Why Hindu Rashtra? (part 4/8)
M. Jagadesh Kumar
------------------------------
Those who dreamed of establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat on
the strength of their slogan ' workers of the world unite, are now finding
their proletariats rigidly confined to their respective national boundaries.
Not merely that. The proletariats of Communist countries like Russia, China,
Vietnam, Albania are now at daggers drawn with each other. Each considers its
own national brand of Communism authentic and derides all others as
revisionist, reactionary, expansionist and so on. The Italian and French
communists have even declared the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' as
unnecessary and created their own brand.,Euro-Communism. Why, Russia itself has
changed its constitution giving up its basic postulate of a 'proletariat state'
and opting for a state belonging to all people. The communist tide today stands
broken up into a hundred fragments by dashing against the rock of nationalism.
It is clear that the spirit of nationalism has proved more powerful because of
its being a more natural expression of man's evolutionary cycle, and as such
more basic and deep-rooted. The spirit of one-ness generated by it is much more
intense than that of religion, language, etc., Even Stalin, who had derided God
and religion as opium of the masses felt the impact of its spirit and declared:
"Apart from the foregoing (community of language, territory and economic life),
one must take into consideration the specific spiritual complexion of the
people constituting a nation. Nations differ not only in their conditions of
life, but also in spiritual complexion, which manifests itself in peculiarities
of national culture". (Marxism and the question of nationalities: page -6)
Hindu Rashtra - Eternal and Perennial:
And Hindu Rashtra is the finest blossoming of this spiritual
consciousness. We see it shining in its pristine glory on the very first page of
history as a fully developed nation. The greatest secularist of recent times,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, had noted with great pride that "One feels curious
and wonder-struck on seeing the vast and unbroken stream of Indian civilization
and culture from the dawn of our history to modern times." While in the Vedic
period the feeling of intense intimacy towards the motherland is expressed in
the words "Maata Bhoomih putroham prithivyah" - "Aye, we are children of this
mother earth," in the Puranic period it takes the form of:
Uttaram yat samudrasya, Himadreschaiva dakshinam |
Varsham tad Bharatam nama Bharati yatra santatih ||
(Bharat is the name of the country situated to the north of the sea and south
of the Himalayas and its progeny is known as Bharati.)
The same sentiment was expressed in the middle ages in the following
sloka of Barhaspatya Shastra:
Himalayam samarabhya yavadindu sarovaram |
tam devanirmitam desham Hindustanam prachakshate ||
(This land created by the gods and extending from the Himalayas to Indu Sarovar
(ie. the Indian ocean) is known as Hindustan.)
It is to be noted that this sloka also points to the possible formation
of the word 'Hindu', as a beautiful synthesis of 'Hi' of the Himalyas and
'Indu' of the Indusarovar. There is also the belief that it is a variation of
the 'Sindhu' originally used to denote the people living in the region around
the river 'Sindhu' (Indus' but later came to be applied for the people of the
entire country. There is no doubt that in both cases, the word 'Hindu' has been
used for for the off-spring of this land. The following Vadic slokha has
sublimated this tradition of intense emotional attachment to the motherland by
depicting it(motherland) as the Rashtra Devata, the divine manifestation of
Nationhood itself:
Bhadramicchanta rishayah swarvidah tapodeekshamudaseduragre
Tato rashtram balamojaseha jatam tadasmai deva upasannamantu ||
(The sages carried out austere penances for the welfare of the mankind; and out
of the (penance) was born the nation endowed with strength and prowess.
Therefore, let us worship this Rashtradevata. - Atharva Veda.)
[To be concluded]
------------------
This article is written by Shri K. S. Sudarshan, a top national leader of
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Originally from Mysore, he spent most part of
his life in North-Eastern India overlooking the organisation of Hindus.
Courtesy: Suruchi Prakashan, New Delhi.
