Sunday, June 22, 2008

Thing of the past

Hey all you history buffs. i am gonna talk something about history after a long time.

what we all read in school about history is that there were prehistoric settlements in india dating back to 70,000 BC. chee, thats a long way back. maybe our jackal was a young man then.

however, civilized history of india as was taught to us in schools began with indus valley civilization way back in 3200 BC. this civilization lasted a few thousand years until its decline and eventual collapse in 1700 BC. when we studied, the history of india, it was taught to us that it began from 3200 BC.

however, archaeological excavations done in Pakistan, post independence have unearthed a older civilization which could be considered to be advanced as compared to the others cultures that existed during that time. the name of that particular civilization is called mehrgarh as it has been discovered in and around a village by the same name in the province of baluchistan in the young country of pakistan.

mehrgarh lies on the "Kachi” plain of Balochistan, Pakistan, and is one of the earliest sites with evidence of farming (wheat and barley) and herding (cattle, sheep and goats) in South Asia.

Located near the Bolan Pass, to the west of the Indus River valley and between the present-day Pakistani cities of Quetta, Kalat and Sibi, Mehrgarh was discovered in 1974 by an archaeological team directed by French archaeologist Jean-François Jarrige, and was excavated continuously between 1974 and 1986.

this discovery as mentioned is pretty recent. there are evidences of advanced techniques of farming being practiced which sets it apart from its contemporaries of that time.

we always studied in history that the Mesopotamian civilization was the oldest civilization in the world, starting around 3600 BC. The Egyptian civilization was next which started around 3300 BC. Next were the Indian and Chinese civilizations starting around 3200 BC and 3000 BC respectively.

However, in the light of the new evidence, don’t we think the above should be revised, considering that mehrgarh has been discribed as an advanced civilization and culture. Well, I know there are other known tribes that were located in other parts of the world and are also thought to be civilized and which are thought to have preceded the meso civilization. But there is no conclusive evidence to back these. There has been no strong evidence to say that these cultures were civilized, there is only speculation, though mind you, there is no question on the existence of these cultures, the question is merely that whether these were indeed civilized or not.

While we ponder and debate on this aspect, there is one more thing I would like to raise. In the light of this new evidence, shouldn’t mehrgarh civilization be included in the Indian history books. Even if there are questions regarding how advanced they really were, there can quite clearly be no questions about their very existence. Hence, these deserve to find their names in the history books.

Well for those not so familiar with history, if you are pondering over the question that if mehrgarh was unearthed in baluchistan, a Pakistani province, then how can it be called Indian history, shouldn’t it be called Pakistani history and hence lead to the conclusion that Pakistan dates back to 7000 BC? Well, what I got to say to you guys is, the first take a note of the fact that Pakistan as a nation was born in 1947, though it existed in the minds of its creators some 15 years earlier than that. Before 1947, there was no country on the world map ever by the name of Pakistan. Hence what ever happened in Pakistan Punjab or sindh and other provinces of Pakistan before 1947 is a happening on Indian soil, as it was India then. Hence, there is no question that mehrgarh was an Indian civilization.

Well that’s the comfort of being an Indian history buff, anything that happens in paki soil and dates before 1947 is a happening on Indian soil. However, paki rats will then claim that the taj mahal, red fort, qutub minar, charminar etc are Pakistani creations as they were built by sub continental muslim kings and Pakistan is a sub-continental muslim country. Where they are making is mistake is that they are laying their claim on anything that is remotely related to muslim architecture as theirs, totally forgetting the fact that Pakistan maybe an Islamic nation, however India is a secular country, not a hindu country as many seem to assume. It is the third biggest muslim country in the world if we go by the number of muslims living in it, forget the fact that the hindus outnumber them by one to 10. lol. Hence, the taj is very much Indian, though the pakis wish shahjahan’s capital was near Lahore and he built the taj on their soil, but sorry folks, he built it near his capital in agra, miles away from you guys. And on the same lines, harappa and mohanjodaro are Indian.

The mehrgarh civilization ultimately disappeared and was then replaced by the Indus valley civilization around 3200 BC, making bharat varsh a very old civilization.

