The Tiny Man

The Kuru Kingdom in 750 B.C.E

2011-09-09T09:37:00.000+05:30

What was the condition of the once great Kuru kingdom in Janaka's time (~750 B.C.E)?

Based on Puranic genealogy, we come to know that Nichakshu was the Kuru king of Hastinapura during the time of Janaka of Videha. This rests on two major assumptions:
a. that the Puranic genealogy is reliable
b. that the mid-point of Janaka's reign is around ~750 B.C.E

The Kuru kingdom was already in decline owing to a number of factors - the changing course of the Ganges and the spread of various diseases .

The scholars and Brahmins of Kuru started focusing on the intent on sacrifices rather than the sacrificial yajnas themselves.

Philosophical speculation was on the rise. Videha was becoming an important seat of intense philosophical and intellectual debate.

A huge migration of Brahmins was taking place from Kuru kingdom (as well as Panchala) to Videha.

Kuru Brahmanas, like Ushasti Chakrayana, took an active part in the Upanishadic atman/ brahman debate in Videha.

The shift to the east was in progress full swing.

---- END ----

That's it. Thank you for reading. Do let me know if know of any more facts about Kuru Kingdom.

Please show your appreciation by sharing and/or leaving a comment.

You may also like:
3 Disturbing Facts about Indian Sub-continent
Eye-popping Timeline of Indian History
Bakhtiyar Khilji's Conquest of Bengal
Book Review: An Archaeological History of India

A Framework for Understanding Muslim Rule of Bengal

2011-09-06T17:19:00.000+05:30

It is essential for the Hindu Bengali to clearly understand the events and impact of the Islamic rule in Bengal (Indian West Bengal and Bangladesh of today). It is only in this way that the Hindu Bengali can relate today's radicalization of Bangladesh and West Bengal's southern part and bordering areas. The Hindu Bengali must realize that he is a minority in the Bengali landscape - out of every 100 Bengalis, 70 Bengalis are Muslims and 30 Bengalis are Hindu.

In order to understand social history and human rights scenario of Hindus as it actually transpired during the Muslim age of Bengal, a critical analysis of the Islamic texts themselves is absolutely imperative, and in this regard a proper framework is an understandably a key pre-requisite. I have been able to read only Riaz-us-Salatin by Salim, but there are plenty of other texts in Persian and Urdu which can be used to piece together the Islamic history of Bengal.

I provide one such sequential framework below.

Set 1: Bengal and Eastern India

1. Riaz-us-salatin by Ghulam Husain Salim

2. Tabaqat-i-nasiri of Minhaj-i-Siraj

3. Tarikh-i-firuzshahis of Ziauddin Barani and of Shams Siraj Afif

4. Tarikh-i-mubarak shahi of Yahya bin Ahmad

Set 2: Afghan and Mughal histories

1. Abbas Sarwani's tarikh-i-shahi

2. Abul Fazl's ain-i-akbari and akbarnamah

Set 3: General histories of the Mughals

1. Badauni's muntakhab-ut-tawarikh

2. Nizamuddin Bakhshi's tabaqat-i-akbari and also tarikh-i-firishta

3. tuzuk-i-jahangiri

4. padshanamah

5. alamgirnamah

Set 4: Nawabi period

1. Salimullah's tarikh-i-bangalah

2. Sayyid Ghulam Husain Tabatabai's siyar-ul-mutakhkherin

With this framework, an objective historian can understand the Islamic history of Bengal (and eastern India). If used in conjunction with Hindu works of this period, a complete and clear scenario can probably be pieced together.

Janaka of Videha

2011-09-06T12:58:00.000+05:30

The Kingdom of Videha was supposed to have had 16,000 villages and its capital in Mithila (in present day Nepal). It was a great seat of learning in Eastern India and is famous for the sage Yajnavalkya Vajasaneya (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad) of Janaka's court. Although Puranic genealogies say that the founder of the Mithila Royal Family was Nimi, Satpath Brahmana says that it was Mathava Videgha who migrated east from Saraswati. Janaka was supposed to have been one of the greatest kings of this dynasty.

