unit without this "pride." Secondly, a Punjabi pride
does not entail a lack of respect for other cultures and peoples and
nor does it negate responsible and intelligent conduct in matters
affecting non-Punjabis. Punjabiyat is not at fault for any extremism
on behalf of Punjabis. It is the extremism itself, which can surface
in any form or manner over any ideology, allegiance or belief, that
needs to be countered.
Shelly
Neil Ghosh
On Wed, 7 May 1997, Shelly wrote:
> Go stuff yourself. We are social creatures and group allegiances among
> us are unavoidable. Of the various sorts, one's nationalist allegiance
> makes most social and economic sense. We would be unable to function
> as an effective unit without this "pride." Secondly, a Punjabi pride
> does not entail a lack of respect for other cultures and peoples and
> nor does it negate responsible and intelligent conduct in matters
> affecting non-Punjabis. Punjabiyat is not at fault for any extremism
> on behalf of Punjabis. It is the extremism itself, which can surface
> in any form or manner over any ideology, allegiance or belief, that
> needs to be countered.
>
> Shelly
>
>
What the hell do you mean 'go stuff yourself'? Read what I wrote more
carefully...did I use any item of disrespect in addressing the writer? I
don't think I did. I thought this newsgroup was an intellectual forum, not
a place to bash someone else. I was just presenting my views on extremist
ideals, which I gave up a long time ago. Your opening line would offend
anyone, Shelly, and it causes one to become defensive to the rest of the
things you said, which I do agree with as well. Pride in one's culture is
not wrong, but pride in one's culture coupled with a disrespect for other
cultures (the citation of the 'ancient Punjabi' civilization as an
example...besides, were there any cultural labels present back then
during Mohenjo-Daro, et cetera...I don't think the 'Four Great
Civilizations' thought of themselves that way...that's a modern term!!!)
is wrong. That said, I would advise you not to use such phrasing when
addressing someone whom you barely know...it doesn't make me respect you
very much. Wouldn't you be offended if I walked up to you and said 'go
stuff yourself'? Sorry, but I just had to point it out to you (officious,
upturned nose, Anglophilic, Indophobic, whitewashed sniff ensues...hahaha)
Tublu
P.S. Looking forward to hearing from you very soon.
Shelly
Neil Ghosh wrote:
> What the hell do you mean 'go stuff yourself'? Read what I wrote more
> carefully...did I use any item of disrespect in addressing the writer? I
> don't think I did. I thought this newsgroup was an intellectual forum, not
> a place to bash someone else. I was just presenting my views on extremist
> ideals, which I gave up a long time ago. Your opening line would offend
> anyone, Shelly, and it causes one to become defensive to the rest of the
> things you said, which I do agree with as well. Pride in one's culture is
> not wrong, but pride in one's culture coupled with a disrespect for other
> cultures (the citation of the 'ancient Punjabi' civilization as an
> example...besides, were there any cultural labels present back then
> during Mohenjo-Daro, et cetera...I don't think the 'Four Great
> Civilizations' thought of themselves that way...that's a modern term!!!)
> is wrong. That said, I would advise you not to use such phrasing when
> addressing someone whom you barely know...it doesn't make me respect you
> very much. Wouldn't you be offended if I walked up to you and said 'go
> stuff yourself'? Sorry, but I just had to point it out to you (officious,
> upturned nose, Anglophilic, Indophobic, whitewashed sniff ensues...hahaha)
>
> Tublu
>
> P.S. Looking forward to hearing from you very soon.
Dear Tublu, you have a very funny sounding name.
Regards,
Shelly
Gurupdesh Singh
Definitely not from RSS, Arya Samaj, Hindumahasaba "history" phamplets.
This is where most OCs picked up their historical fantasies since the
19th century.
>mind would call this as achievements of "ancient punjabis". The wise men
What would you call it? You fellows dont seem to object to the grand
historical claims made regularly by your hegemonic fellow Brahmins about
launcing rockets, flying helicopters, and doing advanced mathematics during
the days of the cart and wheel, yet scream and shout when I refer to
historical facts about the Punjab/Sindh/Afghanistan region accepted by
international historians.
According to you "logic", current day Greeks cannot claim that Aristotle was a
Greek?
And why do Punjabis have to call the history of Punjab the history of
fictitious "India" so that non-Punjabis feel better. Why dont other Indic
nations in southasia find their own "real" roots and heritage - and
be proud of it - instead of developing your historical fantasies on what
happened in ancient times in the Punjab/Sindh regions of southasia.
>who wrote the vedas and other books had a much broader outlook than u
>think.
>Better get your facts straigth first and then talk about "ancient
>Punjabi civilization".
I have them very straight. Its you who needs to straighten your history.
Gurupdesh
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.970512...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu>,
Neil Ghosh <ez06...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>> "KHALISTAN". Why do u wish to segregate india's achievements to regional
>> groups? Shouldn't every indian be proud of that?
>>
>> amit
>> --
>> ==========================================================================
>> :-) When all else fails, read the instruction.
>> email : am...@csd.sgi.com
>> Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/4960/
>> ==========================================================================
>>
>>
>I would again have to agree with Amit on his reply to Mr. Singh...although
>I respect Mr. Singh's culture, I am furious with his claim that Indus
>Valley was an ancient Punjabi civilization!!! It is a claim that says that
Please let me know what I can do to make you more "furious"! I would be simply
delighted to oblige.
>the Indus people spoke Punjabi, et cetera...Punjabi and other modern
>Indian languages did not even exist so many millennia ago, but rather have
>been developing over time. The only credence one can give his claim is
>geographic - yes, they are located in the same region. But that's about
>it. It's like saying that southeastern Asia is a Bengali civilization,
>that Buddha was Nepalese or Bengali...hahaha I laugh at myself.
Dear Tublu,
Nice try, but no cigar!
Your mischieviously attempted to give the term "Punjabi" a narrow modern
linguistic meaning. I use it in a geographical/cultural/ethnic/linguistic
sense. All of these and historical continuity give Punjabis the right to
claim their history - ancient and modern - as "Punjabi History".
This is the conventional nomenclature used by international historians to
describe the past of regions where there has been a strong continuity from
antiquity to the present (e.g. Eqyptian history, Iraqi history, Italian
history, Greek history, Iranian history) - i.e. where the people did not
simply vanish into thin air at some point in the past.
Note that in many cases, the languages/cultures in these places have evolved
over time - as is natural - but the modern derivatives are clearly descended
and connected to their antecedents. For example, Italians can rightfully
claim that the current Italian is the most "direct" and natural descendent to
the Latin of Roman times. And there are few who would question this.
Similarly, Punjabi (with 110 million speakers) is an Indo-Aryan language
which developed from the Vedic language spoken in Saptha Sindhva ("land of
seven seas" - Punjab/Sindh region during 1500-400 B.C.). In the post 1000
B.C. expansion some Vedic groups broke earlier taboos found in the RgVeda
and migrated south to Dravidian regions. As a consequence, Sanskrit and other
Prakrits evolved as mixtures with the local Dravidian
tongues/cultures/religions. Meanwhile, the original Vedic language spoken in
Saptha Sindhva has evolved into its modern derivative - "Punjabi" - just as
the modern Italian has evolved from the ancient 'Latin" or as the current
Iranian has evolved from the ancient Persian.
Another example: modern Iranian is a clear descendent of the ancient Persian
spoken 2500 years ago yet it would be almost unintelligible to a present-day
Iranian. You would argue that Iranians cannot call their history "Iranian
history" and cannot claim that their language/culture is the most direct
descendent of the original Persian.
Coming back to a meaningful semantic label for the history of the Punjab
region. To term this as "Indian" history is completely nonsensical although
people have been conditioned to accept this out of sheer mindless repetition
through the education system and media.
Reasons:
1) No Punjabi, Bengali, or Tamil knew prior to the Brits began building
their empire in southasia that they were living in a place called "India" or
were "Indians" - in any semantic, historical, linguistic, national, or
cultural sense.
2) Also "India" as a unified political/linguistic/cultural/ethnic entity never
existed before the British created their empire in southasia. For example,
over the past 3000 years of known south asian history, all of southasia never
existed as a unitary political state! The 2-3 empires (e.g. Mauryan, Gupta)
which arose were essentially regional and disintegrated under their own weight
as soon as they were delicately cobbled togethor. Put togethor all of them
dont even account for 10% of southasian history.
3) Moreover, the Punjab.Sindh region was not part of the Gupta Empire (which
lasted less than a century and was confined to the U.P., M.P., Bihar region -
but is proclaimed as an "Indian Hindu Empire" by OC Supremacists).
Also, according to the historical map contained in the Times Atlas History
of the World, Punjab was not part of the Mauryan empire (a Buddhist empire
which also lasted less than a century). In fact, the Punjab region was never
politically unified to lands south of the Ganga during any pre-Muslim period;
even the 10% "togethorness" noted above does not apply to Punjab/Sindh.
4) Since Vedic (1500-400 B.C)and Gandharan times (400 B.C.-700 A.D.), the
ancient peoples of the Punjab/Sindh region have always cherished and proudly
protected their political, cultural, ethnic, and religious soverignty.
5) As the foreign term "India" began to be applied to southasia by European
colonists, 19th century newly western-educated idealogues from the
Brahmanical orthodox caste community (OC-7%) in the Bengal/eastern U.P.
(regions of the British empire prior to 1800) eagerly began giving "India"
their own self-serving historical/religious spin. "India" was concocted in
these historical fantasies as a politically/culturally/religiously unified
"ONE HINDU NATION" entity in an attempt to jump-start their own casteist,
hegemonic and imperialistic ambitions during the British Raj. Activist
organisations like the RSS, Arya Samaj, Hindumahasaba, etc. circulated this
neo-Brahmanical ideology and history to the OC communities in the cities/towns
throughout southasia as the British "India" expanded from its eastern base
in the 19th century.
Periods of Punjab History - Antiquity to Present
------------------------------------------------
OC historical propaganda of a historically "Hindu" Punjab (and southasia
for that matter), propagated through the education system and state-run
media, does not even stand-up to the most basic historical facts. A brief
profile of the major religious/political periods of Punjab shows how empty
these claims are.
1) Vedic Period (1500 B.C. - 400 B.C.):
The religion of Punjab (Saptha Sindhva) during this period was Vedism or Vedic
religion. The Vedics worshiped the Gods Indra (god of thunder) and Rudra
(god of health); the holy book consisted of the hymns of the RigVedas written
by Vedic poets and mystics. The Vedic Aryas were an egalitarian, semi-patoral
people who ate cows, considered river Ravi to be holy, and in the RigVeda
refer to their domains in the ancient Punjab/Sindh region as "Saptha Sindhva"
("land of seven seas/rivers"). In the Rgveda, they also appear to be very
aware of their ethnic, cultural, and religious differences w.r.t the non-Vedic
populations living to the south of the Punjab/Sindh region.
Manu (approx. 700 B.C.) from the gangetic region "forbids Brahmins" to go to
Punjab/Sindh and calls the Vedics "mlechas" (polluted) in his shastras
as the Vedics did not view the gangetic priesthood, their Brahmanical Gods,
and their caste-cult favorably and a climate of religious/political hostility
existed between the two lands, as is evident from Manu's shastras.
2) Gandharan Buddhist Period (400 B.C. - 700 A.D.):
The egalitarian and humanistic teachings of the Buddha were received very well
by ancient Punjabis and the Buddhist period lasted nearly 1000 years.
During this period, the Punjab region also received new Indo-Scythic
populations and influences from cenral asia such as the Sakas and Kushans.
Begining with the works of historians such as Cunningham and Todd from the
19th century, many of the ethnic groups/"castes" found in the northern
subcontinent (e.g. Jats, Yadavs, Ahirs, etc.; artisan castes; and some Rajput
groups) have been traced to these Indo-Scythians (an Iranian-speaking culture
of central asia). Indo-Scythian rulers and their descendents patronized
Buddhism and Buddhism also spread to central asia and China during this
period. During this period, there were extensive trade and religious links of
Punjab/Afghanistan with central asia and China.
3) Post Gandharan Period (post 700 A.D.)
During the 5-7th century several waves of Hun invasions occured and this
period of instability lead to the demise of Buddhism. The Huns first entered
Rajasthan through the Bolan pass and established control over large tracts of
the north-central subcontinent and settled down as the new ruling order
(Gujara-Parthiharas; Rajput/Thakur/Gujjars populations have been traced to
these invaders from central asia). Many of the new Indo-Hun rulers such as
Mahiragula began to patronized Brahmanism for the purpose on entrenching their
control. During the 7th century Mahirgula - a Shivite - attacked Punjab and
destroyed Jullandar (central Punjab) and Taxila (eastern Afhansistan)
destroying the main Buddhist centers of ancient Gandhara (Punjab/Afghanistan).
These two centers of learning and intellectual life housed many Buddhist
univeristies, councils, and temples and students came here from all over
central asia, China, and southasia to learn Gandharan Buddhist philosophy and
science.
Islam arrived during the 11th century followed by flowering of Sufi Islam in
Punjab during the 12th century. Sikhism developed in the 16th century.
Given the continuity and autonomity of the history of greater Punjab, the most
sensible and encompassing label for this past is "Punjabi History" or "Ancient
Punjab History" (Punjabi is used here in a geographical/cultural/ethnic sense
not just linguistic).
If anyone disagrees, I welcome you to propose and defend other labels!
Pankaj Kakkar
A lot of what you say makes sense here, but there are some factual
errors and hence more than a few inconsistencies.
Gurupdesh Singh wrote:
> 1) No Punjabi, Bengali, or Tamil knew prior to the Brits began building
> their empire in southasia that they were living in a place called "India" or
> were "Indians" - in any semantic, historical, linguistic, national, or
> cultural sense.
True in part, but Vijayaraghavan has already pointed a few problems with
such a wide generalization. Certainly political unification was very
rare, but culturally, economically and socially 'Bharat varsha' has
mostly been united. Consider the Maha'bharat', or consider the name
'Bharat' itself, probably derived from the name of a prominent tribe
among the early aryans.
> 2) Also "India" as a unified political/linguistic/cultural/ethnic entity never
> existed before the British created their empire in southasia. For example,
> over the past 3000 years of known south asian history, all of southasia never
> existed as a unitary political state! The 2-3 empires (e.g. Mauryan, Gupta)
> which arose were essentially regional and disintegrated under their own weight
> as soon as they were delicately cobbled togethor. Put togethor all of them
> dont even account for 10% of southasian history.
Again, a very 'extremist' :) statement (just kidding).
Let me see (some arithmetic):
1) Maurya empire : 324 - 232 BC ~ 100 years
Chandragupta Maurya - 324 - 301
Bindusara - 301 - 269
Ashoka - 269 - 232
2) Gupta empire : 320 AD - 515 ~ 200 years
Chandragupta I - 320 - 335
Samudragupta - 335 - 375
Chandragupta II - 375 - 415
Kumaragupta - another 40 years
Skanda Gupta - 455 - 467
Various dunces :) - 467 - 515
(I guess you really can't count CG I, nor anybody after Skanda, I will
detail the reasoning later, so let me reduce that to ~130)
3) Harsha vardhana - 606 - 647 ~ 40
4) Delhi sultunate - never really big or significant.
5) Mughals - 1556 - 1707 ~150 years.
Akbar - 1556 - 1605
Jehangir - 1605 - 1627 (six month gap because of Noor Jehan)
shah jehan - 1628 - 1658
aurangzeb - 1658 - 1707 (wow!)
100+130+40+150 = 420 > 10% of India's history. Yay ....
(Oops, I forgot that India's history starts from circa 2500 BC, and 420
< 10% of 4500. Or is it 6000 BC? I am *so* confused!)
OK, I did not prove much (beyond that I still know my primary school
arithmetic) (or should I call that India's glorious heritage - oh never
mind! :) but the point of this exercise however, was to detail the
various empires that India has had. Why did I not include any of
Ashoka's or Skanda gupta's successors? Punjab! Coming to the next point.
> 3) Moreover, the Punjab.Sindh region was not part of the Gupta Empire (which
> lasted less than a century and was confined to the U.P., M.P., Bihar region -
That is very wrong. SG (Samudra...) conquered Punjab early on in his
reign, on his way to conquering most of north India, and south till the
Deccan.
Punjab remained under Gupta rule until just before 500, when the Huna
tribes, led by Toramana (who had captured Persia earlier in 484) wrested
it from their control.
The Gupta empire (apart from Punjab :) also included all of Rajasthan,
and parts of Sindh and Kashmir.
> but is proclaimed as an "Indian Hindu Empire" by OC Supremacists).
> Also, according to the historical map contained in the Times Atlas History
> of the World, Punjab was not part of the Mauryan empire (a Buddhist empire
Hmmm... now, the only Mauryan emperor to be Buddhist was Ashoka, so I
don't know if you can call it a 'Buddhist empire', but coming to the
point :
(Quoted directly from 'A new history of India' by Stanley Wolpert, with
apologies to the author, no infringement on copyright is intended)
'In 305 BC, we know that he <CG Maurya> concluded a treaty with Seleucus
Nikator, Alexandor's greek heir to western Asia, fixing the the western
border of the Mauryan empire along the spine of the Hindu Kush
mountains.'
Now last I knew, Punjab was *east* of the Hindu Kush, hence it appears
logical that Punjab was part of the Mauryan empire.