The other aspect that could be pondered upon is, what kind of religion did there people practice. What were the customs and traditions during that time. There is enough to read about the religion practiced by the Indus valley people. It seems it was very close to Hinduism as some of their deities resemble some hindu deities. They worshipped earth, wind, water, sky and fire, very similar to hindus, especially the ancient ones. Hence there is evidence that the religion practiced there was close to Hinduism though not the same. For those who don’t know, the Indus valley civilization precedes Hinduism, which was born around 1700 BC through intermixing of Aryans and the natives of the land.

Hence, it would be really interesting to unearth what kind of religion did these people practice, as this civilization would really predate Hinduism. The questions that I am asking is was it close to Hinduism just like Indus valley or was it very different. It would answer my questions about the religion practiced by the people of this land before the oldest surviving religion in the world was born, which is one of the questions that have always intrigued me. Well, I guess more research needs to be done to answer these questions. Well there are more answers to be got yet. However, considering the situation in that country at the moment, it seems it will take some time before more intricate research could be done as no foreigner would like to travel to that country at the moment and I don’t think a body like the paki archeological survey exists. We know a lot about the religion practiced in specific countries before the advent of Christianity and islam in the world, but we know very little about the kind of religion that was practiced in India before the advent of Hinduism, though I know that Hinduism was not born on a particular day, it was something that gradually developed and became a part of peoples lives.

To conclude, I would like to say that, I personally like a few others, know a great deal about what happened in India since modern humans started inhibiting this land. I know about the action that this land has seen and the invaders that have come and gone, the Settlers who have come in from far corners of the world, about the experience that its people have had throughout the times. The intermixing and blending that has happened through out the years. But what also intrigues me is where this land and its inhabitants are headed. Will this land become an economic power house that it was in the past. That is for science fiction writers I guess considering the inflation that has set upon this country.


5 comments:

Raka Naklistani said...

well, i agree wid u that history lessons gotta be revised with time and as new discoveries and inventions come up......
as for Mehrgarh Civilization, i've read abt it too... indeed its one of the most advanced civilizations fo its time..... but the western science has its own prejudices....... for unknown reasons, egypt and mesopotamia has been smthing which have attracted more western attention than india.... our own authorities have sadly shown equal (perhaps more) disinterest in discovery & preservation of Indian History....
but there's one thing i dont agree with u.... dont link Mehrgarh with Hinduism....... just because it was advanced, do u wanna take away the credit from non-hindus and give it to hinduism? Mehrghar civilization preceded indus valley civilization...... so question of hinduism (or Vedic civilization in strict terms) doesnt arise..... vedic civilization came much later....
Mehrghar civilization was much closer to harappa it seems..... maybe it was its precursor.....
why ppl insist on crediting all good things in indian history to vedic and hindu culture i dont understand....... vedic people were nothing more than nomadic brutes who knew nothing of science and civilization....... i know this is an overstatement but it conveys wat i think of them as compared to indus civilization.....
harrapans were far more advanced......
and for gods sake, cant u discuss anythign without gng into pakistan and islam dude? i know abt ur 'love' for the pakis but i dont see the relevance in current discussion...... and wat a way to end teh topic...... starting from 70,000BC and ending with a comment on inflation....LOL....... dude, u are impossible......

Vivek said...

So you are at it again my good old friend. you have done what you always do on this blog. and thats shooting off comments without even reading what the other person has written.

Well, you say I have tried to link mehrgarh civilization with Hinduism. I had mentioned that mehgarh civilization dates back to 7000 BC.

Well, it makes me laugh because I know that you haven’t read what I have written properly at all. To make my point, let me copy and paste what I had written in the article. You tell me what you understand from it.

Hence, it would be really interesting to unearth what kind of religion did these people practice, as this civilization would really predate Hinduism.

It would answer my questions about the religion practiced by the people of this land before the oldest surviving religion in the world was born, which is one of the questions that have always intrigued me.

For those who don’t know, the Indus valley civilization precedes Hinduism, which was born around 1700 BC through intermixing of Aryans and the natives of the land.