--
dxp...@tesla.njit.edu
>
> the words "Maata Bhoomih putroham prithivyah" - "Aye, we are children of this
> mother earth," in the Puranic period it takes the form of:
>
> Uttaram yat samudrasya, Himadreschaiva dakshinam |
> Varsham tad Bharatam nama Bharati yatra santatih ||
>
> (Bharat is the name of the country situated to the north of the sea and south
> of the Himalayas and its progeny is known as Bharati.)
>
> The same sentiment was expressed in the middle ages in the following
> sloka of Barhaspatya Shastra:
>
> Himalayam samarabhya yavadindu sarovaram |
> tam devanirmitam desham Hindustanam prachakshate ||
>
> (This land created by the gods and extending from the Himalayas to Indu Sarovar
> (ie. the Indian ocean) is known as Hindustan.)
Did they really have any idea of the size of India and its borders
at that time to call it Bharat?
When they said north of the sea, did they mean from Kanyakumari?>
Prabaharan
Raghu Seshadri
-> (Bharat is the name of the country situated to the north of the sea and south
-> of the Himalayas and its progeny is known as Bharati.)
>
-> The same sentiment was expressed in the middle ages in the following
-> sloka of Barhaspatya Shastra:
>
-> Himalayam samarabhya yavadindu sarovaram |
-> tam devanirmitam desham Hindustanam prachakshate ||
>
-> (This land created by the gods and extending from the Himalayas to Indu Sarovar
-> (ie. the Indian ocean) is known as Hindustan.)
-Did they really have any idea of the size of India and its borders
-at that time to call it Bharat?
-When they said north of the sea, did they mean from Kanyakumari?>
-Prabaharan
Indeed. A famous line in the Rig Veda defines the territory
of Bharat - " Aa Setu Himachalam Bharata varsham ".
Setu = Cape.
This defines Bharat as the land between the Himalaya and
the Cape ( the only cape, Kanyakumari ).
RS
Meenaradchagan Vishnu
Can you please give us the correct verse number ? I vaguely recall these
lines are from some later day purana and even then someone (perhaps
Vidyasankar, I am not sure) said that these are later day interpolations.
Meenan Vishnu
dxp...@tesla.njit.edu
> -Did they really have any idea of the size of India and its borders
> -at that time to call it Bharat?
> -When they said north of the sea, did they mean from Kanyakumari?>
>
> -Prabaharan
>
> Indeed. A famous line in the Rig Veda defines the territory
> of Bharat - " Aa Setu Himachalam Bharata varsham ".
>
> Setu = Cape.
>
> This defines Bharat as the land between the Himalaya and
> the Cape ( the only cape, Kanyakumari ).
Well. Is it possible that they meant a diferent cape,
something in a small scale somewhere else. If they had some idea of
the shape of India, probably they would have prepared a map. Does any
ancient map of India exist?
You see, Bible says that the world was created in 3 (?) days.
People defend it by saying that the day mentioned in the Bible is not the
present day day!. People always interpret things to suit their views.
Otherwise why would we have several interpretations of Thirukkural.
Prabaharan
>
> RS
Vasan
>> Indeed. A famous line in the Rig Veda defines the territory
>> of Bharat - " Aa Setu Himachalam Bharata varsham ".
>>
>> Setu = Cape.
>>
>> This defines Bharat as the land between the Himalaya and
>> the Cape ( the only cape, Kanyakumari ).
>
> Well. Is it possible that they meant a diferent cape,
> something in a small scale somewhere else. If they had some idea of
> the shape of India, probably they would have prepared a map. Does any
> ancient map of India exist?
Even those done by the recent century cartographers showed the Indian
sub continents as a narrow land mass protruding from the Asian southside
and sometimes at an angle (what south east asia looks like). I recall this
from a UGC show of the evolution of the techniques and especially with
respect to India.
> You see, Bible says that the world was created in 3 (?) days.
> People defend it by saying that the day mentioned in the Bible is not the
> present day day!. People always interpret things to suit their views.
> Otherwise why would we have several interpretations of Thirukkural.
Remember this ?
It was said that a second for God is like an year to the human. One paise
to God is like one lakh to the human.