Not only that, legend has it (of course, no proof for this) that CGM was
actually the same 'young stripling' known as 'Sandracottus' (:-) that
Alexander met just past Beas, which in fact puts CGM's origins *in*
Punjab. But no more heresy.
> which also lasted less than a century). In fact, the Punjab region was never
> politically unified to lands south of the Ganga during any pre-Muslim period;
> even the 10% "togethorness" noted above does not apply to Punjab/Sindh.
Now let me come to the reasoning for excluding CG I and successors of
SG, *all* the empires mentioned above (except HV's 40 year reign, I
don't know about that either way), included Punjab! So much for this
argument.
> 4) Since Vedic (1500-400 B.C)and Gandharan times (400 B.C.-700 A.D.), the
> ancient peoples of the Punjab/Sindh region have always cherished and proudly
> protected their political, cultural, ethnic, and religious soverignty.
Sovereignty? Protected??
Sure, Vedic period, granted.
Gandharan times?
Again, qouting:
'The Gandharan region of India's NW, whose capital was Taxila, fell
under Persian control in 518 BC. As the twentieth satrapy .... paid an
annual tribute of no fewer than 360 talents in gold dust.'
Hmmm....
And more :
'<In 326 BC> The raja of Taxila, a wise (sic) ruler named Ambhi, ...
opened the gates to his <Alexander> invading horde'
Doesn't sound like Punjabis tried too hard to protect their sovereignty?
But of course, there was Porus, whom Alexander defeated. Now if that is
what you mean by 'proudly protected ... sovereignty', then I agree with
you, even though he did not exactly succeed.
Alexander advanced up to the Beas, after which his army resisted any
further excursions and he was forced to return. It would be interesting
to speculate what would have happened had he challenged the might of the
Mauryas. Of course he would've over run them. But after that?
As it happened though, Alexander left NW India under Seleucus' control,
and the rest of North India under CG I's control, who ultimately got
Punjab from the greeks.
After the Mauryans, Punjab went into the control of Greco-Bactrian
rulers, the most notable of whom was Menander (aka Milinda) who
converted to Buddhism and ruled from Sialkot. It can be argued that
these were ethnically Punjabis, agreed.
After around 50 BC, when the Greco-Bactrians subsided, Punjab was
dominated by Central Asian nomads, who flew out of China following its
expansion. Notable rulers in this period include the Scythians, the
Pahlavas and the Shakas. By around 50 AD, the Kushan invasions started,
and the Kushans established themselves (especially Kanishka) as the
rulers of Punjab (among other regions). They were one of the ancestors
of Rajputs, they were definitely not native to Punjab. The Kushan
dynasty ruled until about 240 AD.
After the Guptas, Punjab passed under Huna control.
The point that I see is that politically, and culturally, Punjab was
rarely, if ever sovereign. Now wait a minute, I am a Punjabi too! But I
respect Punjab for its ability to have absorbed all of these cultural
and political influences. However, I do not wish to harbour any
misplaced rhetorical notions.
> 5) As the foreign term "India" began to be applied to southasia by European
.
.
.
> throughout southasia as the British "India" expanded from its eastern base
> in the 19th century.
That of course is your usual anti brahminical tirade. Don't you ever
tire of that :)? I mean there are other things in life to do, right?
(OK, don't flame me for that now :)
> 1) Vedic Period (1500 B.C. - 400 B.C.):
> The religion of Punjab (Saptha Sindhva) during this period was Vedism or Vedic
> religion. The Vedics worshiped the Gods Indra (god of thunder) and Rudra
> (god of health); the holy book consisted of the hymns of the RigVedas written
> by Vedic poets and mystics. The Vedic Aryas were an egalitarian, semi-patoral
> people who ate cows, considered river Ravi to be holy, and in the RigVeda
> refer to their domains in the ancient Punjab/Sindh region as "Saptha Sindhva"
Wow! I'm impressed!
> Manu (approx. 700 B.C.) from the gangetic region "forbids Brahmins" to go to
> Punjab/Sindh and calls the Vedics "mlechas" (polluted) in his shastras
> as the Vedics did not view the gangetic priesthood, their Brahmanical Gods,
> and their caste-cult favorably and a climate of religious/political hostility
> existed between the two lands, as is evident from Manu's shastras.
Probably right, but can you point me to some references? I am genuinely
interested.
> 2) Gandharan Buddhist Period (400 B.C. - 700 A.D.):
> The egalitarian and humanistic teachings of the Buddha were received very well
> by ancient Punjabis and the Buddhist period lasted nearly 1000 years.
> During this period, the Punjab region also received new Indo-Scythic
> populations and influences from cenral asia such as the Sakas and Kushans.
> Begining with the works of historians such as Cunningham and Todd from the
> 19th century, many of the ethnic groups/"castes" found in the northern
> subcontinent (e.g. Jats, Yadavs, Ahirs, etc.; artisan castes; and some Rajput
> groups) have been traced to these Indo-Scythians (an Iranian-speaking culture
> of central asia). Indo-Scythian rulers and their descendents patronized
> Buddhism and Buddhism also spread to central asia and China during this
> period. During this period, there were extensive trade and religious links of
> Punjab/Afghanistan with central asia and China.
That is all right, but incomplete. You have left out Taxila, and you
have ignored the two empires which ruled Punjab (however remotely)
during this period, apart from the Greek rulers.
> 3) Post Gandharan Period (post 700 A.D.)
> During the 5-7th century several waves of Hun invasions occured and this
> period of instability lead to the demise of Buddhism. The Huns first entered
> Rajasthan through the Bolan pass and established control over large tracts of
> the north-central subcontinent and settled down as the new ruling order
> (Gujara-Parthiharas; Rajput/Thakur/Gujjars populations have been traced to
> these invaders from central asia). Many of the new Indo-Hun rulers such as
> Mahiragula began to patronized Brahmanism for the purpose on entrenching their
> control. During the 7th century Mahirgula - a Shivite - attacked Punjab and
> destroyed Jullandar (central Punjab) and Taxila (eastern Afhansistan)
> destroying the main Buddhist centers of ancient Gandhara (Punjab/Afghanistan).
> These two centers of learning and intellectual life housed many Buddhist
> univeristies, councils, and temples and students came here from all over
> central asia, China, and southasia to learn Gandharan Buddhist philosophy and
> science.
OK, I withdraw the earlier comment on Taxila (:)). Although I'm sure you
don't need a certificate from anybody, you have a pretty good historical
sense! Now just bolster it a little by getting rid of those little damn
biases that you have ..... oh sorry, I had promised to myself not to
refer to that anymore. Geeez!
> Islam arrived during the 11th century followed by flowering of Sufi Islam in
> Punjab during the 12th century. Sikhism developed in the 16th century.
>
> Given the continuity and autonomity of the history of greater Punjab, the most
> sensible and encompassing label for this past is "Punjabi History" or "Ancient
> Punjab History" (Punjabi is used here in a geographical/cultural/ethnic sense
> not just linguistic).
Sure. 100% agreement on that point.
I don't know if you have a problem with being called an 'Indian' or not,
but let me tell you this - that being an Indian does not imply not being
a Punjabi or Bengali or Tamilian or Gujju or Biharii babu or Mallu or
whatever or any more whatevers. I am a Punjabi and I am proud of that,
but I am also an Indian and I am proud of that too. To me, whether or
not Punjab was historically part of India, being proud of Punjabi
heritage implies being proud of Indian heritage too, because *in today's
context* Punjab is very much a part of India, and Punjabi culture seems
to me very much included in that broad and ill-defined context known as
'Indian culture'!
--
Pankaj Kakkar http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~pankaj
--------------------------------------------------------
Office: Home:
PhD Student 2211 Walnut St
CIS Dept., Apt No 7
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences Philadelphia
University of Pennsylvania, PA 19104 PA 19103
USA. USA
(215) 898 8116 (215) 564 5298
English has no future. Believe me.
(If that disturbs you, talk to me :-))(Hint:It has to do with 'tense'!)
Alex Wilding
Could you guys consider trimming your enormous list of newsgroups down
a bit? You're making yourselves look tiresome.
___________________________________________________________________
Alex Wilding, Translations (Ge->Eng)
Voice/Fax +44 (0)1492 585163
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~alex_w/
Alex Wilding
Alex Wilding
si...@ugcs.caltech.edu
EXCERPTS I
a) From Bongard-Levin's, "Mauryan India." (p. 72)
Many sources disclose that Candragupta was born into a
Ksatriya family. For example, in the Mahadodhivamsa he
is placed in a royal family ('narendrakula'); in the
still earlier Mahavamsa (V. 16), in the Ksatriya clan
of Moriya-Mauryas (moriyanam khattiyanam vamse), and
in the Divyavadana all Candragupta's heirs are called
Ksatriyas.
Some scholars, N. Seth in particular, believed that
Candragupta came from Gandhara, but this assertion
contradicts the data associating the Mauryas with Magadha.
In the early Jaina Kalpasutra, the settlement of the
settlement of the Moriyas is placed in that region, which
was a meeting place of many trade routes. Not far from
contemporary Patna (Patliputra) lies More, which, in
Buddha Prakash's opinion, is the ancient home of the
Mauryas. B.Ch. Law compared the name Moriya with
Moranivapa, a place near Rajagrha, the ancient capital
of Magadha. Megasthenes linked Candragupta with Eastern
India (with the Prasii) and directly with Patliputra. In
the Minor Rock Edict from Bairat (Bhabra), Asoka styles
himself as king of Magadha.
b) From Raychaudhuri's, "Political history of ancient
India." (p. 138)
The ancestry of Chandragupta is not known for certain. Hindu
tradition connects him with the Nanda dynasty of Magadha.
Jaina tradition recorded in the Parisishtaparvan represents
him as the son of a daughter of the chief of the village of
Mayuraposhaka. The Mahavamsa (Geiger's Translation) calls
him a scion of the Moriya clan. In the Divyavadana (Cowell
and Neil's Ed.) Bindusara, the son of Chandragupta, claims
to be Kshatriya Murdhabhishikta. In the same work Asoka,
the son of Bindusara, calls himself a Kshatriya. In the
Mahaparinibbana Sutta the Moriyas are repreented as the
ruling clan of Pipphalivana, and as belonging to the
Kshatriya caste. As the Mahaparinibbana Sutta is the most
ancient of the works referred to above, and as it belongs
to the early Buddhist period its evidence must be accepted
as authentic. It is therefore practically certain that
Chandragupta belonged to a Kshatriya community, viz., the
Moriya (Maurya) clan.
si...@ugcs.caltech.edu
gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh Singh) writes:
>[...]
>Isnt it ironic that pro-Brahmanical OC supremacists make all sorts of grand
>claims over the history/religions of southasia, yet the whole history
>of the Mauryan empire and the later Gandharan Kushana empire (1st-4th
>century A.D.) comes to us from Chinese, Greek, and Persian travellers
>to the region.
That's a naive statement - that the "whole history of
the Mauryan empire comes to us from Chinese, Greek and
Persian travelers." Are there no Indian sources, GS?
And since the stakes on "on-site awareness" seem to be
high - or so one is led to believe - next you'll be
claiming that in Punjab, or in your self-proclaimed
"Greater Punjab region," (care to elaborate on epsilon?)
'bachcha bachcha' is familiar with the rise and fall
of the Mauryas and the imperial Guptas.
>Brahmanical sources (none of them pre-dating the demise of Buddhism in the
>post 6th century A.D. period) have systematically attempted to erase this
>history and call these Buddhist rulers "low caste", "mlechhas", "minor Kings",
>etc. Dont you think there is a bias in the way Brahmins recorded history
>for their self-serving purposes?
What "Brahmanical sources" do you have in mind? And
were Buddhist attitudes towards Brahmins devoid of
bias?
It is of course telling that you expect your claims
of history to be believed in spite of the labels
you've been attaching to the Brahmins and other
castes; what was it - 'kirars,' castiests? Don't you
think there is a bias in the way you've been telling
history, GS? How are you any different from the
Brahmins you've been telling us about?
And have British works on Indian history - you go on
to present some as references - been without bias?
How many revisions of Cunningham's work on the Sikhs
had to be undertaken for it to see light? Bingley's
work on the Sikhs, meant to aid in the
recruitment of Sikh troops, seems to state only
what the poor chap was told - Gills were Gills
because their progenitor was a prince who had
been found abandoned in a moist ('gil') area;
Aroras were Aroras because in order to escape
Parshuram's wrath towards Kshatriyas, they had said,
"Kshatriya nahin, hum _aur_ hain!" All those official
categories - I recall "martial ethinic castes" to be
one you seem to believe in - of castes, were they not
for a self-serving purpose? A telling example is the
Khatri categorization among Vasiyas. When this seemed
to hurt the group's silly notion of pride, corrections
were undertaken.
>Prof. Hari Ram Gupta[1] argues that CGM was a native of Punjab.
>Arrian[2] wrote, "Alexander, however, did not even on this show anger
>against Porus, and sent for Meroes having learnt that Meroes had long been a
>friend of Porus". Professor Sinha [3] writes: "Dr. Buddha Prakash
>has identified Meroes with Chandragupta Maurya . . ". The point
>is that since Porus was a Punjabi king of the upper Beas region,
>his "friend" had to be a neighbor (from southern Punjab) and also
>a Punjabi native. He therefore could not have been from Bihar, thousands of
>miles away to the southeast. According to these fellows, Bindusara and Ashoka
>expanded their empire towards the southeast from Punjab. If this is
>true, it could hardly be called annexation of Punjab by eastern Kingdoms!
I am posting separately in the thread, as "Excerpts I,"
material from Bongard-Levin's, "Mauryan India" and from
Raychaudhuri's, "Political history of ancient India."
Incidentally, Bongard-Levin refers to Buddha Prakash as
well.
>Last time I looked in the Times World History Atlas at a bookstore (few weeks
>back), the Guptas were not in Punjab (the color was different).
>Also, the Guptas are now viewed as an Indo-Scythian dynasty related to
>the Kushanas (also a Indo-Scythian group). Evidence of Scythian leanings
>comes from coins and manuscripts examined by Cunningham, Todd, Sinha, Gupta,
>Banerjea, Dahiya, Dhillon, etc.
>Prof. B.P. Sinha[4] and others believe the Guptas to be from the Dharana clan
>of Jats who can be found even today in the Mathura region. The source
>of Sinha's analysis is the Arya-Manjurasi-Mulakalpa manuscript. Also
>the Jats (found in the north only) are of Indo-Scythian origin. The
>archeological evidence (Scythian dress on Gupta and Kushana coins)
>supports the Scythic origin of the Guptas. See the references below
>for more on this.
I am posting separately in the thread, as "Excerpts
II and III," material from S.R. Goyal's "A history
of the imperial Guptas." Incidentally, I too had
looked up a Time-Life book on India a few weeks back.
Here's what I recall:
"...historians agree on the basis of inscriptions that
the patriarch of the family was a maharaja of the
Brahmin class named Gupta, who lived sometime around
AD 300....His son was one Ghatotkacha...[who was] the
father of Chandragupta I, the founder of the Gupta
empire and the first of its great rulers." (Ancient
India: Land of mystery, p.127)
>>3) Harsha vardhana - 606 - 647 ~ 40
>Hardly an "Indian empire". His domains were Punjab/western United Provinces
>(U.P.). His empire was
>It was very much a "Punjabi empire".
And what makes Harsha's empire a "Punjabi empire?"
Here's more from the Time-Life book:
"The new king was Harsha, who came from the city of
Thanesar, strategically located in the eastern Punjab
at the entrance to the Ganges plain. Harsha's father
was a local king who had had some success in fighting
off the Huns; his mother was a princess of the later
Gupta line....He fought continuously for almost six
years, in which time he established his sovereignty
over most of northern India. In 612 he had a formal
coronation as emperor, setting up his capital at
Kanauj (modern Kanyakubja) on the east bank of the
Ganges River." (pp. 142-43)
>Isnt it again ironic, that the first dynasties to use the term
>"Hindustan" were foreign Afghan/Mogul dynasties! Until then,
>Southasians had no sense of being a ONE people or a nation. All this
>new identity creation comes in the 19th century after the British
>dubbed all of southasia "India" (for their own imperial purposes).
>Its nice to know that you are willing to add the "muslim" period to
>your Indian history accounting. However, before Aurenzeb, the Moghul empire
>did not even cover half the north of subcontinent. You need to adjust
>for this.
And why should the "muslim period" not be added to
"Indian history accounting?"
>Eureka! - my 10% unity estimate was overly generous.
>I dont think anyone in southasia had heard the term "India" or had any
>notion of it as a unified political, ethnic, and cultural entity
>("One Nation") before the Brits arrived to create their empire!
Surely you are not under the impression that India
is a nation today because of some concept of ancient
history, real or imagined. Notions of common "roots,
ethnicity and heritage" only evoke silly demands for
boundaries; they don't form them. It is political
events that form boundaries. Yes, there are regions
in India that don't have links with each other and
perhaps have links with regions outside India. This
may even weaken India's boundaries, but it's hardly
going to break India. And should India even break,
perish the thought, there now exits at least 50
years of it as a "unified political entity" - enough
to counter arguments of "common history." In fact,
more time, and gains would have been made to
counter silly arguments of common "ethnic and
cultural" bonds as a prerequisite for nationhood.