In our previous posts we had come up with the following approximate lower limits (conjectural):
a. Parikshita ~ 950 B.C.E (951 +- 214 B.C.E)
b. Janamejaya ~ 975 B.C.E

In order to determine the approximate chronological lower limit of the Videhan kingdom under Janaka, we need to explore the following student-teacher list:
a. Indrota Daivapa or Daivapi Saunaka was a contemporary of Janamejaya (Satapatha Brahamana 13/5/4/1)
b. His pupil was Driti Aindota. (Jaiminiya Upanishad/ Vamsa Brahamana).
c. His pupil was Pulusha Prachinayoga (Vedic Index)
d. His pupil was Paulishi Satyayajna (Chandyogya Upanishad 5/11/1/2) who was a contemporary of Budila Asvatarasvi and Uddalaka Atuni of Janaka's court
e. His pupil was Somashusma Satyayajni Prachinayoga who is said to have interacted with Janaka. (Satapath Brahmana 11/6/2/1-3)

Thus from Janamejaya to Janaka there are 5 to 6 generations, or around 270 years. This would put Janaka of Videha, in the range of ~750 B.C.E.

The other important kingdoms of north India at that time were:
a. Gandhara
b. Kekaya
c. Madra
d. Ushinara
e. Matsya
f. Kuru
g. Panchala
h. Kashi
i. Kosala

This was probably the predecessor to the sixteen Mahajanapadas of the period around ~600 B.C.E

Conclusion (conjectural lower bands)
a. Parikshita: ~ 950 B.C.E = PGW Culture
b. Janamejaya: ~925 B.C.E = PGW Culture
c. Janaka: ~ 750 B.C.E

Please note this is a only a hypothesis.

Early Dates in Indian History

2011-09-04T16:17:00.001+05:30

In this essay, I have attempted to perform a chronological analysis of the early history of North Indian sub-continent based on literary and archeological evidence. Many experts have tried and come up with with different dates - while the Nationalist historians have attributed abnormally old dates like 4000 B.C.E or even as early as 6000 B.C.E, American/ European Indologists and the vehemently anti-Hindu Marxist, Dalit, Dravidist, "secular" pro-Abrahamic historians and scholars of India have gone so far as labeling the events of Ramayana and Mahabharata as myths or assigning abnormally low dates like ~1000 B.C.E for the Rig Veda when it is clearly a pre Iron age text. Linguists again have their own models. I have briefly alluded to the various Indo-European linguistic models in one of my previous posts titled: "Some Musings on Indo-European Language Family".

Disclaimer: Experts in their fields have given their opinions and there is no consensus about the pre-Mahajanapadas period. I am no expert and hence am not giving any opinion. Rather I have tried to frame a likely scenario.

Before we start analysis we need to identify some known anchors in Indian history. They are:
a. Iron age in north India ~ 1500 B.C.E
b. Buddha ~ 500 B.C.E
c. Mahapadma Nanda ~ 400 B.C.E

A. Dating the Bharata War/ Mahabharata War:
a. Upper limit - Bharata War was a post Iron age event thus it could not have happened earlier than ~1500 B.C.E
b. Using the Puranas we get a date of ~ 1400 B.C.E given that ~1000 years were supposed to have elapsed between the Great War and Mahapadma Nanda.
c. Lower limit: Using Parikshitas accession (based on Gunakhyana Sankhayana's contemporaneity with the Buddha and Upanishadic student-teacher list) ~ 900 B.C.E

Thus an approximate date ~1000 B.C.E for the Bharata War does not seem unlikely.

B. Earliest Vedic Memory as retained by Hindu Indians:
There are about ~90 generations before the Bharata War, as per the Puranic texts. Assuming 20 to 30 years per generation or approximately ~2000 years for the ~90 generations we arrive at a date ~ 3000 B.C.E. This is the date from which Hindu records have been retained/ mentioned be it in terms of the earliest layers of Rig Veda or the much later Puranas.

C. From the yajur vedic and atharva vedic text we learn that Krittika was on Spring Equinox which would give us a date of ~2200 B.C.E or approximately ~ 2000 B.C.E to be conservative

Thus finally what we arrive at the following likely scenario:
a. Rig Veda alludes to events starting from ~3000 B.C.E onwards
b. Yajur Veda/ Atharva Veda were being composed around ~2000 B.C.E and onwards
c. Bharata War and accession of Parikshit ~ 1000 B.C.E

Geographically there seems to be almost ~2000 years of overlap (partial or otherwise) between the Vedic civilization and the Harappan civilization - there definitely is an overlap with the late phase of Harappan civilization.

A detailed chronological archeology map in terms of material culture of North India for this period from ~3000 B.C.E to ~1000 B.C.E would definitely be an interesting exercise, one which I am planing to undertake provided time permits. But again mapping material culture to literary ceremonial/ spiritual evidence is an ardous task fraught with the potential of mistakes at every step.