One guy did severe penance to invoke God (did he use Rg vEdhaa, I had asked
in a different article - no response yet) and when God appeared before him,
he asked for one paise of God. God replied 'wait a minute' and went off :-)
Vasan
Anonymous is not synonymous with 'having a name'!
Vidyasankar Sundaresan
(Meenaradchagan Vishnu) writes:
- In article <1881...@hpindda.cup.hp.com>,
- Raghu Seshadri <sesh...@hpindda.cup.hp.com> wrote:
- >
- > Indeed. A famous line in the Rig Veda defines the territory
- > of Bharat - " Aa Setu Himachalam Bharata varsham ".
- >
- > Setu = Cape.
- >
- > This defines Bharat as the land between the Himalaya and
- > the Cape ( the only cape, Kanyakumari ).
- >
- > RS
- >
-
- Can you please give us the correct verse number ? I vaguely recall
these
- lines are from some later day purana and even then someone (perhaps
- Vidyasankar, I am not sure) said that these are later day
interpolations.
-
- Meenan Vishnu
-
Oops, it must be a compliment to me that Meenan remembers something I once
wrote. So, let me clarify what I did say. I did not for once say that
there are later day interpolations in the Rg Veda. I also did not say that
this specific notion of "Aa Setu Himachala Paryantam" is a later day
innovation.
Once upon a time, somebody claimed to have "recently discovered" a
manuscript of some Purana (hitherto unknown) in Punjab. A verse from this
Purana attempted to explain the patently non-Sanskritic word "Hindustan"
from 'Hima' = snow, 'Indu' = ocean and 'stan' = place. This has nothing to
do with the Rg Veda, nor sepcifically with the phrase "Aa
setu.............." etc. I hope this clears things a bit.
S. Vidyasankar
dxp...@tesla.njit.edu
> -something in a small scale somewhere else.
>
> Since Kanyakumari is the only cape ( by default, by
> references in other texts etc), this is the null
> hypothesis. Anyone suggesting an alternate cape must
> come up with some reasoning for it. Mere speculation
> won't do.
Kanyakumari is a large cape. There is aplace in New Jersey called
Cape May. It is piece of land jutting into the ocean. Actually it is part
of a bay. Could they have meant something like that in 1500 BC. What
makes you think that the cape mentioned in Rg Veda is definitely
Kanyakumari. That could be speculation too.
>
>
> -If they had some idea of
> -the shape of India, probably they would have prepared a map. Does any
> -ancient map of India exist?
>
> A map could have perished, like most things on organic
> substances do in the tropics.
>
I thought people wrote things on stone in the past, like kalvettu.
> Remember, Kalidasa ( 7th c.) exhibits a detailed knowledge
> of Indian geography ( from Mt Kailasa to Kanchipuram, even
I guess by 7th century people started travelling. Great Alexander
came to India by 300 BC? I am not a history buff. May be
some other experts can throw some light on this. What I am opposed to is
people blindly believing that outr great forefathers knew everything.
Prabaharan
> RS
Raghu Seshadri
> Indeed. A famous line in the Rig Veda defines the territory
>
>
> This defines Bharat as the land between the Himalaya and
>
>
-Can you please give us the correct verse number ? I vaguely recall these
-lines are from some later day purana and even then someone (perhaps
-Vidyasankar, I am not sure) said that these are later day interpolations.
-Meenan Vishnu
Dear Meenan,
I am shamefaced that I do not know the verse number; i do not
possess a copy of the Veda itself. This is from another small
book of quotations - it lacks the numbers. But the book is
culled from the Veda, not some Purana.
Since the Rig Veda was composed over a 1000 year period, finally
ending around 1500 B.C at the latest, the knowledge of India's
topography is atleast that old.
RS
Raghu Seshadri
> -at that time to call it Bharat?
> -When they said north of the sea, did they mean from Kanyakumari?>
>
> -Prabaharan
>
> of Bharat - " Aa Setu Himachalam Bharata varsham ".
>
> Setu = Cape.
>
> This defines Bharat as the land between the Himalaya and
> the Cape ( the only cape, Kanyakumari ).