>Also the Hunas starting to patronize Brahmanism as a means of entrenching
>their control - by the 7th century they begin to sign themselves off
>as "Rajputs".
Are all Rajput clans from Huns, GS? Sometime back
"Y" (Malaiya?) had posted stuff on the Rashtrkutas
being Rathaurs. Did he establish that? I wouldn't
concede that - not right now, but it's hard to
ignore inscriptions. Incidentally, all but three
Jat clans claim Rajput ancestry.
>We probably wouldnt have "bhangra", "gidha",
>and "Jat-soor-mai" if they had not
>come.
Are bhangra, gidha, etc. evidenced among non-Punjabi
Jat communities as well? Among Ahirs and Gujars?
>Honestly, I think you consider yourself an "Indian" - whatever that means.
>It's current construction is based on the pro-Brahmanical historical fantasies
>of the 7% orthodox caste community who have had the run of the rump
>in most of southasia since 1947.
Hmmm. GS seems to have begun the closing ceremonies.
>Gimme a break! India since 1947 has been under the domination of
>OC (7%) caste cliques who over the past 50 years have clearly demonstrated
>their pro-brahmanical hegemonic and supremacist
>political/economic/cultural/linguistic agenda.
>Punjabi was not even given
>"state-language" recognition by the Casteocracy for the first 20 years of its
>existence - till 1967. In the 80s, its policy changed from hegemonic control
>to violent control and use of state terror in which over 150,000 Sikhs have
>been eliminated. Similar state terror and use of army can be seen in all
>other majority non-Hindu states (Kashmir, Punjab, Manipur, Assam, etc.). But
>this is another discussion.
All nations/societies suffer lapses. India will
overcome its moments of breakdown. But you are
right - that's another discussion.
si...@ugcs.caltech.edu
EXCERPTS II
a) From S.R. Goyal's, "A history of the imperial Guptas."
(pp. 74-8)
VARIOUS THEORIES REGARDING THE CASTE OF THE GUPTAS
The Gupta epigraphs do not throw any light on the social
background of teh Imperial Guptas. However, in her copper
plate inscriptions Prabhavatigupta, the daughter of
Chandragupta II and the wife of the Vakataka Rudrasena II,
mentions that she belonged to the Dharaana gotra. Now, as
the gotra of the husband of Prabhavati was Vishnuvriddha,
it has been inferred that Dharana was the the gotra of the
Guptas. It is very significant, for, as pointed out by
Dasarath Sharma the Skanda Purana refers to the Brahmanas
of the Dharana gotra living in Dharmaranya, a tract in
Mirzapur District of UP. To us it appears to be a strong
proof in favour of our suggestion that the Guptas, who
also belonged to Eastern UP, were Brahmanas by caste.
However, Sharma, who had faith in the suggestion of
Jayaswal that the Guptas belonged to the Jat clan of the
Punjab, now maintains that these rulers were either
Kshatriyas or Vaisyas and believes that they accepted
the Dharana Brahmanas as their gurus and had adopted
their gotra. But such a conjecture is unnecessary and
completely unwarranted. Similarly, the various theories
based on the interpretation of the word 'Gupta' do not
appear to be very convincing. This word reminded Allan
of Chandragupta Maurya, who, according to the learned
scholar, "was certainly of low caste origin, as his name
would imply, and it is very possible that the history
of the rise of the founder of the Gupta dynasty closely
resembles that of the great Maurya." It has also been
maintained that according to the Vishnu Purana, the names
ending in 'Gupta' are characteristic of the Vaisya caste;
so, the imperial Guptas must have belonged to this social
order.[Satyaketu Vidyalankara points out that Dharana is
still a well-known gotra among the Agrawala community of
the Vaisyas.] But in ancient India, despite the injunction
of the Vishnu Purana, the name Gupta had no specific caste
association. For example, Brahmagupta, the famous astrologer
was almost certainly a Brahmana, the Gupta kings mentioned
in the Panchobh copper plate inscription were Kshatriyas
and the Buddhist monk Upagupta mentioned in the Divyavadana
was a vendor of scents. We don not know why the surname
Gupta reminded Allan of Chandragupta Maurya (who was
himself probably a Kshatriya) and not of his Brahmana
minister Vishnugupta.
The argument that the surname Gupta reveals the social
origin of the imperial Guptas has also been utilized by the
supporters of the theory that the Guptas belonged to the
Kshatriya caste. It has been pointed out that the six kings
mentioned in the Panchobh copper plate inscription, were the
descendants of Arjuna. "This leads us to think that the
kings of the imperial Gupta line were also of Kshatriya
origin". But we have already seen that the termination
Gupta is found with the names of all the castes including
Brahamanas, Vaisyas and Sudras. [As a matter of fact, no
surname seems to have had any rigid caste affiliation till
the end of the Classical period of Indian history. Among
the royal families, the word 'varman' is for the first
time found in the Pallava dynasty of Kanchi although the
Pallavas appear to have originally been Brahmanas of the
Bhardvaja gotra.] So, the fact that the kings of certain
other dynasties having the Surname Gupta were Kshatriyas,
does not prove that the imperial Guptas also belonged to
this caste. Another argument advanced by the supporters of
this theory is that the Guttala kings of Dharwar, who
claimed to be Kshatriyas have been described as the
descendants of Chandragupta Vikramaditya. But little
reliance can be placed on such mediaeval traditions.
Further, it should not be overlooked that in ancient times,
if a non-Kshatriya family assumed the headship of the
state, after sometime it usuually acquired Kshatriya status.
[Pallavas were perhaps originally Brahmanas though, later
on, they came to be regarded as Kshatriyas. Similarly,
Vardhanas of Thanesar were perhaps originally Vaisyas
though later on, they assumed Kshatriya status.] We,
therefore, should concentrate on contemporary data only.
The most important argument given by the supporters of the
Kshatriya origin of the imperial Guptas is based on the
analysis of the matrimonial alliances of these kings. It
has been argued that in ancient India marriages were
arranged generally in accordance with the 'anuloma' and
'pratiloma' rule. According to it, the marriage of a man
of higher varna with a woman of lower varna was anuloma
or permissible while the marriage of a man of lower varna
with a woman of higher varna was pratiloma and was strongly
condemned. In the light of this rule, it is said, the
matrimonial alliances of the Guptas show that they must
have been Kshatriyas, for, otherwise how the proud
Lichchavis could marry Kumaradevi with Chandragupta I, and
how the powerful Nagas could agree to the marriage of
Prabhavatigupta with Brahmana king Rudrasena II. The
marriage of Prabhavati with Brahmana king Rudrasena II also
becomes quite explicable, for, according to this rule a
Brahmana was entitled to marry a Kshatriya girl.
The argument is quite forceful. But its is strange to note
that so far nobody has bothered to point out that the
analysis of teh marriage relations of the Guptas makes it
equally possible that they belonged to the Brahmana order.
For, if we assume that they were Brahmana by caste, these
marriage alliances remain in the anuloma category.
rsh...@accessv.com
Get some help!!! I now a good psychiatrist in your area who can help
you will your paranoia delusions and obsessions. Please get some
help!!! E-mail me for the name of the psychiatrist so he help you
overcome your problems before it is to late!!!
si...@ugcs.caltech.edu
gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh Singh) writes:
Raychaudhuri's, "Political history of Ancient India."
may even weaken India's boundaries, perish the
thought, but it's hardly going to break India.
And for what your requirements for nationhood are
worth, India has now existed for at least 50
years as a "unified political entity" and more time,
gains would have been made to counter silly
prerequisites of "ethnic and cultural" bonds as well.
si...@ugcs.caltech.edu
rsh...@accessv.com writes:
>Most Rajputs, Jats and Khatris live mostly in Rajasthan. Exemplified
>further by their darker skin. In South India, Tamals have the name
>Singh, Rajan, Rai etc. in their last names; thus, their descendants
>are Rajputs, Jats and Khatris.
>If you have ever been to Rajasthan and talked to the people, most
>Rajputs and Jats who live there say their history is not from Punjab
>but from Rajasthan. The movement of Jats from Rajasthan was recent in
>history, about the 1600's.
And most Russians live on Mir, though recently
Americans too have started moving there.
>Furthermore, the creator of the Sikh Khalsa
>who himself was a Khatri Hindu, was born in Bihar.
The founder of the Khalsa was neither a Khatri
nor a Hindu, get that straight.
You ought to keep quiet, Sharma.
si...@ugcs.caltech.edu
EXCERPTS III
a) From S.R. Goyal's, "A history of the imperial Guptas."
(pp.78-81)
GUPTAS WERE BRAHMANAS
The protagonists of the theory of the Kshatriya origin of
the Guptas have not only overlooked the possibility of
their having been the members of teh Brahmana caste, they
have conveniently overlooked the evidence in its favour.
For, from the Talagunda inscription of the Kadamba king
Santivarman we learn that Kakutsthavarman, the great
grandson of Mayurasarman, the founder of the dynasty, gave
one of his daughters in marriage to a Gupta king. As we
have seen, the Kadambas belonged to a Brahmana family
who derived their descent from Hariti and belonged to the
Manavya gotra. Thus, the indication provided by the rule
of anuloma and pratiloma marriages is in consonance with
the fact that the Guptas were a branch of the Dharana
Brahmanas.
It may, however, be objected that the Kadambas may have
been forced by the Guptas to agree to this marriage
alliance, or that the Kadambas themselves, impressed by
the glory of the Guptas, overlooked the Sastric injunction
on this point. This objection involves a doubt in the
validity of teh argument that the analysis of the marriage
relations can give an indication as to which caste the
Guptas belonged. Here, it may be pointed out that the
rejection of this line of approach is equally fatal to the
theory of Kshatriya origin. For, in that case it would
become impossible to maintain that the Guptas must have
been Kshatriyas, otherwise how the proud Nagas and the
Lichchavis could give their princesses in marriage to them.
But the more important question is: can the above mentioned
objection against the marriage alliance argument be sustained?
We do not think so. In this connection we would like to
make the following observations:
1) In the Gupta period pratiloma marriages were extremely
rare. All authentic instances of such marriages belonging to
this period so far cited by scholars depend upon the
presumption that the Guptas were Vaisyas. We do not mean that
pratiloma marriages were altogether unknown. We only wish
to point out that no authentic instance of a pratiloma
marriage of this period is on record, though the possibility
of some isolated cases may not be altogether ruled out. By
way of evidence, we may quote the high authority of Yuan
Chwang, an intelligent and impartial observer belonging
to a different country and a different faith, who not refers
to the four hereditary castes of Indian society together
with their respective occupations, but adds that the members
of a caste group marry within the caste. Therefore, unless
we can prove we should not lightly assume that the leaders
of society violated Sastric injunction at this point.
2) The suggestion that the Guptas could force the Kadambas
to agree to this alliance cannot be sustained because no
Gupta emperor after Samudragupta is known to have carried
his victorious arms in the Far South. The possibility that
the Kadambas, being impressed by the power and glory of the
mighty Guptas, themselves violated the law of anuloma
marriages is highly unlikely. It may be pointed out that
the Kadambas were very orthodox Brahmanas. Mayurasarman, the
founder of the dynasty was a Brahmana of Kautilyan nature.
He had exchanged the ladle for teh sword with the specific
purpose of protecting the Brahmanas and the Sastras. According
to mediaeval legends he performed eighteen horse-sacrifices
and distributed 144 villages among the Brahmanas. These
legends my not be entirely correct, but it is obvious that he
was regarded as a very staunch Brahmana. It may also be noted
that in the Talagunda inscription the character and policy
of Mayurasarman has been described with pride. Further, the
fact that the Kadambas adopted the title 'Dharma Maharaja'
or 'Dharma Maharajadhiraja' may be taken as an indication
of their anxiety to establish traditional 'Dharma'. And,
lastly, it may be pointed out that the Kadambas gave their
daughters in marriage to the princes of Vakataka, Ganga
and Bhatari families also. We do not know the social
background of the Bhatari family but the Vakatakaa, and
most probably the Gangas also, were Brahmanas. At any rate,
the Kadambas are not known to have given their daughters
in marriage to any dynasty of indubitably non-Brahmana origin.
In the light of these facts it is very difficult to assign
the marriage of the daughter of Kakutsthavarman with a Gupta
king to the category of pratiloma marriages.
3) The problem may be attacked from another angle as well. If
the Guptas were Brahmanas, they themselves must have been
reluctant to give their princesses in marriage to the
non-Brahmana bridegrooms. Now, the only Gupta princess, the
case of whose husband is generally known, is Prabhavatigupta.
She was married to the Brahmana king Vakataka Rudrasena II.
But apart from this, we know the caste of the husbands of
two other Gupta princesses, though, so far, they have remained
rather unnoticed. One of them has been mentioned by Paramartha,
a Buddhist scholar, of sicth century AD. From him we learn that
Baladitya, unquestionably a king of the Gupta dynasty, married
his sister to Vasurata, a Brahmana by caste. There is no reason
to doubt this piece of evidence as Paramartha was a near
contemporary of the king Baladitya. Secondly, according to
Mandasor inscription of Yasodharman-Vishnuvardhana, Bhanugupta
was the wife of a certain Ravikirtti, 'evidently a Brahmana,'
who was the grandfather of Dharmdosha, the minister of
Yasodharman. The name of Bhanugupta reminds one of Bhanugupta,
the Gupta king mentioned in the Eran inscription of 510 AD. In
the words of Fleet "the coincidence of name and time is such
taht it is impossible not to imagine some family connection
between him and her." But from our point of view more
important is the fact that this Gupta princess was also
married to a Brahmana. Of course, it is true that even if the
Guptas are to be regarded as Kshatriyas, these marriages
remain within the anuloma category. But the fact that we know
the caste of the husbands of three Gupta princesses and all
of them turn out to be Brahmanas strongly suggests that probably
the Guptas themselves belonged to the Brahmana order.
Gurupdesh Singh
Here is a different perspective on the Mauryas. It is interesting
that none of your sources disclose the "sources" of their claims
(see end of my note on this).
Maurya empire : 324 - 232 BC
Chandragupta Maurya - 324 - 301
Bindusara - 301 - 269
Ashoka - 269 - 232
There has been much controversy about the exact ethnicity of Chandragupta
(CGM).
Prof. Hari Ram Gupta[1] argues that CGM was a native of Punjab.
Arrian[2] wrote, "Alexander, however, did not even on this show anger
against Porus, and sent for Meroes having learnt that Meroes had long been a
friend of Porus". Professor Sinha [3] writes: "Dr. Buddha Prakash
has identified Meroes with Chandragupta Maurya . . ". The point
is that since Porus was a Punjabi king of the upper Beas region,
his "friend" had to be a neighbor (from southern Punjab) and also
a Punjabi native. He therefore could not have been from Bihar, thousands of
miles away to the southeast. According to these fellows, Bindusara and Ashoka
expanded their empire towards the southeast from Punjab.
Brahmanical texts refer to Chandragupta Maurya (the founder) as "low caste"
and "mlecha". In the mahabharta (Puranic shastra from the gangetic region)
and the texts of Manu, Punjab is spoken as the land of irreligious people
(since Vedic times Punjabis showed irreverence to Dravidian Brahmanism and
would not admit the Gangetic Brahmins as their priests): "one should not go to
Vahika in which the five rivers and the indus where the 'mlechas' live . . ".
So, labelling of Mauryas as "low castes" and "mlechhas" by Brahmins (later on)
supports the view that they were originally northeners from
Punjab. These facts automatically rule out the claims of many pro-Brahmanical
historians that the Mauryans were their "Kshatriyas" from the Gangetic region.
The non-Hindu (non-indeginous) origin of the Mauryas is also supported by the
fact that Ashoka (greatest of the Mauryan emporers) never used Sanskrit [4].
Also contemporary accounts of the Mauryan era come only from Chinese, Greek,
and Persian travellers. All existing Brahmanical literature is post-Buddhist
(post 700 A.D. and mostly from 11-13th century A.D.) and clearly shows
attempts to erase, manipulate and marginalize the history of the 1000 year
Buddhist civilization in southasia. For example, Ashoka is refered to as a
"minor King", "mlechha", "shudra", "not generous to Brahmins". Similar
treatment is given to other Buddhist kings of this era (300 B.C. - 700 A.D.).
References:
[1] Gupta, H.R. Chandragupta Maurya: A Native of Punjab, In Punjab
past and present: Essays in honour of Dr. Ganda Singh, edited by H. Singh
and N. Gerald Barrier, Published by Punjabi University, Patiala, Punjab 1967,
pp. 27-32.
[2] Arrian (95-175 A.D.), Anabasis of Alexander, E.I. Robson, Harvard
University Press, cambride, Massachusetts, 1966, pp.37,59,69-72.
[3] Sinha, B.C., Studies in Alexander's Campaigns, Bharitya Publishing
Hourse, Varanasi, India, 1973, pp. 35-36, 40.
[4] Smith, V.A., The Oxford History of India, Oxford University Press, London,
1967, pp. 173, 162-163.
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <5m5vbk$7...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, si...@ugcs.caltech.edu () wrote:
>
>EXCERPTS III
>
>a) From S.R. Goyal's, "A history of the imperial Guptas."
> (pp.78-81)
>
>GUPTAS WERE BRAHMANAS
Many historians beg to differ. Here is a summary of their views
and references.