Some Notes on early Greek Philosophers

2011-09-04T11:10:00.000+05:30

The anti-Hindu Marxist and pseudo-secular Indian historians would have us believe that early astronomical and mathematical advances made by Hindu scientists was primarily on account of Greek influence. While it is true that Greek philosophers were at the fore-front of European development, it is by no means true that there was nothing called "Hindu Scientists" as the Marxist history text books in India would like us to believe.

In fact, for these anti-Hindu Marxist historians anything non-Hindu is the epitome of development and scientific advancement and progress - that includes:

a. the development of the common man's Buddhism as a reactionary evolution against the superstitious Brahmanical (Hindu) culture,

b. the development of systematic theology, astronomy and mathematics with the advent of Greeks in India

c. and the development of arts and culture with the advent of Islam.

In fact in recent times, some have also questioned the roots of yoga and insist that it was a 19th century C.E construct based on European health techniques. Whatever.

However, the Greeks were undeniably among the front-runners of philosophical development in the European continent. Their scientific way of looking at things was a shift from the earlier European focus on religion (all this much before the advent of Christianity and its first 1,000 years of supreme superstition and bigotry).

Early Greek philosophy was closely tied to religion (~700 C.E to ~600 C.E). One such theory of the origin of the workd was based on the "cosmic egg" theory. Most other theories were based on early European religious dogma and superstitions.

The first among the "scientific" Greek philosophers who comes to mind is Thales (~640 B.C.E) who tried to show a clear distinction between religion and science (or physics as the ancient Greeks called it). Water he believed was the basis of life and life would perish without water, was his major surmise.

Anaximader (~610 B.C.E), his student theorized that water was not the sole building block of life, other elements were also involved. He developed an evolutionary construct called "apherion".

Empedocles (~490 B.C.E) identified the key elements as earth, water, fire and air and is often referred to as the originator of the cosmogonist theory of four classical element. Human evolution was, he felt, a function of body temperature - while warmth spurred growth, lower body temperature brought about aging.

The focus during this phase was not only on the "how" but also the "why". The process of logic was slowly being manifested in their thought process. The realization that logical answers were possible to questions like "what is man" or "how does the world begin?" was a major breakthrough.

Then came Hippocrates with his focus on "methodology". But that's for another day.

Janamejaya

2011-09-03T14:47:00.001+05:30

Bharatas
+ Kurus
+ Pandavas

Parikshit was succeeded by his eldest son Janamejaya.

Janamejaya is represented as a great conqueror in the Brahmanas (ex: Aitareya Brahmana) and may have even conquered Taxila in the north-west. This implies control over central Punjab (Madra), the birthplace of his mother Madravati.

His chief priest was Indrota Daivapi Shaunaka who performed one of his horse-sacrifices (as per Satapatha Brahmana). The other one was performed by Tura Kavasheya (as per Aitereya Brahmana). However at thiis point he had a dispute with the Kashyapas, under Vaisampanaya Kashyapa.

Janamajeya often held his court in Taxila and it is here that Vaisampanaya is supposed to have narrated the story of the Bharata War between Pandus and Kurus to Janamajeya. This proto-Mahabharata was known as Jaya and considered Itihasa.

All these events were post Iron age, as discussed in the previous post.

Successors of Janamajeya:

Satanika
+ Ashvamedha Datta
+ Adhisima Krishna (Vayu & Matsa Purana)
+ Nichakshu (in whose reign the city of Hastinapura is said to have been washed away by the Ganges)

Nichakshu shifted his capital from Hastinapura to Kosambi near Allahabad.

Some Notes on the Historical Sources of the post-Parikshita-pre-Bimbisara Era

2011-09-02T20:31:00.000+05:30

The accession of Parikshita took place shortly after the Bharata War also known epically as the Mahabharat War.

The purpose of this brief note is to list some of the major categories of historical sources on the period between the accession of Parikshita and the pre-Bimbisara era. There are 5 main categories of historical sources:

a. Undatable Brahmanical literature of the post-Parikshit-pre-Bimbisarian era
- the last book of Atharva Veda
- Aitareya, Satapatha and other Brahmans
- classical upanishads like Brihadaranyaka, Chandogya etc

b. Undatable Brahmanical literature of the post-Bimbisarian period
- Ramayana
- Mahabharata
- Puranas

c. Datable Brahmanical literature of the post-Bimbisarian period
- Kautilya Arthashastra
- Patanjali Mahabhashya

d. Buddhistic works
- Suttas
- Vinaya texts

e. Jaina texts

Who is an Indian?

2011-08-29T16:47:00.001+05:30

India. A secular democratic republic.