-Well. Is it possible that they meant a diferent cape,
-something in a small scale somewhere else.
Since Kanyakumari is the only cape ( by default, by
references in other texts etc), this is the null
hypothesis. Anyone suggesting an alternate cape must
come up with some reasoning for it. Mere speculation
won't do.
-If they had some idea of
-the shape of India, probably they would have prepared a map. Does any
-ancient map of India exist?
A map could have perished, like most things on organic
substances do in the tropics.
Remember, Kalidasa ( 7th c.) exhibits a detailed knowledge
of Indian geography ( from Mt Kailasa to Kanchipuram, even
including details like the abundance of iron ore deposits
in the Kudremukh hills of Karnataka ) in his "Megha Sandesham".
But no 7th c. map exists. Therefore non-existence of maps does
not indicate ignorance of geography.
-You see, Bible says that the world was created in 3 (?) days.
-People defend it by saying that the day mentioned in the Bible is not the
-present day day!. People always interpret things to suit their views.
Oh, I agree. Since the Bible's claim about creation in
7 days has been proven to be wrong, its defenders have to
come up with alternative explanations of the kind you
mention. But there is nothing untenable in the definition
of Bharat in the Rig Veda.
The burden of proof is on those who dispute that the
cape refers to Kanyakumari.
-Otherwise why would we have several interpretations of Thirukkural.
Here, your comparison breaks down, in my view. A literary
text of sufficient complexity will, by its nature, lend
itself to multiple interpretations. That is a virtue in
literary works, not a flaw. After the death of the author,
we cannot have one, right meaning for everything he wrote;
it is upto the interpreter. But this is only in the case
of abstract stuff. Any sincere researcher must owe strict
loyalty to factual truths, no matter how inconvenient to
his pet theories. You cannot, for example, have an interpretation
of Tiru Kural which places its author in China or Germany :-)
-Prabaharan
RS
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
: In article <1881...@hpindda.cup.hp.com>,
: Meenan Vishnu
The early vedic people did not know the geography of whole Indian
continent. Even some obvious rivers are missed out. Infact Ptolemy-the
greek's guys geography of India and particularly thamizh land is clear.
This quote of a few unconncted verse reminds me of some
guy saying "alamelu manga namaha" and insisting that alar mEl
magkai is a sanskrit word while alar mEl magkai is dravidian
beyond doubt.
anban
kathir
Raghu Seshadri
-Cape May. It is piece of land jutting into the ocean. Actually it is part
-of a bay. Could they have meant something like that in 1500 BC. What
-makes you think that the cape mentioned in Rg Veda is definitely
-Kanyakumari. That could be speculation too.
I could write a long article explaining why it is accepted
by scholars that the Cape is Kanyakumari; but it occurs to me
that you perhaps have some kind of emotional stake in the
answer. This is not conducive to objective examination, and
you will probably handwave any explanations by repeating " maybe
that is a speculation too ". So where does this lead ?
Let me share my understanding of historical research with
you. In our investigation of hazy references in ancient
texts, we pick the most likely place and make that our
working hypothesis. In other words, there is more evidence
for the working hypothesis currently than any other alternate
theory. If more evidence comes to light that the place referred
to was actually a point in the Gujarat coast, we jettison
the Kanyakumari theory immediately. We do not cling to
the Kanyakumari theory for emotional reasons. That would
be dishonest.
If you are really interested in the reasons historians believe
that Setu refers to Kanyakumari, please let me know. But if
you intend to fill the screen with "maybe that is speculation
too" no matter what the counter-evidence, I'll be merely
wasting my time.
>
>
> -If they had some idea of
> -the shape of India, probably they would have prepared a map. Does any
> -ancient map of India exist?
>
> A map could have perished, like most things on organic
> substances do in the tropics.
>
- I thought people wrote things on stone in the past, like kalvettu.
Why do you think I gave you the example from Megha Sandesham ?
I proved that Kalidasa, a 7th c. poet had an extensive
knowledge of the topography of the peninsula, and yet no
map of that era is extant. THIS PROVES THAT LACK OF MAPS
DOES NOT INDICATE IGNORANCE OF GEOGRAPHY.