Gupta empire : 320 AD - 515
Chandragupta I - 320 - 335
Samudragupta - 335 - 375
Chandragupta II - 375 - 415
Kumaragupta - another 40 years
Skanda Gupta - 455 - 467>
Historical and archeological evidence supports the view that the Guptas were
an Indo-Scythian dynasty related to the Kushanas (also a Indo-Scythian group).
Evidence of Scythian leanings comes from coins and manuscripts examined by
Cunningham, Todd, Sinha, Gupta, Banerjea, Dahiya, Dhillon, etc. The Jats and
other agrarian/artisan groups found in the north (e.g. Yadavs, Gujars, Ahirs,
certain Rajput groups, Tarkhans, Lohars, etc.) are determined to be of
Indo-Scythian origin. Sir Cunningham [1] (former Director General of
Archeology, India) writes:
"the different races of the Scythians which succesively appeared as conquerors
in the border provinces of Persian and India (southasia) are the following in
the order of arrival: Sakas or Sacae (the Su or Sai of the Chinese - B.C. ?),
Kushans (the great Yue-Chi (Yuti) of the Chinese - B.C. 163), Kiddarite or
later Kushans (the little Yue-chi of the Chinese - A.D. 450) and Epthalites or
White Huns (the Yetha of the Chinese - 470 A.D.)".
(It is very interesting to note that the very pronunciation of the words
"Yuti" and "Yetha" is quite close to the modern words "Jat" and "Yadav".)
Cunningham [1] further writes ". . . the successive Scythian invasions of the
Sakas, the Kushans, and the White Huns, were followed by permanent settlements
of large bodies of their countrymen . . ".
Profs. B.P. Sinha[2], Dahiya [3], Gupta[4], and others (see below) believe the
Guptas to be from the Dharana clan of Jats who can be found even today in the
Mathura, Bikaner, and adjoining regions of Punjab. The source of this
analysis is the Arya-Manjurasi-Mulakalpa manuscript and the imperial Gupta
coins. The archeological evidence (Scythian dress on Gupta and Kushana coins)
supports the Scythic origin of the Guptas. Dahiya[3] devotes one entire
chapter of his book to prove that the the Gupta empire was indeed an empire of
the Dharan Jats.
The following is a condensed from Prof. B.S. Dhillon [5]:
Some of the supporting factors of these assertions are
1) Dr. P. L. Gupta[4] writes "The most common gold coins of the Guptas appear
to be the direct descendents of the gold coins of the later Kushans . . .".
He adds that the standing pose of the Gupta kings at the altar is almost
identical to that of the Kushan kings, as is their dress - Kushan long coats
and trousers (uchkin, salwar/kameez ?).
2) Alberuni [3] (an Arab who travelled through southasia in A.D. 1030) learnt
that the Guptas were powerful but bad and the locals celebrated the end of
their rule. This again supports the "foreign" Indo-Scythian origin of the
Guptas; the end of the foreign empire in the in the north central/eastern
region of the subcontinent was a cause of celebration.
3) Kushanas (from Punjab/Afghanistan - Gandhara) at the height of their power
in 358 A.D. sent presents to Samudra Gupta according to an inscription on the
Allahabad pillar [5]. This means that the Guptas had friendly relations with
their Indo-Scythian cousinsin Punjab - an ethnic affinity ?
4) According to a quotation in Dahiya's [3] book, Gupta horse riders as per
Gupta coins wore long tunics fastened by belts, helmets, buttoned-up boots,
andtrousers. This is a completed Scythian outfit!
References
[1] Cunningham, A. (1971), Coins of the Indo-Scythians, Sakas, and Kushanas,
Reprinted by Indological Book House, Varanasi, India (first published
1888).
-------(1979), Later Indo-Scythians (Coins), No. 11, Reprinted by Indological
Book House, varanasi, India (first published 1893-94).
-------(1963), Coins of Ancient India: from the earliest times down to the
seventh century A.D., reprinted by Indological Book House, Varanasi,
India.
[2] Sinha, B.P., Journal of Bihar Research Society, XXXVII, parts 3-4, pp 142.
[3] Dahiya, B.S. (1980), Jats: The Ancient Rulers, Sterling Publishers Pvt.
Ltd., New Delhi, India.
[4] Gupta, P.L. (1988), Coins, National Book Trust, New Delhi, India, pp51-52.
[5] Dhillon, B.S. (1994), History and Study of the Jats, Beta Publishers
Inc., Ottawa, Canada
Other related References:
Banerjea, J.N. (1987), The Scythians and Parthians in India, in a
Comprehensive History of India, edited by K.A.N. Sastri, Vol. 2,
Peoples Publishing House, New Delhi, India, 1987, pp 186-309, pp
830-838.
Banerji, R.D. (1909), The Scythian Period in Indian History, Indian
Antiquary, Vol. XXXVII, pp 25-74.
Bingley, A.H. (1978), History, Caste & Culture of the Jats and Gujars, Ess Ess
Publications, New Delhi, India (first published in 1899).
Eggmont, P.H.L. (1970), Alexander's Campaign in Ghandhara and Ptolemy's List
of Indo-Scythian Towns, Orientalis Lavaniensia Periodica I, pp 63-123.
Hewitt, J.F. (1894), The Ruling Races of Prehistorical Times in India,
South-Western Asia, and Southern Europe, Archibald Constable & Co. ,
London, pp. 481-487.
Herodotus (B.C. 490-425): The Histories, translated by de Selincourt,
Penguin Books, New York, 1988.
Jats, The New Encylopaedia Britannica, Vol. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.,
Chicago, pp. 510.
The Getae and the Dacians, and Sarmatae and Parthians, in The Cambridge
Ancient History, edited by S.A. Cook, F.E. Adcock, M.P. Charlesworth,
Vol. II, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1954.
Pradhan, M.C. (1966), The Political System of the Jats of Northern India,
Oxford University Press, London.
Ptolemy (90-168 A.D.), Geography of Claudius Ptolemy, translated and edited
by E.L. Stevenson, The New York Public Library, New York, 1932.
Mahil, U.S. (1955), Antiquity of Jat Race, Atma Ram & Sons, Delhi, India.
McCrindle, J.W. (1987), Ancient India as Described in Classical Literature,
reprinted by Eastern Book House, Patna, India, pp 164-165 (first
published 1901).
Mc Govern, W.N. (1939), The early Empires of Central Asia, he University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, pp 419-21.
Pliny, (A.D. 23-79): Natural History, translated by H. Rackham, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1947.
Rolle, R. (1989), The World of the Scythians, University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Sara, I. (1978), The Scythian Origin of the Jat-SIkh (Part 1 & 2), The Sikh
Review, pp. 15-27, pp. 214-233.
Smith, V. A. (1903), The Kushana or Indo-Scythian Period in Indian History
(165 B.C.-320 A.D.), Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great
Britain and Ireland, pp. 1-64.
Tod, J.(1972), Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, Vol. 1, Routledge &
Kegan Paul Ltd., London, pp. 623(first published in 1829).
si...@ugcs.caltech.edu
The imperial Guptas are being debated - in particular the question,
"Who" were they? The established view among most historians is that
the Guptas were Brahmins. GS differs vehemently. GS must be right.
A chief argument on the "identity" of the Guptas is derived from
certain copper plate inscriptions of Prabhavatigupta, the daughter
of Chandragupta II and the wife of Vakataka Rudrasena II, in which
she mentions her 'gotra' as Dharana. Since the Vakataka is known to
be of the 'gotra' Vishnuvridhha, Dharana must be that of the Guptas.
This brought in the suggestion that the Guptas must have been Jats
for there exists today a Jat clan of the Dharana 'gotra'. That there
also exist Agarwals and Brahmins of the Dharana 'gotra' seems to
have been ignored.
Here is some relevant material from Agrawal's, "Rise and fall of the
imperial Guptas":
"...the Gupta princess Prabhavatigupta, daughter of
Chandragupta II, mentions her 'gotra' as Dharana, in
her Poona and Riddhapur copper plate grants. Since
it is not the 'gotra' of her husband, Rudrasena II
Vakataka, which was Vishnuvriddha, Dharana must be
the 'gotra' of her paternal house - the Guptas. Next
he [Jayaswal] brought in the statement in the play
'Kaumudimahotsava', where Chandasena whom Jayaswal
identified with Chandragupta I, is described as
Karaskara. He then quoted Baudhayana Dharmasutra
where Karaskara is coupled with Madras, Arattas, etc.
and concluded that these were the Jat communities of
the Punjab and so the Guptas must be Jats. This
opinion of Jayaswal was endorsed by Dashrath Sharma
who said that there are at present in Rajasthan,
Jats of Dharana 'gotra'. So far as the argument
based on the epithet Karaskara is concerned, it has
no value whatsoever because it hs been conclusively
proved that the play 'Kaumudimahotsava' has no
bearing on the early Gupta history, and Chandrasena
of the play cannot be identified with Chandragupta I,
the founder of the imperial Gupta power. We need not,
therefore, bother about the suggested equation of
Karaskara and modern name Kakkar, which incidently
[sic] is a sub-caste of the Kshatriyas. The Madras
too were not Jats but Kshatriyas, as is evident from
their relationship with the Pandavas of the
'Mahabharata'." (p. 83)
Agrawal however disputes the reading of the Riddhapur copper plate
and suggests that Dharana was 'gotra' of the "Naga family to which
her [Prabhavatigupta's] mother Kuberanaga belonged." But he goes
on to conclude that "in view of these matrimonial alliances of the
Guptas [kindly refer to "Excerpts II and III," material from S.R.
Goyal's "A history of the imperial Guptas," posted earlier] with
orthodox Brahman dynasties, we may infer that the Guptas belonged
to the Brahman caste."
Issue has also been made of the coinage of the imperial Guptas. The
Kushan influence is obvious, we are told. Indeed it is and that is
exactly what it is - an influence. It might help to remind ourselves
that the "European dress is popular among the educated classes of
modern India even when the country has become independent." Would
a frock-coat make you an Englishman, GS? Congo's Kabila may pose
for the press in European attire, but he remains quite Congolese.
The following excerpts seem to be of relevance here:
"Even in the marriage scene depicted on the coins of
Chandragupta II-Kumaradevi type, the Gupta emperor is
shown as wearing Kushana coat and trousers. He does
not discard it even when offering oblations on alter
[sic] in the Standard type. The goddess on the reverse
on the early coins is an exact copy of Ardoxsho; only
her name is omitted. Contrary to Hindu canons of
propriety, Samudragupta is shown as his own
standard-bearer, simply because such was the case
with the king on the Kushana coins, which were being
imitated by the Gupta mint-masters. But gradually
the king began to be shown in Indian dress, though
foreign coat and trousers lingered on for several
decades. Ardoxsho was transformed into Durga or
Lakshmi and the Standard type was Indianised by
substituting the standard either by the 'parasu'
or by the bow." (Goyal, S.R., "A history of the
imperial Guptas," p. 65)
"The early Gupta kings followed the Kushana and
Roman standard of 121 grains for their gold coins,
most probably because it was well established in
the Roman and Kushana empires and had acquired an
international recognition. Gradually the weight
standard of the gold coins was increased from the
time of Chandragupta II till it came to 144 grains,
the Indian standard of 'suvarna', in the time of
Skandagupta. His successors continued to issue the
coins in the 'suvarna' standard only." (Agrawal, A.,
"Rise and fall of the imperial Guptas," p. 17)
Before you throw any more coins at me GS, I'll suggest you take a
good look at their descriptions. You might notice "the goddess
sitting on lion," "the 'Garuda' emblem," "the 'parsu',"
"Samudragupta wearing waist-cloth ('dhoti'), seated on a couch
and playing upon the lute ('Vina')," "the goddess Lakshmi," "the
'Asvamedha' sacrifice," "Karttikeya...on his 'vahana' peacock,
holding a 'shakti' in his left hand," and of course, "the legend
in chaste Sanskrit."
If the Guptas were Brahmins, then where in India did they hail from?
S.R. Goyal, in his "A history ...," tackles the question and argues
convincingly that they "originally belonged to the eastern part of
the [sic] UP." As indicated previously - refer Excerpts II - this
conclusion acquires greater relevance considering the fact that the
"'Skanda Purana' refers to Brahmanas of the Dharana 'gotra' living in
Dharmaranya, a tract in Mirzapur District of [eastern] UP." Moreover,
Agrawal, in his "Rise and ...," informs us:
"...there is definite evidence that in the Gupta
times, there were Brahmans of this [Dharana] 'gotra'.
In the Kurud plates of king Narendra, the donee [sic]
Bhasrutasvami, to whom a grant of land was made,
was a Brahman of Dharana 'gotra'." (p. 83)
As an aside, I am sure GS found the existence of a Jat clan with a
Brahmanical 'gotra' quite shocking.
That "the establishment of the Gupta empire was accompanied by and
connected with Brahmanical revival" is also a telling fact that,
one hopes, is not missed.
si...@ugcs.caltech.edu
gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh Singh) writes:
> >GUPTAS WERE BRAHMANAS
> Many historians beg to differ. Here is a summary of their views
> and references.
>[...]
> (It is very interesting to note that the very pronunciation of the words
> "Yuti" and "Yetha" is quite close to the modern words "Jat" and "Yadav".)
This game has been played on SCP on quite a few occasions. So,
the desi Tully is the same as the Western Tully, the desi Gill
is the same as the Western Gill, the desi Grover is the same as
the Western Grover, Brar is the same as Barara, Sondhe-Sondhi,
Khatri-Kshatriya. Quite interesting. 'Haina'?
A mere semblance of names hardly means anything, GS.
> Profs. B.P. Sinha[2], Dahiya [3], Gupta[4], and others (see below) believe
> the
> Guptas to be from the Dharana clan of Jats who can be found even today in the
> Mathura, Bikaner, and adjoining regions of Punjab. The source of this
> analysis is the Arya-Manjurasi-Mulakalpa manuscript and the imperial Gupta
> coins.
You mean the Arya Manjusri Mula Kalpa (AMMK). The AMMK,
a Buddhist (Manjusri ==> Mahayana?) source, has been used
by practically all who've written on the imperial Guptas.
Perhaps you can post some details of the analysis which,
you say, supports your case.
As an aside, the claim that Dharana Jats are spread over
"Mathura, Bikaner and adjoining regions of Punjab," sounds
far-fetched. As far as I know, they are a small clan. How
would I know? I am part Bikaneri and was (mostly) brought
up in Bikaner.
>The archeological evidence (Scythian dress on Gupta and Kushana
> coins)
> supports the Scythic origin of the Guptas. Dahiya[3] devotes one entire
> chapter of his book to prove that the the Gupta empire was indeed an empire
> of
> the Dharan Jats.
I am posting, in the thread, some more material. I mostly
reassert the points previously made. But that's no crime
given that redundancy seems to be GS's hallmark.
> 2) Alberuni [3] (an Arab who travelled through southasia in A.D. 1030) learnt
> that the Guptas were powerful but bad and the locals celebrated the end of
> their rule. This again supports the "foreign" Indo-Scythian origin of the
> Guptas; the end of the foreign empire in the in the north central/eastern
> region of the subcontinent was a cause of celebration.
In case of the Mauryas, GS has dismissed "Brahmanical sources"
as "post-Buddhist," as late. Why GS is not subjecting Alberuni
to such a test is, of course, a matter on which GS himself
will enlighten us. But then, neither has he subjected the AMMK
to a similar test.
Perhaps the Indians that gossiped with Al-Beruni "did not
possess accurate knowledge of their history," and "when
pressed for information, took to story telling," GS.
> 3) Kushanas (from Punjab/Afghanistan - Gandhara) at the height of their power
> in 358 A.D. sent presents to Samudra Gupta according to an inscription on the
> Allahabad pillar [5]. This means that the Guptas had friendly relations with
> their Indo-Scythian cousinsin Punjab - an ethnic affinity ?
Not only with Kushanas, Samudragupta's court had diplomatic
relations with Ceylon and in all probabilities with Cambodia,
Java and Sumatra as well.
Interestingly, S.R. Goyal, in his "A history...," has used
the inscriptions on the Allahabad pillar to bolster his
argument that the Guptas hailed from Eastern UP. The
information from the 'Skanda Purana' that "Brahmanas of
the Dharana 'gotra' lived in Dharmaranya, a tract in
Mirzapur District of UP," only helps.
"...All the five inscriptions found in Bengal
belong to the comparatively later period, viz.
the reign of Kumaragupta I and are copper plate
grants. Thet record the sale of government lands
to various applicants and the government's
acceptance of their proposal to create rent-free
holdings out of the purchased lands. It [their
analysis] merely proves the sway of the Guptas
over this province during the reign of this
emperor, and in no way indicates that this was
their home-province. The case of the inscriptions
found in Magadha, if they are to be regarded
as genuine or late copies of genuine records, is
similar. On the other hand, the inscriptions
found in the [sic] eastern UP are not only larger
in number but also by their nature they indicate
the intimate association of the early Gupta kings
with this region. Out of the eight records of
the early Gupta rulers found in this area, three
are inscribed on pillars, three on a stone-slab
and two on stone images. Of these, two stone
pillar inscriptions viz. the Allahabad pillar
inscription of Samudragupta and the Bhitari
pillar inscription of Skandagupta require special
mention in this connection. The latter one is
a 'pratishtha sasana' and records that Skandagupta
installed an image of the god Sarngin [?] in the
memory of his father and alloted to the idol the
village in which the column stands. Now, one
would hardly expect that Skandagupta chose a
region other than the home-province of his
dynasty for such a pious act, the aim of which
was 'the increase of the religious merit of
his father'."