Read the above lines and tell me what you make of it. If you still claim that I am linking mehrgarh with Hinduism, then I would seriously question your ability to grasp things.

Dude I take my time out to write stuff on the blog, the least you can do is read it seriously, I think I deserve it. You don’t need to shoot comments, write them only after you have read the whole thing properly.

Coming to the thing about the pakis, well, they do claim taj mahal, lal quila, qutub minar, char minar etc. as theirs, as they were built by sub-continental muslim kings. They really do, hence, the reference. Well, just to add on, I really do enjoy kicking them. That’s a fact.

Raka Naklistani said...

well, i did read ur post completely.... and sincerely my friend... always do...

i dont know abt my ability to You said: grasp.... but i dont think i grasped it wrongly...

You said: "It seems it was very close to Hinduism as some of their deities resemble some hindu deities. They worshipped earth, wind, water, sky and fire, very similar to hindus, especially the ancient ones."

now wats dat supposed 2 mean.... every ancient culture worshiped the forces of nature... the scandinavians, the native americans, the africans; everyone of them worshiped earth, wind, water, sky, fire... does it make them similar to Hinduism? i dont think so...

You said: "Hence there is evidence that the religion practiced there was close to Hinduism though not the same."

just because they all practiced nature worship is not sufficient evidence to bring them close to hinduism.... even remotely...

You said: "For those who don’t know, the Indus valley civilization precedes Hinduism, which was born around 1700 BC through intermixing of Aryans and the natives of the land."

yeah, indus valley civilization did precede Hinduism, and even Vedic civilization. but i dont agree with your saying that it was born from intermixing of aryans and natives of teh land.... Indus valley civilization had nothing to do with aryans. it was an indigenous and a civilization distinct from Vedic Aryans. so dont try and credit aryans with the advancement of indus valley civilization. aryans had no role to play in advancement of indus valley civilization.

You said: "Hence, it would be really interesting to unearth what kind of religion did these people practice, as this civilization would really predate Hinduism. The questions that I am asking is was it close to Hinduism just like Indus valley or was it very different."

well, it would indeed be interesting. but why are you so interested in knowing how close was it to hinduism? why this presistence? why are you hell bent on linking hinduism with indus civilization? even the indus civilization script has not been deciphered yet. it was a total alien culture as far as hinduism is concerned. it was more closer to mesopotamian culture by way of trade and cultural exchange through sea routes. but i am not surprised 2 find that you dont have the heart to accept that such an advanced culture like indus civilization had nothing to do with aryans or hinduism.

aryan were a groups of central asian foreigners who arrived in a phased manner (or in waves as they say) and slowly intermingled with the people of north west india. but by the time they first arrived, the indus civilization was already gone. so there was NO INTERMINGLING OF natives with aryans as you said to form an advanced civilization. what the intermingling actually formed was a stratified caste based society with hatred for the natives and their eventual subjugation, to form the bulk of what is now the so called "lower caste". Indians were much better off without the aryans... who caused much more harm to india than they benefitted. they were a despisable chunk of bigoted, lofty minded, arrogant, uncultured and destructive nomads. It is not surprising that aryans who arived from the Northwest of India are still strong in the region which is now known as PAKISTAN. to just imagine what kind of people the aryans were when they arrived in india, just look at what pakistan is now and you will have an idea. They are a bunch of aggressive, arrogant uncouth people hellbent on making war and less interested in advancement.

i hope vivek you dont disagree, unless you are an arya-worshipper...

the great indus civilization was an indigenious culture. Yours words definitely seek to link indus and mehrgarh with Hinduism. If you didnt mean it then you should have phrased your words accordingly.

as for the pakistanis, like you said, before 1947, they didnt even exist. (i definitely agree) so lets not even talk abt em. cos they never existed before 1947!!!! and you can kick their asses to your heart's fill, cos this is 2008 and they (and their aryan asses) do exist. dats your sleazy fantasy and i wouldnt like to come in the way.... hehehe.... go on .... do watever u wanna do with their asses..... no issues....not my concern.... hehehe....

Raka Naklistani said...

“well you say that native americans and other pre-christians worshipped the forces of nature, but they are not similar to hinduism. well, i would like to ask, WHY?”