Please rethink the point I am trying to make.
>Remember, Kalidasa ( 7th c.) exhibits a detailed knowledge
>of Indian geography ( from Mt Kailasa to Kanchipuram, even
- I guess by 7th century people started travelling. Great Alexander
-came to India by 300 BC? I am not a history buff.
Since you seem to be aware that people were travelling long
before 200 B.C, what is the meaning of your first sentence here ?
Historians currently believe that the Aryans started their
momentous migrations around 6000 B.C. from a place near Anatolia,
Turkey. So what is unbelievable about travelling to the southern
coast ?
- May be some other experts can throw some light on this.
That would be nice indeed. But what will you do if the
expert shows that the Setu is kanyakumari ? Will you
accept it, or will you come back with " Maybe you
are speculating too " ?
There is no end to the kind of things we can write if
we precede it with "maybe". Maybe Pluto is made of
green cheese. Maybe Nelson Mandela killed Kennedy .
In a discussion, though, we have to limit our attention to the
evidence available, and above all, be dispassionate.
Neither your life nor mine is going to be altered the
slightest bit, no matter how this point is resolved.
So what's with the emotional rejoinders ?
-What I am opposed to is people blindly believing that outr great
-forefathers knew everything.
Sure, I'll agree with that. These emotional stances are
the enemies of an objective search for truth.
In my last letter, though, I gave you an authentic quote
from an authentic ancient text, real data about a 7th c
poet , and reasonings to demonstrate the weakness of the
"map argument". All you have said is " maybe that is
speculation too" , and this general advice about blind
belief. Exactly what portion of my letter showed blind belief ?
I hope you are not mixing me up with the original author
of this thread; BTW, I didn't even read the original article,
only your reply to it.
-Prabaharan
RS
V. Nagarajan
> That would be nice indeed. But what will you do if the
> expert shows that the Setu is kanyakumari ? Will you
> accept it, or will you come back with " Maybe you
> are speculating too " ?
>
> There is no end to the kind of things we can write if
> we precede it with "maybe". Maybe Pluto is made of
> green cheese. Maybe Nelson Mandela killed Kennedy .
> In a discussion, though, we have to limit our attention to the
> evidence available, and above all, be dispassionate.
> Neither your life nor mine is going to be altered the
> slightest bit, no matter how this point is resolved.
> So what's with the emotional rejoinders ?
Maybe you are arguing with an AI program? ;-)
- Nagarajan
dxp...@tesla.njit.edu
> by scholars that the Cape is Kanyakumari; but it occurs to me
> that you perhaps have some kind of emotional stake in the
> answer. This is not conducive to objective examination, and
> you will probably handwave any explanations by repeating " maybe
> that is a speculation too ". So where does this lead ?
I have no emotional attachments to any text or beliefs. So I
would appreciate your explanation. However, any explanation should be
a convincing one. Indian Historians are accused of exaggerating
the past glory while Western Scholars are accused of downplaying India's
achievements. Sometime it is hard to find objective assessment of
ancient history.
People sometime make tall claims. Some believe that Kamban (?) knew
the theory of momentum because he said that and this, etc.
A group of Nomads (Aryans) immigrated to India in 3000BC.
By 1500 Bc they compiled Rig Veda. In that Veda, they mention a country
Bharat situated between Himalayas and Kanyakumari. At that time there
were other cultures in the South and theywere not yet conquered by the
invaders. Still they called the whole subcontinent one country. Why? My
understanding ofm the above events may be wrong. I would like to
know. History is facinating if you have the time to read.
Did the Vedic Aryans come up with their ideas of Vedas
after they migrated to India or before ? Did they have any input from
the locals.
>
>
> Historians currently believe that the Aryans started their
> momentous migrations around 6000 B.C. from a place near Anatolia,
> Turkey. So what is unbelievable about travelling to the southern
> coast ?
Throughout the ages people migrated from one place to another. Does that
mean they had a good idea of geography? American Indians are believed to
have migrated from Mongolia. Were they able to place themselves in the
world map? I don't think you can compare 7th century
knowledge (Kalidas) with 1500BC.