"The point is almost conclusively proved by the
Allahabad pillar inscription, the earliest and
the most important of all Gupta epigraphs, in
which Harishena has given a detailed description
of the 'digvijaya' of his master. It is an
example of pure 'prasasti' and is devoted entirely
to a recital of the glory, conquests and descent
of the emperor. Now the provenance of an inscription
of this type is always significant, since, unlike
the 'pratishta sasana' it is not associated with
an area or a place due to the 'pratishtha'
ceremony, but is indicative of the ruler's
predilection for the place. The other known
instance of this type of inscription belonging
to the Gupta age, is the famous Mandasor pillar
inscription of Yasodharman. That epigraph is also
entirely devoted to the description of "the king's
power and glory." Now, it is significant that it
is found at a place which was obviously the center
of Yasodharman's power. We do not know any other
example of a pure 'prasasti' type of document
of the Gupta age which was inscribed in a region
to which the king eulogised in it did not belong.
Therefore, the provenance of the Allahabad pillar
incription may be regarded as a stronger pointer
to the fact that the center of power of the early
Guptas was the Prayaga region of the modern
eastern Uttar Pradesh. In any case, it cannot be
doubted that the epigraphs found in the [sic]
eastern UP are not only much larger in number,
they are comparitively older and suggest the
connection of the early Gupta kings with this
region far more strongly than those found in
Magadha or Bengal." (pp. 48-50)
si...@ugcs.caltech.edu
gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh Singh) writes:
>[...]
>Profs. B.P. Sinha[2], Dahiya [3], Gupta[4], and others
Perhaps GS can tell where Prof. Dahiya teaches. He's a prof, right GS?
Rajwinder Singh
rsh...@accessv.com wrote in article <33868ed0...@news.accessv.com> on Sat, 24 May 1997 06:46:52 GMT :
>Gurupdesh needs to go to India and see for himselve. His obsession
>with Brahman history is getting boring!!! He needs to get laid and get
>out of the house more.
If you find it bornig, why don't you ignore it?
The truth is that Gurupdesh upsets your
state of fantasy and comfortable delusion. The
problem is inside you, not in his understanding of
history.
Be a little less pathetic. Sheesh!
rs
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <5mgjrm$e...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, si...@ugcs.caltech.edu () wrote:
>
>Gurupdesh Singh <gs...@cornell.edu> writes:
>
>> Here is a different perspective on the Mauryas. It is interesting
>> that none of your sources disclose the "sources" of their claims
>> (see end of my note on this).
>
>(no kidding!), I am sure I've missed quite a few interesting aspects
Really! I have given you over 30 references to well respected historians
who seem to be at odds with the fantastic hegemonic and supramacist claims of
orthodox caste Hindus (OCs -7%) over the history and religions of southasia.
That is where all the "robbery" occured - during the 19th century when
ideologues from this community began plundering, erasing, and distorting the
history of southasia for their elitist political program (neo-Brahmanism?).
>of the debate. Perhaps you can tell me where the "sources" haven't
>been disclosed.
Rhetoric aside, the oldest of the brahmanical texts surviving today
do not predate the Buddhist era in southasia (300 B.C. - 600 A.D.).
The "oldest" manuscripts are post-8th century with the bulk of them from
the 11-13th century era. Any person studying objective history would want to
know about the "sources" from which all these Brahmanical geneologies
of the Mauryas (324-232 B.C.) and Guptas (320-515 A.D.) come from.
Much of the CONTEMPORARY and EARLY accounts of the political/religious
situation in southasia over this period come from Chinese, Greek, and
Persian sources. After the demise of Buddhism, there was a sytematic
attempt to erase and absorb Buddhism into Brahmanism. For example,
Ashoka is denigrated as a "shudra", "mlechha", "not generous to Brahmanins",
"minor king", etc. Also, the Buddha who rejected Brahmanism outright
(rejected the Brahmanical gods, shastras, their supremacist caste claims,
etc.) was reinvented as an "avtar" (reincarnate) of Vishnu 11 centuries
after his birth. This ensured that egalitarian Buddhism may never again
threaten Brahmanical ambitions and their caste ideology.
Given all this manipulation and distortions with Buddhist southasian
history by advocates of Brahmanism, it is natural to ask where the information
on the geneology of Buddhist monarchs comes from in Brahmanical texts (written
centuries later).
This would be like pro-Aurenzeb Islamic historians writing the geneology
and history of Lord Rama!
>
>> Maurya empire : 324 - 232 BC
>> Chandragupta Maurya - 324 - 301
>> Bindusara - 301 - 269
>> Ashoka - 269 - 232
>
>Some perspective this is. Whatever happened to Messers. Dasaratha,
>et al? Did they elope with the monkeys of the Dharana 'gotra'?
dasaratha ? ? ? You tell me since you consider it "history".
>
>> Prof. Hari Ram Gupta[1] argues that CGM was a native of Punjab.
>> Arrian[2] wrote, "Alexander, however, did not even on this show anger
>> against Porus, and sent for Meroes having learnt that Meroes had long been
a
>> friend of Porus". Professor Sinha [3] writes: "Dr. Buddha Prakash
>> has identified Meroes with Chandragupta Maurya . . ". The point
>> is that since Porus was a Punjabi king of the upper Beas region,
>> his "friend" had to be a neighbor (from southern Punjab) and also
>> a Punjabi native. He therefore could not have been from Bihar, thousands
of
>> miles away to the southeast. According to these fellows, Bindusara and
>> Ashoka
>> expanded their empire towards the southeast from Punjab.
>
>That Dr. Buddha Prakash is also of the opinion that the ancient
>home of the Mauryas is More, "which lies not far from contemporary
>Patna (Patliputra)," was, of course, lost on you.
Again there are dissenting views as to the origin of the Mauryas. I tend
to agree with Gupta[1], Sinha[3], Dahiya[5], Dhillon[6], and others
that the Chandragupta Maurya was a Punjabi native who expanded his empire
to the southeast. According to them, the later Mauryas moved their capital to
the east from Mathura to Pataliputra (see earlier response for support of
this).
Here is a quote from Dhillon[5] (p.40)on Maurya origins: [begin quote]
Historians generally agree that "Maurya" is the clan name. For
example Raphson [37] and Thaper [39] say: "Chandragupta, whose surname
"Maurya" is supposed to be derived from . . " and Chandragupta belonged
to the to the Maurya tribe, but his caste was low . . .".
Dahiya has devoted almost an entire chapter to the clan name "Maurya".
According to Dahiya's research the actual clan name of Chandragupta
was "Maur" ("ya" being the pluralizing tense) and Maur Jats still exist
today." (in Haryana) [end quote]
Note that the "low caste" reference to the Mauryas is in concert with the
"abuse" spewn on northern Punjabi/Buddhist rulers by the gangetic priesthood
because they would not accept Brahmanical religion/gods and felt no need to
share power/rule with them. (see below on quote from mahabharta about 'mlechas
from Vahika' (Punjab)). Parallels to this bigotry can be found also in
Brahmanical references later on to Afghan, Mogul, Sikh, Portugese, British
rulers - Kyshatriyas ("ruling/soldier class") who did not need the Brahmins or
their religion!.
Secondly, Alexander summoned Chandragupta (rf. Buddha Prakash, Sinha[3])
after knowning that he was a friend of the defeated Porus,
who ruled in the upper Beas region of Punjab. Again geography
sets Chandragupta in southern Punjab (below Sutlej) because Bihar
is thousands of miles to the southeast. Also, prior to the Mauryan empire,
the landmass of southasia was divided into hundreds of kingdoms/fiefdoms,
frequently at war with their neighbors. It is extremely improbable and naive
to believe that local rulers of these numerous kingdoms separating the Punjab
and Bihar (over 2000 miles) would simply allow another monarch to walk through
their kingdoms with his army towards Punjab to meet with Alexander. Also,
besides the political improbability, there is a question of logistics, time,
and reason. Alexander - the ruler of Greece,
Egypt, Syria, Persia, Bactaria and now Punjab - wanted to decide the fate of
Porus right away and had no reason to wait for a Bihari king to show up
weeks/months later.
Indeed, Chandragupta had to be a neighboring Punjabi king from southern Punjab
who was a "friend" of Porus (from northern Punjab). This region, below the
Satluj, would incorporate present-day "Haryana" - the exact region where
agrarian clans by the name "Maur" still continue to exist.
(Note: this analysis is not comparing Englishmen to Punjabis, but
Punjabis to Punjabis over time! Certainly if Punjabi name can survive
from Vedic time 1500-300 B.C. (you were yourself doing this), certainly they
can also survive from 300 B.C. to the present - dont you think!)
References:
[1] Gupta, H.R. Chandragupta Maurya: A Native of Punjab, In Punjab
past and present: Essays in honour of Dr. Ganda Singh, edited by H. Singh
and N. Gerald Barrier, Published by Punjabi University, Patiala, Punjab 1967,
pp. 27-32.
[2] Arrian (95-175 A.D.), Anabasis of Alexander, E.I. Robson, Harvard
University Press, cambride, Massachusetts, 1966, pp.37,59,69-72.
[3] Sinha, B.C., Studies in Alexander's Campaigns, Bharitya Publishing
Hourse, Varanasi, India, 1973, pp. 35-36, 40.
[4] Smith, V.A., The Oxford History of India, Oxford University Press, London,
1967, pp. 173, 162-163.
[5] Dahiya, B.S. (1980), Jats: The Ancient Rulers, Sterling Publishers Pvt.
Ltd., New Delhi, India.
[6] Dhillon, B.S. (1994), History and Study of the Jats, Beta Publishers
Inc., Ottawa, Canada
>
>> Brahmanical texts refer to Chandragupta Maurya (the founder) as "low caste"
>> and "mlecha". In the mahabharta (Puranic shastra from the gangetic region)
>> and the texts of Manu, Punjab is spoken as the land of irreligious people
>> (since Vedic times Punjabis showed irreverence to Dravidian Brahmanism and
>> would not admit the Gangetic Brahmins as their priests): "one should not go
>> to
>> Vahika in which the five rivers and the indus where the 'mlechas' live . .
".
>> So, labelling of Mauryas as "low castes" and "mlechhas" by Brahmins (later
>> on)
>> supports the view that they were originally northeners from
>> Punjab. These facts automatically rule out the claims of many
pro-Brahmanical
>> historians that the Mauryans were their "Kshatriyas" from the Gangetic
region.
>
>Do tell us about the "Brahmanical texts" where the Mauryas have
>been labeled "low caste," "mlecha"? Names would help, references
>would help. That Chandragupta Maurya's Vishnugupta was also a
>Brahmin is perhaps an illustrative example of the Brahmin prejudice
>that victimized Mr. Maurya.
Here are 2 reference quoted above about the founding Maurya being of
"low caste":
"Raphson [37] and Thaper [39] say: "Chandragupta, whose surname
"Maurya" is supposed to be derived from . . ' and Chandragupta belonged
to the to the Maurya tribe, but his caste was low . . .'. "
About references to Ashoka as being a "mlechha", "shudra", "minor king"
are well known to most who are well read on Mauryan history. I would
recommend that you pick up some other texts and broaden your horizons
- Goyal is not the only historian who knows ancient southasian history!
>
>Perhaps you can also enlighten on your claim that "since Vedic
>times (ahem!) Punjabis showed irreverence to Dravidian Brahmanism
>and would not admit the Gangetic Brahmins as their priests."
>Whatever leads you to make this claim? Memory of those days?
Have you head about DOB (Dravidian origins of Brahmanism) school - we could
open up another thread to discuss the origins of Brahmanism if you want. My
short answer would be that Brahmanical shastras (Mahabharta and writings of
Manu) provide ample evidence that during the relevant portion of the
Vedic period of Punjab (1500 - 300 B.C.) and the Puranic period of the
Gangetic region (800-400 B.C.) there was religious/political hostility
between the two regions. This is born out by negative references
to the Vedics of Saptha Sindhva (ancient Punjab) as "mlechas"
and "shudras".
Here is a quote from the mahabharta, from Dhillon[6]:
"one should not go to Vahika in which the five rivers and the indus
. . . where the 'mlechas' live."
The religion of Punjab during this period was Vedism or Vedic religion. The
Vedics followed Vedism (Vedic religion) and worshipped the Gods Indra (god of
thunder) and Rudra (god of health) and their holy book consisted of the hymns
of the RigVedas written by Vedic poets and mystics. The Vedic Aryas were an
egalitarian, semi-patoral people who ate cows, considered river Ravi to be
holy, and in the RigVeda refer to their domains in the ancient Punjab/Sindh
region as "Saptha Sindhva" (land of seven seas/rivers).
>I recall reading that many Punjabi Khatri have had their
>family records maintained by "Pandas" at Haridwar [and Mattan]
>for generations!
And you are the one to talk about comparing names which sound similar!
The furthest geneologies of Rajputs (Indo-Huns) go back to 7th century
A.D. - this coincides with the demise of Buddism and the arrival
of Huns from central asia.
The ruling classes as well as the masses were Buddhist during the
Gandharan Buddhist period of Punjab (300 B.C. - 647 A.D.).
The "Khatris" are geographically restriced to the Punjab region.
Traditional distribution of this community cannot be found in U.P.
or Rajasthan. This strongly points to a Scythian or Aryo-Scythian
origin. The descendents of Indo-Scythic agrarian/artisan
groups (e.g Jats, Ahirs, some Rajputs, Tarkhans, Lokhars, Yadavas, etc.)
are distributed also in the north - but in a wider radius (up to northern
Rajasthan, U.P.). If you include the "later Scythians" or "Hunas"
of Cunningham, Todd, etc., then the distribution of Indo-Scythians covers
Rajasthan, northern M.P., and Gujrat (the Hun stronghold: "Gujara-parthiharas"
of the 5th century A.D. onward). These are the current-day Gujjars,
Rajputs, Thakurs of this north-central-western region.
>
>It might interest you that while writing about the Maukharis,
>Cunningham connects them with the Mauryas - he takes Maukhari
>to be a variant of Maurya. The Maukharis, I believe, were
>Kshatriyas. After all, expressions like "lamp of the Kshatriya
>family," "the abode of (all) dignity of the Kshatriyas" have
>been used for them in epigraphs. Incidentally, Jayaswal is of
>the view that the Maukhari Vaisyas of Gaya district are the
>present day descendants of the Maukharis. Where is Gaya?
>
>> The non-Hindu (non-indeginous) origin of the Mauryas is also supported by
the
>> fact that Ashoka (greatest of the Mauryan emporers) never used Sanskrit
[4].
>
>Hardly. Pushyamitras and Satavahanas too ignored Sanskrit.
>And what was Maharaja Ranjit Singh's court language, GS?
Which also proves that he was a non-Brahmin. Some thing to keep
in mind when hegemonic/supramacist OCs by the year 2997
(or sooner?) start claiming that RS was also a Brahmin!
But if RS was indeed a Brahmin, he would certainly have used Sanskrit
as his court language - dont you think!
>
>> Also contemporary accounts of the Mauryan era come only from Chinese,
Greek,
>> and Persian travellers. All existing Brahmanical literature is
post-Buddhist
>> (post 700 A.D. and mostly from 11-13th century A.D..) and clearly shows
>> attempts to erase, manipulate and marginalize the history of the 1000 year
>> Buddhist civilization in southasia. For example, Ashoka is refered to as a
>> "minor King", "mlechha", "shudra", "not generous to Brahmins". Similar
>> treatment is given to other Buddhist kings of this era (300 B.C. - 700
A.D.).
>
>I am curious about these accounts of "Chinese, Greek and Persian
>travelers," that you have in mind, GS. Only you can tell which
>ones you are referring to. Also, make sure you support your claim
>that Ashoka has been referred to as a "minor king," "mlechha,"
>"sudra." The "Brahmanical...attempts to erase, manipulate and
>marginalize the history" shibboleth is, of course, one that we
>are used to. Clarify on that too, when you feel you can write
>about the Brahmins without spewing venom.
Spewing venom at non-Brahmanical and "low caste" groups/religions
(93% of southasians) is really a Brahmin expertise. We have documented proof
in their own shastras.
See top of post on chronology of Brahmanical "historical" sources
and the Chinese, Greek, Persian (e.g. Fa-hien, Hsuan Tsuang, Herrodotus,
Arrian, Ptolemy, etc.) without whom we wouldnt have a history of
ancient southasia - especially the Buddhist period (300 B.C.- 700 A.D.).
>
>As for "not being generous to Brahmins," that is true. Unlike
>his father Bindusara, who "showed hospitality to 60,000 brahmanas,"
>Ashoka, three years after being king, "noting their lack of
>self-control at the distribution of food...tested them before he
>gave them food." [The quotes, from Finegan's, "An archaeological
>history of religions of Indian Asia," are based upon the 'Mahavamsa'
>and the 'Dipavamsa,' which are Buddhist sources.]
>
>Your debasement of "Brahmanical sources" and only "Brahmanical
>sources" of course comes out as odd. Weren't Buddhist attitudes
>(even the Buddha is guilty here) hostile towards Brahmins or even
>"self-serving"?