Here’s why:
Native American, African and other cultures did worship nature but these cultures developed independently. There is no connection between the native Americans, Africans and prehistoric Indians. The key word is INDEPENDENT. All these cultures developed independently. Thus, if Indus people worshipped nature and the Aryans did too, that is not sufficient evidence to say that Indus guys were influenced by Aryans or vice-versa. Basically, when I want to foil your attempt if you wanna link Indus civilization with Hinduism. Coz Hinduism as we see it today can trace its roots to Vedic civilization. But definitely not beyond.

"how do you define hinduism"? is there a definition of the religion? is there a way to differentiate who a hindu is and who is not? is there a single holy book in hinduism? is there a holy book that says, if you are a hindu, you are suppose to follw this particular life style? in other words, is there a rule book for being a hindu?

Let me tell u dude. Its not as simple as u think it is. you say Hinduism is so so less restrictive. Yes I agree to some extent. But lemme tell u, if Hinduism can be extremely lax about rules, it can be extremely rigid too. There’s no one book. You’re right. They don’t tell us wat life style to follow. Again ur rite. But mind you, just becoz they don’t tell u, doesn’t mean you’re free to live life ur own way. THERE ARE UNWRITTEN RULES. Try marrying a widow. Try marrying a dalit. Try even remarrying. Try duing anything against the set religious customs and you’ll find out. Don’t be under the impression that your religion is chaste.

“There are no compulsions in Hinduism, for ex, if you are a hindu, you should grow a beard or have long hair or chop off a particular part of your body. Whats more, you will not be called a non believer if you visit other places of worship. That’s why a hindu is free to visit a church or a dargah or a gurudwara.”

Well, don’t even think abt it. Just because we are not asked to grow beards doesn’t mean Hinduism is not restrictive. Hindus have rituals too. Only that its different from other religions. Don’t we hv upanaynam ceremony? Don’t they shave their heads wen ur a child and wen a kin dies? Don’t we not eat non-veg food? Im not talking abt u. the majority of Indians prefer veg food. Religion is a major factor here, apart from the abundance of vegetation in our country. Religion does dictate our lives vivek. But you’ve got so used to it and that you’re more busy finding flaws in other religions that you miss out on our own flaws.

“Well, if that was the case then the ancient religion of Persians should have been Hinduism or some religion very close to it. But the fact of the matter is that the ancient religion of Persians was Zoroastrianism, and not Hinduism.”

My dear friend, im so happy you brought this up. Im elated. I’d like to attack this very mentality of many a Indians. Why do you wanna relate to Aryans? Just because they had white asses and had a misconception that they were noble?

How can you say Hinduism and Zoroastrianism were not similar? Sanskrit and ancient Persian were sister languages. Many Indians from north west have surnames with Persian roots, like kambhoj, pahlavi, suri, and many more. The religion worshiped by Persians and vedic Aryans were very similar (and not coz they worshipped nature). Even the name of their deities were very similar. To site some of the common deities shared by hindus and Persians were Varun, Indra, Agni, Mitra. And im not just talking abt wind, storm, fire and sun. The names were the same in both the religions. What hindus called mitra was also called mitra by Persians. And not only Persians but also by many central asian tribes. So this does prove that Aryan roots were in c. asia. But we n u said Hinduism and ancient Persian religions were different, you were wrong there. And lemme also point out that though im using the word Hinduism, it was actually vedic religion. Initially the vedic fellas had strong connections with Iranians and shared a common religion too. As the indo Aryans migrated deeper in to India, the religions diverged. Don’t compare Zoroastrianism with Hinduism. Zoroastrianism was formed by Zoroaster later on. Before him, the ancient Persian religion of fire-worship was very similar to yagna performing Aryans.
And don’t use the word Hinduism. Persians coined that word much much later to designate their indo Aryan cousins. The correct term to use is vedic religion. Hinduism came much later with the super-positioning of Vedic religion over native religion(s).

“The reason why I am mentioning this is that if Hinduism was imported into India by the brutal Aryans, then why is there no trace of the religion in other places where they drifted from, that to be precise is central asia and persia?”