India does not have a state religion like its neighbors - Islamic Pakistan, Islamic Bangladesh and Hindu Nepal. India has around ~75% Hindus, ~20% Muslims and ~5% others like Sikhs, Jains, Christians etc. We are equally famous for the Islamic monument Taj Mahal, Hindu cricketer Sachin, Christian tennis player Leander Paes or an entertainer like Cyrus.

So who then is an Indian. What is the identity of India?

The name India is derived from Indus which again is derived from the ancient Sanskrit word Sindhu सिन्धु which is also the root for the word Hindu, the set of religions of the indigenous population of India for thousands of years. Islam came much later and Christianity was a very late entrant. Ironically, Sindhu or Indus as it is known today, is in Pakistan.

"Hinduism" is a generic term covering the set of religious beliefs practiced by Indians across the length and breadth of country before the entrance of Abrahamic faiths like Christainity or Islam. Instead of Hinduism I would prefer to use the term "Indic" to distinguish it from latter faiths and also as it sounds more "secular" - a very important word in today's age of political correctness (or what I call anti-Indicism). And the introduction of these external faiths was more often than not extremely violent and catastrophic and brutal and involved a planned systematic program of identity-destruction of the Indics - thus apart from the usual looting, pillage and murder, there was also a large scale destruction of Indic temples and idols.

Yet Indians are an assimilating lot - Qutub Minar is as much a part of the Indian psyche as the Somnath temple or perhaps more than the Somnath temple which was destroyed God knows how many times by the Islamic hordes. Victoria Memorial is as much a part of the Indian psyche as the Tirupati temple. The Parsis in India who mainly reside in Mumbai are more Indian than Indians themselves. The Mughal and the British may have successfully destroyed the Brahmanical culture by eliminating, slaughtering and discrediting the Brahmanas - but the basic religious "Indic" framework the Brahmins had set is still functioning today - despite 1200 years of Islam and 600 years of Christianity.

As an aside, in 1931, Brahmins were 4.32% of Indian population. In 2011, they are much less than ~1% given the anti-Brahmanical movement in different states, genocide on Kashmiri Pandits by the Kashmiri Muslims and migration of many Brahmins to US/ UK/ NZ/ Australia given the anti-Brahmanicial caste based racial discriminatory policies of the Indian government. So essentially the people whose ancestors had drafted the "Indic" religions are nowhere to be seen or are minorities. What the Islamic hordes had started and Christian invaders had advanced, the anti-Indic post-independence government completed quite successfully.

But enough digression. To come back to our topic on who is an Indian we need to delve deeper and look at it sect by sect.

Dalits

In recent times there has been a proliferation of anti-Brahmanical web-sites like "Voice of Dalits", "Dalit Speaks" etc who publish hate blogs and conspiracy theories on Brahmins. A survey of these blogs give the general impression:

a. That Dalits or Backward Castes or Shudras as they are variedly called (Scheduled Castes/ Schedule Tribes/ OBC's) think of themselves as Indics but not Hindus. Hinduism is, they feel, an external religion foisted on them by the Invading Aryans. In fact a majority of Dalits in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh are now Christians. This is not the platform to discuss the merits of Aryan Invasion/ Migration theory which is essentially a linguistic hypothesis that hypothesizes that based on the affinity of various Indian and European languages, it is quite likely that all these language evolved from a single language, the proto-Indo European, and thus the proto-Indo European speakers must have come from a distinct geographic region from which they colonized Europe, Iran and Indian sub-continent. And based on the way languages work, these linguists opine that the homeland of these proto Indo Europeans or ancient Aryans could be any other place but the Indian sub-continent. Thus in one fell swoop, the Hindu segment of the Indics have been transformed into external invaders similar to the later Islamic marauder or Christian invaders.

b. That "Dalitism" is the most ancient adi-religion of India distinct from Hinduism and thus they do not consider caste Hindus (especially upper-caste) as Indians

Hindus

The practice of un-touchability is still prevalent in many places in India. While caste-Hindus (to use a Dalitist phraseology) do not consider Dalits as non-Hindus, there are a substantial number of people who in fact do look down upon the Dalits especially in the context of a highly political reservation-oriented divide and rule governmental policy. Additionally there is a reasonable number of Hindus who even after 1000 years of Muslims presence in India treat all Muslims as outsiders. According to these Hindus, the ancestors of today's Muslims were either tyrannical foreign invaders or converts from Hinduism who have even today not accepted/ retained the "Indian" or "Indic" way of life and values - in fact many Hindus accuse Muslims of becoming even more anti-Indic and pro-Arabic than 50 years ago. A walk in old city of Hyderabad, or Raja Bazaar in Kolkata is same as a walking in any town in Pakistan or Bangladesh - in fact in many of these places we still see Pakistani flag (to be distinguished from the flag of Islam).