But most Buddhist manuscripts and literature compiled over 1000 years
of Buddhist civilization in southasia was destroyed when
Brahmanism gained influence after the 8th century. The vast majority
of Buddhist manuscripts that survived this "cleansing" are those
copied and taken by foreigners to China, Tibet, and the Far East during
contemporary times. So we dont know about Buddhist hostility to our poor
victimized Brahmins, but solid evidence of the reverse exists!
But one fact stands out: the Buddhist rulers and masses did not exterminate
Brahmins when they were in power, but Brahmin zealots certainly committed
genocide against Buddhists.
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <5mgsnj$1...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, si...@ugcs.caltech.edu () wrote:
>
>gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh Singh) writes:
>
>> >GUPTAS WERE BRAHMANAS
>> Many historians beg to differ. Here is a summary of their views
>> and references.
>>[...]
>
>> (It is very interesting to note that the very pronunciation of the words
>> "Yuti" and "Yetha" is quite close to the modern words "Jat" and "Yadav".)
>
>This game has been played on SCP on quite a few occasions. So,
>the desi Tully is the same as the Western Tully, the desi Gill
>is the same as the Western Gill, the desi Grover is the same as
>the Western Grover, Brar is the same as Barara, Sondhe-Sondhi,
>Khatri-Kshatriya. Quite interesting. 'Haina'?
>
>A mere semblance of names hardly means anything, GS.
I never compared English to Indo-Scythian Punjabi. I fail to see
why your are comparing them. What I did compare (after the quote
from Cunningham about the Indo-Scythian settlement of the north)
in my parenthetical remark was that current descendents of these groups
retain the old names of Scythian groups from ancient Chinese
sources. I dont know why this bothers you!
You erased my quote from Cunningham to give the impression that only the
similar pronunciation of "Jat" and the ancient "Yuti" and "Yetha" is behind
this Indo-Scythian/Jat connection. A small reference to the literature on the
history of Indo-Scythians and their desendents in given below. To avoid
arguing this all over again, I am copying below what you chopped off. Please,
try to reply to my arguments not your own ! And lets keep English names out of
this.
Replay:
Historical and archeological evidence supports the view that the Guptas were
an Indo-Scythian dynasty related to the Kushanas (also a Indo-Scythian group).
Evidence of Scythian leanings comes from coins and manuscripts examined by
Cunningham, Todd, Sinha, Gupta, Banerjea, Dahiya, Dhillon, etc. The Jats and
other agrarian/artisan groups found in the north (e.g. Yadavs, Gujars, Ahirs,
certain Rajput groups, Tarkhans, Lohars, etc.) are determined to be of
Indo-Scythian origin.
Sir Cunningham [1] (former Director General of Archeological Survey, India)
writes:
"the different races of the Scythians which succesively appeared as conquerors
in the border provinces of Persian and India (southasia) are the following in
the order of arrival: Sakas or Sacae (the Su or Sai of the Chinese - B.C. ?),
Kushans (the great Yue-Chi (Yuti) of the Chinese - B.C. 163), Kiddarite or
later Kushans (the little Yue-chi of the Chinese - A.D. 450) and Epthalites or
White Huns (the Yetha of the Chinese - 470 A.D.)".
(It is very interesting to note that the very pronunciation of the words
"Yuti" and "Yetha" is quite close to the modern words "Jat" and "Yadav".)
Cunningham [1] further writes ". . . the successive Scythian invasions of the
Sakas, the Kushans, and the White Huns, were followed by permanent settlements
of large bodies of their countrymen . . ".
References
[1] Cunningham, A. (1971), Coins of the Indo-Scythians, Sakas, and Kushanas,
Reprinted by Indological Book House, Varanasi, India (first published
1888).
-------(1979), Later Indo-Scythians (Coins), No. 11, Reprinted by Indological
Book House, varanasi, India (first published 1893-94).
-------(1963), Coins of Ancient India: from the earliest times down to the
seventh century A.D., reprinted by Indological Book House, Varanasi,
India.
[2] Sinha, B.P., Journal of Bihar Research Society, XXXVII, parts 3-4, pp 142.
[3] Dahiya, B.S. (1980), Jats: The Ancient Rulers, Sterling Publishers Pvt.
Ltd., New Delhi, India.
[4] Gupta, P.L. (1988), Coins, National Book Trust, New Delhi, India, pp51-52.
[5] Dhillon, B.S. (1994), History and Study of the Jats, Beta Publishers
Inc., Ottawa, Canada
Banerjea, J.N. (1987), The Scythians and Parthians in India, in a
>
>> Profs. B.P. Sinha[2], Dahiya [3], Gupta[4], and others (see below) believe
>> the
>> Guptas to be from the Dharana clan of Jats who can be found even today in
the
>> Mathura, Bikaner, and adjoining regions of Punjab. The source of this
>> analysis is the Arya-Manjurasi-Mulakalpa manuscript and the imperial Gupta
>> coins.
>
>You mean the Arya Manjusri Mula Kalpa (AMMK). The AMMK,
>a Buddhist (Manjusri ==> Mahayana?) source, has been used
>by practically all who've written on the imperial Guptas.
>Perhaps you can post some details of the analysis which,
>you say, supports your case.
I will when I get a hand on this translated manuscript and Sinha's
book. I think the basic arguments (coins; historical Greek, Persian, Chinese,
and southasian manuscripts; ethnological analysis; inscriptions; etc.) are as
mentioned in my previous post.
>
>As an aside, the claim that Dharana Jats are spread over
>"Mathura, Bikaner and adjoining regions of Punjab," sounds
>far-fetched. As far as I know, they are a small clan. How
>would I know? I am part Bikaneri and was (mostly) brought
>up in Bikaner.
The mention of their distribution comes from Dahiya and Dhillon.
I am simply quoting them. Do you personally know where all the Dharan
Jats live?
The idea is that the imperial family was from this clan while
other Indo-Scythians (e.g. other agrarian groups: Jats, Ahirs, Yadavs, Gujars,
and current-day Scythic artisan castes: tarkhans, Lohars, etc.) would have
been allied to them constituting the imperial army and other member of the
ruling class.
>
>>The archeological evidence (Scythian dress on Gupta and Kushana
>> coins)
>> supports the Scythic origin of the Guptas. Dahiya[3] devotes one entire
>> chapter of his book to prove that the the Gupta empire was indeed an empire
>> of
>> the Dharan Jats.
>
>I am posting, in the thread, some more material. I mostly
>reassert the points previously made. But that's no crime
>given that redundancy seems to be GS's hallmark.
>
>> 2) Alberuni [3] (an Arab who travelled through southasia in A.D. 1030)
learnt
>> that the Guptas were powerful but bad and the locals celebrated the end of
>> their rule. This again supports the "foreign" Indo-Scythian origin of the
>> Guptas; the end of the foreign empire in the in the north central/eastern
>> region of the subcontinent was a cause of celebration.
>
>In case of the Mauryas, GS has dismissed "Brahmanical sources"
>as "post-Buddhist," as late. Why GS is not subjecting Alberuni
>to such a test is, of course, a matter on which GS himself
>will enlighten us. But then, neither has he subjected the AMMK
>to a similar test.
See the top of my other post discussing the non-contemporary
and revisionist nature of the historical info in the oldest existing
Brahmanical literature - most of which does not predate the
11-13 th century A.D. All of this needs to be taken with a grain
of salt unless colloborated by more "neutral" foreigners who
took back contemporary and early accounts of these periods.
>
>Perhaps the Indians that gossiped with Al-Beruni "did not
>possess accurate knowledge of their history," and "when
>pressed for information, took to story telling," GS.
This is a wild conjecture on your part. Is their any
research to show that Al-Beruni only talked with
those "Indians" who "did not possess accurate knowledge of
their history"?
On the contrary, modern Indian historians consider Al-Beruni
a very important window on the missing history of the Buddhist/post
Buddhist period. In fact, many of these historians gloat about
the accomplishments of southasia in mathematics and science reported
by Al-Beruni.
Moreover, in the post-Buddhist period (post 8th century A.D.) - with
the Buddhist universities, monasteries, and councils gone - Brahmins
gained a virtual monopoly on the intellectual/religious tradition of
south asia until the arrival of Islam (11th century).
Therefore, the the historical accounts of Al-Beruni are very
likely to have come from contemporary Brahmins of his age. (If I
was a foreigner wanting to know about Indian history in the 11th
century, I would have gone straight to the renouned Brahmin of
the region). Al-Beruni's record of the Guptas being
"powerful but bad and the locals celebrated the end of their rule"
most probably came from contemporary Brahmanical sources.
(Offcourse, they had no way of knowing what post 19th century OCs wanted
them to tell Al-Beruni.)
Therefore, Al-Beruni's early reports add immensely to other evidence (coins,
earlier manuscripts) pointng to the Indo-Scythic ("foreign") origins of the
imperial Guptas.
>
>> 3) Kushanas (from Punjab/Afghanistan - Gandhara) at the height of their
power
>> in 358 A.D. sent presents to Samudra Gupta according to an inscription on
the
>> Allahabad pillar [5]. This means that the Guptas had friendly relations
with
>> their Indo-Scythian cousinsin Punjab - an ethnic affinity ?
>
>Not only with Kushanas, Samudragupta's court had diplomatic
>relations with Ceylon and in all probabilities with Cambodia,
>Java and Sumatra as well.
Could have. But I would have to check on this. The Allahabad
inscription attributed to Samudragupta (325 A.D.)
also mentions the following
Jha[77, p. 96]:
"Twelve Kings of Dakshinapatha (south) are said to have been
captured and then liberated and reinstated. Eight kings of
the Aryavarta (U.P. region) are described as having been
'VIOLENTLY EXTERMINATED' ".
It seems that the earlier kings of the gangetic region lost their rule
and were eliminated by expanding (Indo-Scythian) Guptas while the conquered
southern kings were dealt with more benevolently.
Jha[77, p97]:
"The states of which are stated to have succumbed to the power
of Samudragupta make a fairly long list and would have covered
a large part of the subcontinent. But it is generally believed that
he excercised direct control only in the north. The kings
of the Deccan and south merely paid him homage; the Shakas in western
India seem to have remained unconquered. The tribal republican states
of Rajasthan and Panjab were not directly administered by him".
Not only this but the Punjab and northern Rajasthan region was
at the time past of the massive Kushana empire stretching across central
asia to the Ganga frontier. See earlier quote about friendly
relations with the Kushans.
All this again supports that Indo-Scythic origins of the Guptas who
were expanding to the northeast and southeast from the fringe region
of the Kushana empire, in the process replacing the previous order of the
Gangetic region. Al-Beruni's records seem to also bear out - including the
celebration by locals of end of Gupta "foreign" rule.
Reference
Jha, D.N.(1977), Ancient India: An Introductory Outline, New Age Printing
Press
Mo
>The movement of Jats from Rajasthan was recent in
who himself was a Khatri Hindu, was born in Bihar.<
learn where they come from -although it should be obvious from their
looks !
J Raza
Db8G...@ntdwwaaw.compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
AH! DNA tests! That should clear up once and for all this bullshit about
South Asians belonging to one Hindu race.
I'm surprised the GOI is carrying these tests out. What one earth
are they hoping to achieve? Well, at least it will make official what
anyone with two fully functioning eyes already knows, and doesn't need
DNA tests to tell him.
regards,
JRB
Alex Wilding
gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh Singh) wrote a lot of stuff to MANY
newsgroups. Hey! please think who is intersted and cut the number of
groups down!
Paul Kekai Manansala
The problems with GSPs references is that they all tend
to trace back to Cunningham and Todd. These men seem
to have been influenced by the 'Aryan'>Scythian>Anglo-
Saxon theory that postulated the British were one of the
lost tribes of Israel. "Anglo-Saxon Israel" was
particularly popular with Queen Victoria. According to
the theory, the Anglo-Saxons were one of the lost
tribes of Israel who joined with the Scythians and
invaded Europe.
Thus, in the tradition of British scholarship they
sought Scythian connections all over the place, just
as British "children of the Sun" theorists claimed
that Egyptian/Anglo-Saxon sun-priests built the Mayan
pyramids, the stone heads on Easter Island, etc., etc.
According the chief scholar of the Maurya, Kautilya,
the Maurya were one of the confederacy known as the
Vrjji or Vajje. The Sakyas of the Buddha belonged
to the same group, as did the Licchavis, who formed
the maternal line of the Maurya. Kautilya states that
the Vrjjis were originally from the central Himalayas,
which would correspond roughly to the area between
modern Pokhara and the area north of Kathmandu.
The word, Licchavi, and some of the other Vrjji clan
names are not Sankritic in origin, although many
of the tribes did speak Sanskrit-derived languages.
In the same way, the peoples of the modern Terai
speak Tharu, Maithili, Nepali, etc., but are of many
different origins, mostly Indo-Mongoloid.
If the Maurya and Gupta were actually from Punjab,
why didn't the Buddhist, Hindu, Greek and other
writers just come out and say so?
You have to be careful about early theories.
Sir William Jones is famed for suggesting
that Sanskrit was related to Indo-European,
but many forget he also classed Malay, Pahlavi
and "Afghan" as Semitic, and the rest of
Austronesian with Indo-European. Franz Bopp
though Malayo-Polynesian, Indo-European,
and Georgian were all related. I myself
have tryed to solve why they made such
mistakes.
But getting back to the Maurya, they claimed
to descend from the Sakyas, an ancient
people of the Terai. Even now, there is a
Sakya caste among the Newars, who up to
modern times have been called Vajje.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
Kunal Singh
In article <5lvmn9$l...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh Singh) writes:
.. stuff deleted ..
There is controversy about the exact ethnicity of Chandragupta (CGM).
Prof. Hari Ram Gupta[1] argues that CGM was a native of Punjab.
Arrian[2] wrote, "Alexander, however, did not even on this show anger
against Porus, and sent for Meroes having learnt that Meroes had long been a
friend of Porus". Professor Sinha [3] writes: "Dr. Buddha Prakash
has identified Meroes with Chandragupta Maurya . . ". The point
is that since Porus was a Punjabi king of the upper Beas region,
his "friend" had to be a neighbor (from southern Punjab) and also
a Punjabi native. He therefore could not have been from Bihar, thousands of
miles away to the southeast. According to these fellows, Bindusara and
Ashoka expanded their empire towards the southeast from Punjab. If this is
true, it could hardly be called annexation of Punjab by eastern Kingdoms!
Hmm, I wonder how Gurupdesh Singh has come to the conclusion that if
Chandragupta Maurya was a friend of Porus, he must have been living
right next door to him and must have even been Punjabi.
Chandragupta Maurya was considered to have been a general in the Nanda
army. The Nandas having the largest empire in the north, it is not
unimaginable for Chandragupta Maurya to have known Porus. Secondly
being a friend of Porus does not mean he was a Punjabi, as
Chandragupta Maurya had to flee from Magadha to escape retribution for
his failed plot to take over the kingdom.
I think we can safely assume that Chandragupta Maurya was not a
Punjabi because Punjabis have a habit of jumping up and down and
letting the whole world know that they are Punjabis. Chandragupta
Maurya on the other hand broke off all relations with his Punjabi
allies as soon as he took over the throne of Magadha. I think that by
itself is sufficient proof that he was not a Punjabi, as he did not
have any strong allegiance for either Punjabiat or the region of
Punjab. In either case historians would have noted a mass movement of
his Punjabi relatives dancing into Magadha doing the two finger dance.
But all we find in history is a slick Bihari and a Tamil (Chanakya was
a Dravid) using the Punjabis to attain their ends and leaving them
behind in the "sapta-sindhva" region.
It is also interesting to note that the Greeks considered Punjabis to
be barbarians and yet their ambassador to Magadha was quite impressed
by it in contrast leading one to believe that there was no great
cultural influence of Punjab in Magadha at the time. :-)
Trinlay Khadro
Paul Kekai Manansala <pmana...@csus.edu> wrote in article
<5mklas$qk_...@news.csus.edu
one of the
> lost tribes of Israel. "Anglo-Saxon Israel" was
> particularly popular with Queen Victoria. According to
> the theory, the Anglo-Saxons were one of the lost
> tribes of Israel who joined with the Scythians and
> invaded Europe.
You know you are up too late, when all that this comment brings to mind
is pondering the likely cases of severe sunburn.
I really need to go to sleep NOW...
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <5mklas$qk_...@news.csus.edu>,
pmana...@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala) wrote:
>The problems with GSPs references is that they all tend
>to trace back to Cunningham and Todd. These men seem
>to have been influenced by the 'Aryan'>Scythian>Anglo-
>particularly popular with Queen Victoria. According to
>the theory, the Anglo-Saxons were one of the lost
>tribes of Israel who joined with the Scythians and
????? The Scythians were central asians from the 500 B.C. - 500 A.D.
????? era and not middle-eastners. Israel would be thousands of miles to the
????? southeast. How do you imagine this "joining"? This really takes the
????? cake!
>invaded Europe.
Now it comes to wild sweeping dismissals of the historical views
we dont like using some fanciful jargon!