HOLD IT. Are you disputing the fact that Aryans were outsiders? Don’t even attempt. There’s enough evidence about their being outsiders. You mentioned it yourself that they arrived through Persian from central asian and now you’re contradicting. What are you trying to prove? That Aryans religion has no remnants outside India so it originated in India? Excavations in central asian countries like Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan have revealed many a deities of Aryan orgin, with names like Indra, Varun etc. Aryan religion in its pure form doesn’t exist anywhere today. Not even in India. SO how can you expect the Aryan religion to exist in other places which have seen so much influx of foreigners? Central asia, the believed original home land has itself seen many religions like Ancient Aryan, Chinese, Buddhist, Christian and finally Islam. With so much influx do you think you can actually find the original Aryan religion there?

“The ancient Aryans had mixed with the natives of ancient Persia, but they did not devise a caste system, hence the mixing has been very even, but that is not the case in India.”

Natives of Persia? Some of the Aryan tribes may have been natives of Persia themselves. Also, the caste system in India was devised our of color and racial discrimination. The Indian natives were dark skinned while the Aryans were fair complexioned. And the Aryan asses could not bear to see their daughter marring the dark natives. So was not the case in Persia. Hence the absence of caste system in Persia. This incidentally also explains why most Brahmins are fair and most so called lower castes are dark skinned.

“Well, the religion of the Indus valley people is similar to Hinduism, though not the same. The reason why I say this is because they were also idol worshippers and worshippers of the forces of nature. Some Indian archaeologists claim that some of the idols resemble hindu idols.”

I reiterate. They may have been similar. But they were independent cultures and religions. And had nothing to do with each other. Just like Hinduism and Native Americans worshipped nature forces. But they were independent of each other.

As for the brutal Aryans, they did mellow somewhat after eating India vegetables. Hehehe. .

Vivek said...

Well, my friend, for the first time in a long long time did i see you actually making sense. i must say your counter argument was devoid of emotion and based on logic. this is also one of the rare occasions where you havent tried to put words into my mouth and werent rude either.

but dont let that make you think that i accept your argument. i sure dont.

well, archaeologists working to uncover the secrets of the indus valley have widely suggested that the Harappan people worshiped a Mother goddess symbolizing fertility.

Some Indus valley seals show swastikas, which is such an important hindu symbol.

One famous seal that shows a figure seated in a yoga posture and surrounded by animals.

They also cremated their dead and buried the ashes in burial urns, a transition notably also alluded to in the Rigveda, where the forefathers "both cremated (agnidagdhá-) and uncremated (ánagnidagdha-)" are invoked.

A Harappan seal excavated at Mohenjo Daro (roughly 2000 BCE), shows what is often called by the Vedic term "Pashupati". And sitting in what is reminiscent of the even later attested padma asana posture. The discoverer of the seal, Sir John Marshall, and others have claimed that this figure is a prototype of Shiva, and have described the figure as having three faces, seated in a "yoga posture" with the knees out and feet joined.

one of the seals uncovered has been compared to the shiva lingam.

well, these are the evidences that hinduism was not imported from persia, but it was a religion born out of the mixing of the aryans and the natives. there are traces of hinduism in indus valley. iam not claiming that they were practicing hinduism, but what i am saying is that they practiced a religion that predated hinduism, but was similar to it.

well, the aryans did not arrive with their white asses on their white horses on one particular day. they arrived over hundereds of years, in other words, in waves. there is evidence to suggest that the early arrivers had no problems with the natives and that they even mixed with them freely. it is only later that the arrivers started having a dislike for the natives and started devising ways to keep the natives away from their lives and prevent their daughters from marrying them. well, that is why the caste, based on the level of racial mixing, we have talked about this earlier too. in other words, the caste system did not start the day the aryans arrived, it was born much later.

i am not saying that hindus lived in the indus valley, all iam saying is that- HINDUISM WAS BORN OUT OF THE MIXING OF THE ARYANS AND THE NATIVES. IT IS NOT ENTIRELY AN ARYAN RELIGION OR NEITHER A NON NATIVE RELIGION.