Muslims

For a Muslim the challenge is even bigger. Many of the educated Indian Muslims of today face an identity crisis of sorts. Not many Indian Muslims know Arabic especially ancient Arabic and many have in fact neither read the Koran and Hadiths in original nor in translation. They offer their daily prayers and diligently do their Ramzaan without understanding the true essence or significance of these customs. On the other hand there are many conservative/ orthodox/ bigoted Muslims especially in places like Hyderabad or Aligarh who are strict proponents of the Sharia law.

Islam as a religion does not believe in the concept of country, state or nation-hood and whatever the Msulim apologists might say, Sharia and democracy do not go hand in hand. Islam believes in a global brotherhood of people who follow the injunctions of Koran. The duty of a Muslim is always towards Allah and fellow Muslims - not towards a nation or state. Thus we have one sect of Muslims in India especially in places like Hyderabad, UP, West Bengal border who solely owe allegiance to Islam and not to India, and clap and rejoice with every Islamic terrorist attack and praise the almighty for successfully slaughtering the infidels. In fact these people would like nothing better than to see India fail, Indicism fail, Hinduism fail and convert India into an Islamic state.

On the other hand, there is that educated group of Muslims, mostly middle class who are bewildered with what is happening all around. Like typical middle class "Indics" they have not read their Holy books and neither do they care and thus many of them are not aware of some of the violent aspects of their faith and the bloody history of the Islamic rule in India. They look forward to living peacefully and prosperously in a democratic India and consider themselves "Indics" who are in the forefront of developing India. For me nobody is more Indian than A.P.J. Abdul Kalam or M.F. Hussain (for all his faults). Yet suddenly a terrorist attack happens, and suddenly this same average middle class educated Indian Muslim notices the coldness around him, the burning rage around him - where the non-Muslims feel hatred against Muslim terrorists but do not say anything. On the one hand they see the bigotry of the Islamic hard-liners, on the other hand they feel the burnt and pain of being associated with terrorism which they themselves protest against. And thus this group of educated middle class Muslims is becoming isolated because of appeasement oriented government and politicians who would love nothing more than to divide India on the basis or religion or caste

Christians
The matter of Christianize in India is gaining extreme complexity. Scores of Dalits are willfully converting to/ forcibly being converted to Christianity after being promised food and shelter by Christian missionaries. And given the obscene amount of funding many of these hard line Christian missionaries receive especially from Scandinavian countries, it is no wonder that conversion to Christianity is on the rise. So on the one hand, on account of being a dalit, the person considers himself a non-Hindu and on conversion he she becomes a Christian - thus we have an anti-Hindu Christian. That in itself is not bad, as religious affiliation is a person matter - what is bad is that many Dalits because of political brainwash, confuse Hinduism (a religious framework) with Indicism or Indian-ness. And this is a particularly dangerous thing for India. Many Dalits especially in southerh states refuse to talk in Hindi - the national language of India and speak exclusivley in English (albeit broken) or their reginoal language.

On the other, there are many anglo-Indian families in India, especially Kolkata and Mumbai, who have not only embraced the Indic way of life but also ensured that religious fundamentalism does not come in the way of their daily dealings. Thus actors like Tom Alter, George Baker, John Abraham, Dino Morea or quiz-family of O'Briens are quintessential Indians - they have adopted the local culture, values, ethos, language but also practice their own faith.

So who is an Indian?

In fact, I believe, India is not the best way to describe us as the term India is closely tied to Hinduism. Bharat Varsha would be a better word - the land of the ancient Bharatas.

An Indian is one who follows the Indic way of life which entails:
a. Respect for mother, in fact even elevating her to the level of God, which is more than evident in most Bollywood or regional movies - but many hard-line Islamic clerics insist that worship of mother is against Islam as Islam does not condone the worship of anything but their God
b. Respect for Hindi as lingua franca or national language of India - a country to develop needs to have a common language so that people may commmunicate - but many Dravidists as well as Dalits especially those belonging to the Dravidist ideology, refuse to have anything to do with Hindi
c. Respect for India as a Nation - as it is, India has a lot of external non-friends like Pakistan, China, Bangladesh - it does not need anti-Indian divisionist enemies within India, especially with hardline Islamic clerics espousing a Muslim brother hood rather than nation.

If India must progress, we must necessarily iron out all these differences. A 20% growth would not be impossible in an united India.