Care to give any academic references to support your conjectures that
Cunningham/Todd and the over 30 authors I referenced (most of them southasian
and post 1950s) believed in this "Anglo/Scythic/Saxon/Israeli" nonsense
(this is the first time I am hearing of it). Both C and T base their writings
on hard-core archeological evidence (coins, inscriptions, etc.), study of
contemporary and early authenticated manuscripts (Chinese, Greek, Persian,
Arab, etc.), and the ethnology/anthropology of the various regions of
southasia. In fact, Cunningham and Todd go to the extent of printing the
photos of the coins/inscriptions they were studying. Their analysis
is extremely transparent.
Secondly, you keep bringing up this "Vrijjs" stuff. Most
serious historians, such as Cunningham (former Director General
of Archeological Survey, India) and Todd, do not
consider dateless mythologies like Ramayana and Mahabharta (with
fictitious Devtas and Monkey Gods) to which pro-Brahmanical historians keep
endlessly resorting to push their historical claims on "history".
I myself have not come across this reference to "Vrijjs" in any of the
literature I have references.
I think your criticism of attempting to create "Euro-roots"
("White envy") applies more forceful to the "Aryan identity" complex
of our brown orthodox caste Hindus (OCs,7%) which they got indoctrinated into
during the 19th century - and is traceable to idealogues like the Vivekanada,
Dayananda, and company. The history of Indo-Scythians (post 300 B.C.) is
totally ignored or usually swept under the carpet (as footnotes) in current
GOI school history books and "history" phamplets distributed by
rightwing Hindu organizations such as the RSS, Hindumasaba, Arya Samaj ("Aryan
Society"). This literature and the schools set up by these organizations is
were most OCs picked up on their "Aryan" fantasies since the late 19th
century.
Below are the 32 references for scholars who have
studies the history of Indo-Scythians. Cunningham has
3 references and Todd has 1. Most of them are post 1960s.
Dhillon (94) gives references to over 450 references
- from ancient Greeks, Persians, Chinese, to the present.
Maurya References:
[1] Gupta, H.R. Chandragupta Maurya: A Native of Punjab, In Punjab
past and present: Essays in honour of Dr. Ganda Singh, edited by H. Singh
and N. Gerald Barrier, Published by Punjabi University, Patiala, Punjab 1967,
pp. 27-32.
[2] Arrian (95-175 A.D.), Anabasis of Alexander, E.I. Robson, Harvard
University Press, cambride, Massachusetts, 1966, pp.37,59,69-72.
[3] Sinha, B.C., Studies in Alexander's Campaigns, Bharitya Publishing
Hourse, Varanasi, India, 1973, pp. 35-36, 40.
[4] Smith, V.A., The Oxford History of India, Oxford University Press, London,
1967, pp. 173, 162-163.
[5] Dahiya, B.S. (1980), Jats: The Ancient Rulers, Sterling Publishers Pvt.
Ltd., New Delhi, India.
[6] Dhillon, B.S. (1994), History and Study of the Jats, Beta Publishers
Inc., Ottawa, Canada
Gupta References
[1] Cunningham, A. (1971), Coins of the Indo-Scythians, Sakas, and Kushanas,
Reprinted by Indological Book House, Varanasi, India (first published
1888).
-------(1979), Later Indo-Scythians (Coins), No. 11, Reprinted by Indological
Book House, varanasi, India (first published 1893-94).
-------(1963), Coins of Ancient India: from the earliest times down to the
seventh century A.D., reprinted by Indological Book House, Varanasi,
India.
[2] Sinha, B.P., Journal of Bihar Research Society, XXXVII, parts 3-4, pp 142.
[3] Dahiya, B.S. (1980), Jats: The Ancient Rulers, Sterling Publishers Pvt.
Ltd., New Delhi, India.
[4] Gupta, P.L. (1988), Coins, National Book Trust, New Delhi, India, pp51-52.
[5] Dhillon, B.S. (1994), History and Study of the Jats, Beta Publishers
Inc., Ottawa, Canada
Banerjea, J.N. (1987), The Scythians and Parthians in India, in a
Comprehensive History of India, edited by K.A.N. Sastri, Vol. 2,
Peoples Publishing House, New Delhi, India, 1987, pp 186-309, pp
830-838.
Banerji, R.D. (1909), The Scythian Period in Indian History, Indian
Antiquary, Vol. XXXVII, pp 25-74.
Bingley, A.H. (1978), History, Caste & Culture of the Jats and Gujars, Ess Ess
Publications, New Delhi, India (first published in 1899).
Eggmont, P.H.L. (1970), Alexander's Campaign in Ghandhara and Ptolemy's List
of Indo-Scythian Towns, Orientalis Lavaniensia Periodica I, pp 63-123.
Hewitt, J.F. (1894), The Ruling Races of Prehistorical Times in India,
South-Western Asia, and Southern Europe, Archibald Constable & Co. ,
London, pp. 481-487.
Herodotus (B.C. 490-425): The Histories, translated by de Selincourt,
Penguin Books, New York, 1988.
Jats, The New Encylopaedia Britannica, Vol. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.,
Chicago, pp. 510.
Jha, D.N.(1977), Ancient India: An Introductory Outline, New Age Printing
Press
The Getae and the Dacians, and Sarmatae and Parthians, in The Cambridge
Ancient History, edited by S.A. Cook, F.E. Adcock, M.P. Charlesworth,
Vol. II, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1954.
Pradhan, M.C. (1966), The Political System of the Jats of Northern India,
Oxford University Press, London.
Ptolemy (90-168 A.D.), Geography of Claudius Ptolemy, translated and edited
by E.L. Stevenson, The New York Public Library, New York, 1932.
Mahil, U.S. (1955), Antiquity of Jat Race, Atma Ram & Sons, Delhi, India.
McCrindle, J.W. (1987), Ancient India as Described in Classical Literature,
reprinted by Eastern Book House, Patna, India, pp 164-165 (first
published 1901).
Mc Govern, W.N. (1939), The early Empires of Central Asia, he University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, pp 419-21.
Pliny, (A.D. 23-79): Natural History, translated by H. Rackham, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1947.
Rolle, R. (1989), The World of the Scythians, University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Sara, I. (1978), The Scythian Origin of the Jat-Sikh (Part 1 & 2), The Sikh
Paul Kekai Manansala
In article <5mlao1$e...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh Singh) wrote:
>In article <5mklas$qk_...@news.csus.edu>,
> pmana...@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala) wrote:
>>The problems with GSPs references is that they all tend
>>to trace back to Cunningham and Todd. These men seem
>>to have been influenced by the 'Aryan'>Scythian>Anglo-
>>Saxon theory that postulated the British were one of the
>>lost tribes of Israel. "Anglo-Saxon Israel" was
>>particularly popular with Queen Victoria. According to
>>the theory, the Anglo-Saxons were one of the lost
>>tribes of Israel who joined with the Scythians and
>
>????? The Scythians were central asians from the 500 B.C. - 500 A.D.
>????? era and not middle-eastners. Israel would be thousands of miles to the
>????? southeast. How do you imagine this "joining"? This really takes the
>????? cake!
>
I don't imagine them joining. The British Anglo-Saxon Israelists
imagined them joining.
>>invaded Europe.
>
>Now it comes to wild sweeping dismissals of the historical views
>we dont like using some fanciful jargon!
>
>Care to give any academic references to support your conjectures that
>Cunningham/Todd and the over 30 authors I referenced (most of them southasian
>and post 1950s) believed in this "Anglo/Scythic/Saxon/Israeli" nonsense
>(this is the first time I am hearing of it).
There is an article on this at http://zed.access.net.au/~twaller/tract4.htm.
For Queen Victoria's belief in Anglo-Saxon Israelism read some of the
referenced works, or some of her more detailed biograhies. Todd and
Cunningham were working in this milieu.
> Both C and T base their writings
>on hard-core archeological evidence (coins, inscriptions, etc.), study of
>contemporary and early authenticated manuscripts (Chinese, Greek, Persian,
>Arab, etc.), and the ethnology/anthropology of the various regions of
>southasia. In fact, Cunningham and Todd go to the extent of printing the
>photos of the coins/inscriptions they were studying. Their analysis
>is extremely transparent.
Most speculators of this sort relied on such evidence, but this did
not stop them from concocting wild theories. Todd had all kinds
of non-sensical linguistic comparisons that would be rejected by
any reputable scholar today. For example, he related Rama to
the wolf-raised Romulus, of Roman legend. Although there was nary
any similarity between the two characters, he found the slight
similarity in the names as evidence enough.
>
>Secondly, you keep bringing up this "Vrijjs" stuff. Most
>serious historians, such as Cunningham (former Director General
>of Archeological Survey, India) and Todd,
Todd was a colonel in the British army stationed in India?
> do not
>consider dateless mythologies like Ramayana and Mahabharta (with
>fictitious Devtas and Monkey Gods) to which pro-Brahmanical historians keep
>endlessly resorting to push their historical claims on "history".
>I myself have not come across this reference to "Vrijjs" in any of the
>literature I have references.
>
Why not read original sources, or their translations, instead of
relying on outdated Brits like Todd and Cunningham? Kautilya
was a Mauryan for gosh's sake! He wrote under the patronage
of the Mauryan emperor. Try reading ancient Buddhist rather
than pre-modern British literature (and its progeny).
How can you comment on this issue when you don't even know the
term Vrjji/Vajje. The Mauryans considered themselves as part
of this Vaishala-based confederacy! It is clear from Buddhist
and Hindu literature. How could Todd and Cunningham not have
known these terms?
>I think your criticism of attempting to create "Euro-roots"
>("White envy") applies more forceful to the "Aryan identity" complex
>of our brown orthodox caste Hindus (OCs,7%) which they got indoctrinated into
>during the 19th century - and is traceable to idealogues like the Vivekanada,
>Dayananda, and company. The history of Indo-Scythians (post 300 B.C.) is
>totally ignored or usually swept under the carpet (as footnotes) in current
>GOI school history books and "history" phamplets distributed by
>rightwing Hindu organizations such as the RSS, Hindumasaba, Arya Samaj ("Aryan
>Society"). This literature and the schools set up by these organizations is
>were most OCs picked up on their "Aryan" fantasies since the late 19th
>century.
>
I have nothing against Indo-Scythian history. It is widely recognized
that the Jats and other folk of India have Hun, Kushan and other similar
mixed foreign/indigenous origins. But extending this to the Mauryans and
Guptas is trying to create a mythical "Punjab identity."
Let's remember
>Below are the 32 references for scholars who have
>studies the history of Indo-Scythians. Cunningham has
>3 references and Todd has 1. Most of them are post 1960s.
>Dhillon (94) gives references to over 450 references
>- from ancient Greeks, Persians, Chinese, to the present.
I could probably find more references claiming that
whites founded the Mayan and Easter Island cultures, and
most would be post 1960s. So what? Can you name some
major modern authorities who support this view? The only
names I recognize are Todd, Cunningham and Smith. All
these are long dead, and Smith believed the Mauryans were
likely Indo-Mongoloid.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
Kunal Singh
In article <5mklas$qk_...@news.csus.edu> pmana...@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala) writes:
.. stuff deleted ..
The problems with GSPs references is that they all tend
to trace back to Cunningham and Todd. These men seem
to have been influenced by the 'Aryan'>Scythian>Anglo-
Saxon theory that postulated the British were one of the
lost tribes of Israel. "Anglo-Saxon Israel" was
particularly popular with Queen Victoria. According to
the theory, the Anglo-Saxons were one of the lost
tribes of Israel who joined with the Scythians and
invaded Europe.
Though I agree with most of what Mr. Manansala has written, I wanted
to add that the Vrajjis, the Licchavis, and the Sakyas according to
Buddhist texts claimed lineage from the Ikshvakus of the Ramayana
along with seven other groups. Some scholars have also traced the
term Maurya to one of the kshatriya subcastes of Mauri or Mori -- I am
not sure but I think that they may also have been related to the
Ikshvakus. It is likely that the various kshatriya subcastes of the
northern UP/Bihar region are related in that regard, by matrimonial
relations.
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <5mmrsj$2e4...@news.csus.edu>,
Again can you give references that Toss/Cunningham were pushing
this "Anglo/Saxon/Israeli" nonsense into their south asian history.
Also you failed to offer any comments to the following (from my
previous post):
I think your criticism of attempting to create "Euro-roots"
("White envy") applies more forceful to the "Aryan identity" complex
of our brown orthodox caste Hindus (OCs,7%) which they got indoctrinated into
during the 19th century - and is traceable to idealogues like the Vivekanada,
Dayananda, and company. The history of Indo-Scythians (post 300 B.C.) is
totally ignored or usually swept under the carpet (as footnotes) in current
GOI school history books and "history" phamplets distributed by
rightwing Hindu organizations such as the RSS, Hindumasaba, Arya Samaj ("Aryan
Society"). This literature and the schools set up by these organizations is
were most OCs picked up on their "Aryan" fantasies since the late 19th
century.
Do you agree or disagree with this Euro-envy of many important OC ideologues/
historians ? - especially from the Bengal/eastern U.P. regions (this
region was the British "Indis" prior to 1820s).
Regards,
Gurupdesh
P.S. As much as I enjoyed participating in these threads, I will be
away for some time and probably wont get the opportunity to
respond. Have a good time!
Paul Kekai Manansala
In article <5mngj5$d...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh Singh) wrote:
>In article <5mmrsj$2e4...@news.csus.edu>,
>this "Anglo/Saxon/Israeli" nonsense into their south asian history.
>
What I inferred is that Todd/Cunningham wrote at a time when
some 5 million Church of England members were part of the
Anglo-Scythian-Israel movement (including the Queen).
>Also you failed to offer any comments to the following (from my
>previous post):
>
>I think your criticism of attempting to create "Euro-roots"
>("White envy") applies more forceful to the "Aryan identity" complex
>of our brown orthodox caste Hindus (OCs,7%) which they got indoctrinated into
>during the 19th century - and is traceable to idealogues like the Vivekanada,
>Dayananda, and company. The history of Indo-Scythians (post 300 B.C.) is
>totally ignored or usually swept under the carpet (as footnotes) in current
>GOI school history books and "history" phamplets distributed by
>rightwing Hindu organizations such as the RSS, Hindumasaba, Arya Samaj ("Aryan
>Society"). This literature and the schools set up by these organizations is
>were most OCs picked up on their "Aryan" fantasies since the late 19th
>century.
>
>Do you agree or disagree with this Euro-envy of many important OC ideologues/
>historians ? - especially from the Bengal/eastern U.P. regions (this
>region was the British "Indis" prior to 1820s).
>
I agree that Euro-envy was a problem in India as in all European
colonies of the Third World. I haven't read too many writings
published by RSS, Shiv Sena, etc., nor would I want to. From
what I have read, it would not surprise me that the Indo-Scythian
contribution has been downplayed or not mentioned.
Regarding some of your other contentions, did not Annie
Besant split up with Gandhi et al., when the latter started
pushing hard for independence? Of course, many were Europhiles
and Nehru even admitted to being an Anglophile, but to a limited
extent.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
Paul Kekai Manansala
In article <fi3er59hoh.fsf@swap31-236>,
Yes, it is true that these groups claimed Kshatriya status, but
as GSP points out this was not accepted by the brahmanas who
labeled everyone starting with the Nandas as Sudras or even
Mlecchas. Modern Gurkhas of Nepal also claim Kshatriya origin
and most people don't argue with them, but the brahmins again
don't recognize these claims. The Vrjji/Vajji, Licchavis,
etc., were only accorded Vratya-kshatriya status, which was
used by brahmins to induct powerful foreign or indigenous
rulers into the caste system.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
si...@ugcs.caltech.edu
gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh Singh) writes:
> Really! I have given you over 30 references to well respected historians
> who seem to be at odds with the fantastic hegemonic and supramacist claims of
> orthodox caste Hindus (OCs -7%) over the history and religions of southasia.
> That is where all the "robbery" occured - during the 19th century when
> ideologues from this community began plundering, erasing, and distorting the
> history of southasia for their elitist political program (neo-Brahmanism?).
Clearly, GS is incapable of studying history without the help of his
prejudices.
> Rhetoric aside, the oldest of the brahmanical texts surviving today
> do not predate the Buddhist era in southasia (300 B.C. - 600 A.D.).
> The "oldest" manuscripts are post-8th century with the bulk of them from
> the 11-13th century era. Any person studying objective history would want to
> know about the "sources" from which all these Brahmanical geneologies
> of the Mauryas (324-232 B.C.) and Guptas (320-515 A.D.) come from.
The same "Brahmanical texts" that one ought to reject as recent, tell
us that Punjabis and Gangetic Brahmins have held each other in
contempt since time immemorial? And what "Brahmanical texts" provide
us the geneologies of the Guptas, GS?
> Much of the CONTEMPORARY and EARLY accounts of the political/religious
> situation in southasia over this period come from Chinese, Greek, and
> Persian sources. After the demise of Buddhism, there was a sytematic
> attempt to erase and absorb Buddhism into Brahmanism. For example,
> Ashoka is denigrated as a "shudra", "mlechha", "not generous to Brahmanins",
> "minor king", etc.
No religion is known to have kind words for a monarch that spurned
it. Have Brahmanical sources been critical of Bindusara who "showed
hospitality to 60,000 brahmanas?"
> Also, the Buddha who rejected Brahmanism outright
> (rejected the Brahmanical gods, shastras, their supremacist caste claims,
> etc.) was reinvented as an "avtar" (reincarnate) of Vishnu 11 centuries
> after his birth. This ensured that egalitarian Buddhism may never again
> threaten Brahmanical ambitions and their caste ideology.