Prabaharan
>
> RS
dxp...@tesla.njit.edu
> To be precise, the name given to India in the Vedic Age
> was `Bharatavarsham'. Shri Radha Kumud Mookerji (1884-1964)
> has made an extensive study of the Vedic literature and in
> his work `Hindu Civilisation (Parts I, II) [1963]', he has
> noted that even in the Vedic Age, there was a concept of
> *unity* of India in the Aryan mind and cites the reference
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> to India as `Bharatavarsham' in Vedic literature.
It is my understanding that it was the Aryans who devised and
propagated the caste system. If so, why were they interested in unity?
>
Prabaharan
>
> -SP-
Sundara Pandian
> It is my understanding that it was the Aryans who devised and
> propagated the caste system.
Broadly speaking, there were two ancient cultures in ancient
India - 1. Gangetic Plains or Aryan civilization and 2. Deccan or
Dravidian civilization.
The Vedic Age of Gangetic Plains civilization is usually divided
into two periods (a) early Vedic age (- 12th cent. B.C.) and (b) later
Vedic age (12th cent. - 6th cent. B.C.) The early Vedic age was a
tribal culture and it had mostly materialistic thoughts. Varnas were
unknown in the early Vedic age. But in the later Vedic age, profession
based, interchangeable four varnas (Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaisya and
Sudra) were developed. With the advent of sacerdotal supremacy in
the post-Vedic age, these varnas got rigidified and this period saw
Manu-dharma shastra advocating sacerdotal supremacy and cruel treatment
to the fourth caste, Sudras. With time, the profession-based varnas
came to exist as birth-based castes in north India.
The Deccan civilization had its own lowest castes like Paraiyan,
Tutiyan, Paanan, Velan etc. In fact, scholars like Dr. George Hart
point out that the pollution attached to the low castes in India is
a legacy of indigenous Dravidian religion. The castes in Dravidian
culture are better understood in the Deccan civilization set-up
rather than in the often-done Gangetic civilization set-up. There
are many reasons for this, like the high caste rank of Vellalas etc.
but I avoid the details here. The varna-ashrama-dharma in the
post-800 A.D. Tamil society was a superimposition of the existed
caste system in Tamil culture according to some scholars.
> If so, why were they interested in unity?
The early gangetic plains culture, as noted above, was a tribal
culture and they had a tribal sense of unity (Rig Veda x, 199 ).
Unity is quite a common conception among tribes. But the tribal
vedic society did not last long, it broke up in the later vedic
age which saw the growth of private property, varnas, rebirth
faiths, sacerdotal supremacy etc.
> Prabaharan
- SP
Ravisankar M. S
: In article <940203054...@cec2.wustl.edu>, s...@cec.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian) writes:
: It is my understanding that it was the Aryans who devised and
: propagated the caste system. If so, why were they interested in unity?
: >
: Prabaharan
I dont think so. Aryans were nomads. They didn't have such a
complicated stuff like caste system. As a matter of fact they didn't
have gods like Shiva, parvathi etc in their cult. When invaded by
aryans, dravidians had a proper and established urban civilization. In
fact , caste system was the hierarchy in their urban civilization.
This system was later accepted and became part and parcel of aryan
civilization.
I am sorry for my inability to give the references from which I got
this information. I don't remember it.
-msr
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
Sundara Pandian <s...@cec.wustl.edu> wrote:
>Inquires Shri Prabhakaran <dxp...@tesla.njit.edu> in
>his reply to Shri Raghu Seshadri on Feb 2, 94:
>
> [...]
>
>> A group of Nomads (Aryans) immigrated to India in 3000BC.
>> By 1500 Bc they compiled Rig Veda. In that Veda, they mention a country
>> Bharat situated between Himalayas and Kanyakumari. At that time there
>> invaders. Still they called the whole subcontinent one country. Why?
>
>was `Bharatavarsham'. Shri Radha Kumud Mookerji (1884-1964)
>has made an extensive study of the Vedic literature and in
>his work `Hindu Civilisation (Parts I, II) [1963]', he has
>noted that even in the Vedic Age, there was a concept of
>*unity* of India in the Aryan mind and cites the reference
>
> Moreover, the lists of holy places in India that the Vedic
>literature mention, show the complete familiarity of Aryans
>with every part of India. For more details on the geographic
>horizon in the Vedic Age, I suggest the interested nettors to
>refer to the quoted work by Mookerji published by Bharatiya
>Vidhya Bhavan, Bombay. Also, the Aiteraya Brahmana (a part of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Vedic literature) provides details on the geographic limits of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>India as noted in the Vedic Age.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If in Albanian language the the land mass we know today as europe
is referred to as 'kairopa' ( say), it does not mean that it was
one 'nation' nor is it fair to insist that every european today
should refer to europe as 'kairopa' since it is
referred so in Albanian.
It is plain lie to say that India was one nation before
the British rule. A lie systematically repeated by RSS
and their cohorts. This is not to deny that the whole
indian subcontinent is culturally one 'country' and can very well
be the basis of a modern nation.
If vedic and sanskritic literatures refer to this _subcontinent_
as bharatvarsha, it is to be understood that it was probably
so known to the 3-4% of people ( not the entire india).
It ( the subcontinent, not the modern India)
might have been known differently in different langauges of the land.
In any case, it is a fact that the modern India was not a single
nation before British rule.
[ The indian subcontinent was thought to be at one time
a huge island as per tamils and it was known as 'naavalam thIvu'
but it is said that the sanskrit pundits who did not understand
the meaning of 'naavalam' ( = surrounded on all four sides)
translated it as jambu dvipa since 'naaval pazham' was
known in sanskrit as jambu ! :-) ]
> [...]
>> Prabaharan
> Namaste,
> -SP-
anbudan
-Selvaa
Sundara Pandian
SP> To be precise, the name given to India in the Vedic Age
SP> was `Bharatavarsham'. Shri Radha Kumud Mookerji (1884-1964)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SP> has made an extensive study of the Vedic literature and in
SP> his work `Hindu Civilisation (Parts I, II) [1963]', he has
SP> noted that even in the Vedic Age, there was a concept of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SP> *unity* of India in the Aryan mind and cites the reference
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SP> to India as `Bharatavarsham' in Vedic literature.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(I have removed Selva's underlinings of my original posting
and made my own underlinings to clarify something..)
> It is plain lie to say that India was one nation before
> the British rule. A lie systematically repeated by RSS
> and their cohorts. This is not to deny that the whole
> indian subcontinent is culturally one 'country' and can very well
> be the basis of a modern nation.
Selva, the point of interest in my original posting was NOT
whether or not India was one nation before British rule or say,
in particular, the ancient India, but the *perception* of the Vedic
Aryans on the geographical conditions, geographical limits of
India in the Vedic age.
It is what the Vedic Aryans perceived in the Vedic age, what
they understood about the geographical limits of India (like Cape
Kumari in the south) that was being discussed in this thread
and I had given some references also for more details.
If you read again the underlined text, it says clearly that
"there was a concept (or conception) of unity of India in the
Aryan mind". What it means is that Vedic Aryans had a fair
understanding of the geographical limits of India and *perceived*
the sub-continent with a conception of unity in their mind as
`Bharatavarsham'. It does not mean that India was a united nation
in Vedic Age named Bharatavarsham. The vested interests like
RSS or VHP may misinterpret the references to Bharatavarsham in
Vedic literature to further their own means, but it was not implied
or intended in my original posting, as I do agree with you that
modern India was not a single nation before British rule.
> anbudan
> -Selvaa
- SP
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
Sundara Pandian <s...@cec.wustl.edu> wrote:
>Replied Thiru Selvakumar <selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> :
[..]
>
> (I have removed Selva's underlinings of my original posting
> and made my own underlinings to clarify something..)