Yes, the Buddha was quite clear that the Kshatriyas (his standing)
were superior to the Brahmanas. Perhaps GS can tell us what he - the
Buddha - had to say to the "sudras".
> dasaratha ? ? ? You tell me since you consider it "history".
You go on to advise me to brush up on Mauryan history - I'll suggest
you apply that to yourself. Perhaps in your next post you can tell
us about Ashoka's successors. Surely you didn't have the Ramayana
in mind, GS.
> Again there are dissenting views as to the origin of the Mauryas. I tend
> to agree with Gupta[1], Sinha[3], Dahiya[5], Dhillon[6], and others
> that the Chandragupta Maurya was a Punjabi native who expanded his empire
> to the southeast. According to them, the later Mauryas moved their capital to
> the east from Mathura to Pataliputra (see earlier response for support of
> this).
> Here is a quote from Dhillon[5] (p.40)on Maurya origins: [begin quote]
> Historians generally agree that "Maurya" is the clan name. For
> example Raphson [37] and Thaper [39] say: "Chandragupta, whose surname
> "Maurya" is supposed to be derived from . . " and Chandragupta belonged
> to the to the Maurya tribe, but his caste was low . . .".
> Dahiya has devoted almost an entire chapter to the clan name "Maurya".
> According to Dahiya's research the actual clan name of Chandragupta
> was "Maur" ("ya" being the pluralizing tense) and Maur Jats still exist
> today." (in Haryana) [end quote]
You are absolutely right, GS. Dahiya has devoted a major part of
chapter to the issue. A chapter that is replete with claims that
are bound to take anyone with a serious interest in history by
surprise. NCERT ought to be booked.
Here's something from the chapter:
"Grammatically, Maurya is a derivative from Mura or
Moor, by adding the suffix Syan. Therefore, the
original word remains Mor/Moor and not Mayura. The
last word Mayura or Mayuraka is a Sanskrit translation
of the original clan name Mor, which was unfortunately
found to be the same as the Hindi word 'Mor', meaning
peacock. Hence the stories connecting the 'Mor' with
peacock. It is worth noting that the Greek writers
mention the word as Moeres or Morieis. As is [sic]
well known, the affix 's', 'us', 'es' or 'os', are
generally added at the end of the personal names by
the Greek writers. By ignoring these affixes, the
word 'Moer' or Morie clearly remains...."
(pp. 142-3)
Note the mix-up between Meroes - the "friend" - and Moeres - the
"Patalian" king (in Arrian's account). Dahiya goes on to give
more arguments and make more claims - I'll suggest anyone
interested look up the book. I would've posted more but it's a
long chapter and the book disappointed me. Anyways, here's a short
piece that really threw me off:
"Thus we can conclude that the correct name of the
clan of Chandragupta was Mor. It is the same word
which is the surname of some people in England and
written as 'More'. It is, again this word, which
is the European Moor. We have already noted how
the Jats spread out from Central Asia in various
directions and many of them went to Europe, where
they were called Gots/Juts. We have also noted
that the Jat clan Sibi, called Sibis or Suevis,
went into Scandinavia and Spain. The Chavans of
India are the Chavannes of France. The Gauls, the
old name of the French is the same as the Gallan
of India, the suffix 'an', added to clan name
under Panini's rule. The Rose of India are the
same as Rose of England, and the German Hans/Hanz
are the same as Hans Jats. Similarly the Mor of
India are the same as the More/Moor of Europe...."
(pp. 153-4)
There are, of course, other issues too. Why does Chandragupta Maurya
have to be identified with Meroes and not with the "Patalian" king,
Moeres, if at all the chap is to be identified with either of the
two? I'd like to point out to GS that Buddhist sources inform us of
the Mauryas being (surprise!) kinsmen of the Buddha - Kshatriyas
from Kapilavastu.
Plutarch claims that Chandragupta Maurya met Alexander in his early
years. If this is to be believed, why does it imply, as McCrindle has
suggested, that he was a native of the Punjab? Is it not possible, as
Kunal Singh suggests, that Mr. Maurya was with the Nanda army and the
meeting was arranged by his (gasp!) Brahmin friend who, it is believed,
was from Punjab? Perhaps the Nandas were from Punjab - after all even
today there exist Nandas in Punjab. Did someone say, "Pritish Nandy"?
> Note that the "low caste" reference to the Mauryas is in concert with the
> "abuse" spewn on northern Punjabi/Buddhist rulers by the gangetic priesthood
> because they would not accept Brahmanical religion/gods and felt no need to
> share power/rule with them. (see below on quote from mahabharta about
> 'mlechas
> from Vahika' (Punjab)). Parallels to this bigotry can be found also in
> Brahmanical references later on to Afghan, Mogul, Sikh, Portugese, British
> rulers - Kyshatriyas ("ruling/soldier class") who did not need the Brahmins
> or
> their religion!.
Perhaps the Mauryas do represent a rise of the "low caste". Note that
in that case the "low caste" reference would be in concert with the
abuse often spewn on the so-called "low-caste". And the Buddhists
decided that their patron had to be of "high caste," of the Buddha's
varna.
> Secondly, Alexander summoned Chandragupta (rf. Buddha Prakash, Sinha[3])
> after knowning that he was a friend of the defeated Porus,
> who ruled in the upper Beas region of Punjab. Again geography
> sets Chandragupta in southern Punjab (below Sutlej) because Bihar
> is thousands of miles to the southeast. Also, prior to the Mauryan empire,
> the landmass of southasia was divided into hundreds of kingdoms/fiefdoms,
> frequently at war with their neighbors. It is extremely improbable and naive
> to believe that local rulers of these numerous kingdoms separating the Punjab
> and Bihar (over 2000 miles) would simply allow another monarch to walk
> through
> their kingdoms with his army towards Punjab to meet with Alexander. Also,
> besides the political improbability, there is a question of logistics, time,
> and reason. Alexander - the ruler of Greece,
> Egypt, Syria, Persia, Bactaria and now Punjab - wanted to decide the fate of
> Porus right away and had no reason to wait for a Bihari king to show up
> weeks/months later.
Perhaps Chandragupta Maurya was a "low caste" general in the Nanda
army and having offended his master took to Punjab where his Brahmin
friend had arranged a meeting with Alexander. Or maybe Mr. Maurya
saw opportunity in Alexander.
> Indeed, Chandragupta had to be a neighboring Punjabi king from southern
> Punjab
> who was a "friend" of Porus (from northern Punjab). This region, below the
> Satluj, would incorporate present-day "Haryana" - the exact region where
> agrarian clans by the name "Maur" still continue to exist.
Interestingly, there exist in Rajasthan people carrying the last
name Maurya - the Congress(I) has a senior functionary, B.P. Maurya,
some might recall.
> (Note: this analysis is not comparing Englishmen to Punjabis, but
> Punjabis to Punjabis over time! Certainly if Punjabi name can survive
> from Vedic time 1500-300 B.C. (you were yourself doing this), certainly they
> can also survive from 300 B.C. to the present - dont you think!)
I wasn't comparing Englishmen to Punjabis but merely educating you
on the extremes involved. Here, if this satisfies you: Sodhi-Sondhi,
Sondhi-Sondhe, Bawa-Bajwa, Bindra-Bhinder, Sarin-Saran-Sara,
Trehan-Tarkhan. And yes, names can certainly survive over long
periods of time. History is full of coincidences, GS.
> Here are 2 reference quoted above about the founding Maurya being of
> "low caste":
> "Raphson [37] and Thaper [39] say: "Chandragupta, whose surname
> "Maurya" is supposed to be derived from . . ' and Chandragupta belonged
> to the to the Maurya tribe, but his caste was low . . .'. "
I had "Brahmanical texts" in mind, when I made the request (I am
sure I mentioned this). But I got the following from Dahiya:
"...They [Mauryas] are contemptously dismissed
as 'Sudras' or 'Vrishals', or 'Kulhinas', by the
dramatist, Vishakhadatta, of Mudra Rakshasa fame;
and as 'utterly irreligious' by the Yuga Purana...."
(p. 138)
"...The Vishnu Purana calls them Sudras...."
(p. 147)
I think I'll take Dahiya's word, for now.
> About references to Ashoka as being a "mlechha", "shudra", "minor king"
> are well known to most who are well read on Mauryan history. I would
> recommend that you pick up some other texts and broaden your horizons
> - Goyal is not the only historian who knows ancient southasian history!
I don't recall having quoted Goyal on Mauryas. But you are right, he
is not the only historian who knows ancient southasian history. And
I don't think I've made such a claim. Clearly, your imagination has
run wild again.
> Have you head about DOB (Dravidian origins of Brahmanism) school - we could
> open up another thread to discuss the origins of Brahmanism if you want. My
> short answer would be that Brahmanical shastras (Mahabharta and writings of
> Manu) provide ample evidence that during the relevant portion of the
> Vedic period of Punjab (1500 - 300 B.C.) and the Puranic period of the
> Gangetic region (800-400 B.C.) there was religious/political hostility
> between the two regions. This is born out by negative references
> to the Vedics of Saptha Sindhva (ancient Punjab) as "mlechas"
> and "shudras".
>
> Here is a quote from the mahabharta, from Dhillon[6]:
> "one should not go to Vahika in which the five rivers and the indus
> . . . where the 'mlechas' live."
> The religion of Punjab during this period was Vedism or Vedic religion. The
> Vedics followed Vedism (Vedic religion) and worshipped the Gods Indra (god of
> thunder) and Rudra (god of health) and their holy book consisted of the hymns
> of the RigVedas written by Vedic poets and mystics. The Vedic Aryas were an
> egalitarian, semi-patoral people who ate cows, considered river Ravi to be
> holy, and in the RigVeda refer to their domains in the ancient Punjab/Sindh
> region as "Saptha Sindhva" (land of seven seas/rivers).
I had thought all this would was to be in the new thread. But when
you do start it, do tell how far back can one date the documents
that give us all the above information.
> The ruling classes as well as the masses were Buddhist during the
> Gandharan Buddhist period of Punjab (300 B.C. - 647 A.D.).
> The "Khatris" are geographically restriced to the Punjab region.
> Traditional distribution of this community cannot be found in U.P.
> or Rajasthan. This strongly points to a Scythian or Aryo-Scythian
> origin.
I fail to see where I've erred - do tell me. You seemed to claim
that Punjabis have rarely followed Gangetic Brahmins - I gave you
an example of a strong link between Gangetic Brahmins and a very
Punjabi community. And do you personally know where all the
Khatris live?
One wonders where Punjabi Brahmins fit in your claims of race.
> >Hardly. Pushyamitras and Satavahanas too ignored Sanskrit.
> >And what was Maharaja Ranjit Singh's court language, GS?
> Which also proves that he was a non-Brahmin. Some thing to keep
> in mind when hegemonic/supramacist OCs by the year 2997
> (or sooner?) start claiming that RS was also a Brahmin!
And you were asking me to brush up my knowledge on Mauryan history!
What about the Pushyamitras? Are they non-Brahmin too?
That RS chose Persian, and not Punjabi, is quite telling, GS.
> But if RS was indeed a Brahmin, he would certainly have used Sanskrit
> as his court language - dont you think!
GS perhaps thinks that humans can be classified into two groups. The
evil Brahmins (who speak Sanskrit), and the righteous non-Brahmins
(who speak anything but Sanskrit.)
> Spewing venom at non-Brahmanical and "low caste" groups/religions
> (93% of southasians) is really a Brahmin expertise. We have documented proof
> in their own shastras.
Well, that's a matter of opinion. But quite a few Punjabis and Sikhs
seem to have picked up these traits over time. Don't you think?
> See top of post on chronology of Brahmanical "historical" sources
> and the Chinese, Greek, Persian (e.g. Fa-hien, Hsuan Tsuang, Herrodotus,
> Arrian, Ptolemy, etc.) without whom we wouldnt have a history of
> ancient southasia - especially the Buddhist period (300 B.C.- 700 A.D.).
You may take their accounts as gospel, I don't.
> But most Buddhist manuscripts and literature compiled over 1000 years
> of Buddhist civilization in southasia was destroyed when
> Brahmanism gained influence after the 8th century. The vast majority
> of Buddhist manuscripts that survived this "cleansing" are those
> copied and taken by foreigners to China, Tibet, and the Far East during
> contemporary times. So we dont know about Buddhist hostility to our poor
> victimized Brahmins, but solid evidence of the reverse exists!
Yes, we do know of Buddhist attitudes. For example, in the Jataka
stories, Brahmanas are usually potrayed as mean. Here's something
from Fick's "The Social Organization in North-East India in Buddha's
Time":
"...in many cases the Brahmanas are pictured as greedy,
shameless and immoral and serve as a foil to the
Khattiyas who play the part of virtuous and noble
humanity." (p. 183)
Y. Malaiya
About Chandragupta Maurya, the most direct and detailed
accounts are found in the Jain and the Buddhist tradition.
The Mauryas (Moriya) arose in Eastern India, as is clear from
all available accounts.
1. One of the ganadharas (chief of a monastic order) of
Mahavira was Moriyaputta.
2. When Buddha died, the remains after cremation were divided
by Drona the brahmin. Among the receipients were Moriyas who
had received some of the cinders:
"angaar-thupam kaaresum Moruyaa tuTThamaansaa .."
(Mahaparinirvana Sutta)
The Moriyas used to live at Pippli-vana in the Terai region.
After the Mauryas were overthrown by Shunga in Magadh, we hear
about Maurya rulers in various parts of India and SriLanka
apparently descendants of the original Mauryas. The best
known of them was the branch ruling Chittor region, who were
defeated by the Guhilots (Sisodiya). The Mori rajputs, still
living in that region, are their descendents.
What about the "Maur" jats in Haryana then? Can they be
the descendants of the imperial Mauryas? Yes, it is possible.
Could Mauryas have originated from Punjab? No.
It should be kept in mind that people used to travel from
Magadh to Gandhar frequently, Angulimal and Chanakya are
said to have studied at Takshashila. Ashoka was a regent
at Takshashila, before he became the king at Patliputra.
Yashwant
Neil Ghosh
State of fantasy?
What the hell is this bullsh? Anyway, it sounds like one of those Nation
of Islam fliers which tells us history is a friggin lie and sh like
that...maybe some of history is indeed a conspiratory cover-up. But don't
hide behind that theory to justify killing and putting down someone else's
culture.
Why don't YOU be a little less pathetic? You must be fantasizing if you
think you're right. You remind me of a fresh toilet pickle.
Neil
D7 Singh
Yes, it is true that these groups claimed Kshatriya status, but
as GSP points out this was not accepted by the brahmanas who
labeled everyone starting with the Nandas as Sudras or even
Mlecchas. Modern Gurkhas of Nepal also claim Kshatriya origin
and most people don't argue with them, but the brahmins again
don't recognize these claims. The Vrjji/Vajji, Licchavis,
etc., were only accorded Vratya-kshatriya status, which was
used by brahmins to induct powerful foreign or indigenous
rulers into the caste system.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
yes exactly! In fact, in Bihar the Kurmis and Yadavs (the original
ancient kshatriyas who are still fighters to this day but are not
recognized by "brahmanical" society since they don't ass kiss brahmins as
Rajputs do so well ( a bunch of huns)) are always at odds with the
Rajputs, and in fact, Rajputs are only dominant in western India uptil UP,
it completely breaks down is kshatriyasthan Bihar. You can tell how
ancient a people are by their marriage ceremony and the rites of marriage
and passage, the kurmis and yadavs still have a very ancient tradition,
whereas Rajputs have a senseless madeup one, it is almost obvious that the
Rajputs, Marwars, Gujjars, Jats are not a Vedic people. Rajputs and
Gujjars were made into kshatriyas by brahmins and have remained loyal
servants to the brahmins, muslims, english to their dying day, servantry
is not a thing of true kshatriyas.
Jats are probably the only NEW true kshatriya types, they don't
consider themselves inferior to anyone, are independent of brahmanical
influence, have their own rites of passage, are agricultural, are hated
but feared by the brahmins and are fighters to the end just as kurmis,
yadavs, haihayas and gurkhas are to this day. I'm sure the Yadavs, who
are a branch of kurmis, were their ancient counterparts. Jats have to
take care not to become arrogant however.
I croak when these ass kisser Rajputs try to claim the heritage of Ram,
Krishna, Buddha, Mauryas, Guptas and the great kings of ancient lore who
actually lifted their people out of poverty because they cared, whereas
the damned Rajputs just wasted their people and never considered the
masses as their people. A drop of ancient blood does not make one ancient,
as a drop of water does not make an ocean.
The definition of a kshatriya is one who has self respect, can use
knowledge and wisdom to help his/her people to rise and give dignity to
their people by allowing them their freedom. The Sikhs have it right, the
true warrior is a warrior who is a saint at the same time, he is a guru
who connects with all of his people, because he/she is the people, a
kshatriya is a protector NOT A BARBARIAN WHO TERRORIZES THE PEOPLE LIKE
THE RAJPUTS!!!
"TREATING ALIKE PLEASURE AND PAIN, GAIN AND LOSS, VICTORY AND DEFEAT, THEN GET READY FOR BATTLE. THUS THOU SHALT NOT INCUR SIN. " Bhagwad Gita.