>
>> It is plain lie to say that India was one nation before
>> the British rule. A lie systematically repeated by RSS
>> and their cohorts. This is not to deny that the whole
>> indian subcontinent is culturally one 'country' and can very well
>> be the basis of a modern nation.
>
> Selva, the point of interest in my original posting was NOT
> whether or not India was one nation before British rule or say,
> in particular, the ancient India, but the *perception* of the Vedic
> Aryans on the geographical conditions, geographical limits of
> India in the Vedic age.
[1] Please read Sunith Kumar Chatterjee's ' Origin and Developement
of Bengali Language' ( George Unwin pub. ?) to gain an understanding
that the the Vedic Aryans did NOT know much more than the North West
India and how slowly they came to know about Gangetic plains.
The Vedic Aryans did NOT know much of South India ( south of
Vindhyas).
[2] You talked about perception/concept of 'unity' of India, but
I don't understand what you mean by that. Merely because somebody
referred to a region as a land mass, how can you assume
unity etc. First and foremost it is not certain since when
there are references in skt literature about the indian
subcontinent upto Kanya Kumari, but even if it was there, so what ?
Anciet Tibetians might have had some words, Tamils might have
referred to the whole world with some name ( should we insist that
hereafter all the speakers of the world langauges shall refer to
the world as in Tamil ? :-) )
>
> It is what the Vedic Aryans perceived in the Vedic age, what
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> they understood about the geographical limits of India (like Cape
> Kumari in the south) that was being discussed in this thread
> and I had given some references also for more details.
See above. Vedic Aryans did NOT have understanding of
even Gangetic plains until late in history.
>
> If you read again the underlined text, it says clearly that
> "there was a concept (or conception) of unity of India in the
> Aryan mind". What it means is that Vedic Aryans had a fair
> understanding of the geographical limits of India and *perceived*
> the sub-continent with a conception of unity in their mind as
> `Bharatavarsham'. It does not mean that India was a united nation
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> in Vedic Age named Bharatavarsham. The vested interests like
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> RSS or VHP may misinterpret the references to Bharatavarsham in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Vedic literature to further their own means, but it was not implied
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> or intended in my original posting, as I do agree with you that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> modern India was not a single nation before British rule.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
thanks for the clarification.
>> anbudan
>> -Selvaa
> - SP
anbudan
- Selvaa
R. Parthasarathy
>Inquires Shri Prabaharan <dxp...@tesla.njit.edu> on Vedic Aryans:
>
>> It is my understanding that it was the Aryans who devised and
>> propagated the caste system.
>
> Broadly speaking, there were two ancient cultures in ancient
>India - 1. Gangetic Plains or Aryan civilization and 2. Deccan or
>Dravidian civilization.
>
Sorry to be nitpicking here. Vedas and the Vedic civilization evolved
in the land of the five rivers (somewhere in the northwest part of
the sub-continent), including Panjab. Vedic society had not spread
to the Gangetic plains by then, according to well known historians
(I can quote Romilla Thapar for one). It seems the Rg Veda does not
mention much about the river Ganga. There are hardly any geographic
references to the south or east portions of the sub-continent.
On an different note, some historians speculate that the events
relating to Ramayana occured after those relating to Mahabharata,
though we know of them in the opposite sequence. The north eastern
iranians shared almost the same heritage as the vedic people, with
similar gods, rituals etc.. Howevere, the so called vedic society
became distinct from its iranian cousin by the time the four vedas
were collected.
Partha sarathy
Mani Varadarajan
> The north eastern
> iranians shared almost the same heritage as the vedic people, with
> similar gods, rituals etc.
> Partha sarathy
In point of fact, despite superficial similarities in language and the
names of several gods, the religion of the Avesta and the religion of
the Rg Veda are quite different. The place of fire, for example, is
central to both, but while the Parsis/Avestans are literally fire
worshippers (the flame must be kept on constantly), Agni for the Vedic
people is something that is specifically meant to be extinguished and
reignited. Agni also did not occupy the exalted position that fire
did for the ancient Iranians.
We cannot really say, therefore, that the rituals were "almost the same".
The evidence simply isn't there.
Mani