Note: Readers please click on the links to get details from reference material
Section - A: History of Acceptance and Assimilation in India
The Indian mind is broadly defined by the philosophy of acceptance and assimilation. This has been happening for many a millennium. Indian history often begins with the Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization.
Although this concentrates only on the North-Western part of the subcontinent, the exciting finds have often diverted students from learning the happenings in the rest of the subcontinent. The finds in the rest of the country which are relevant to the study of the growth of Hinduism shall also be seen in this essay.Keeping with the tradition, we shall look at the Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization first. It was a complex civilization by which we mean that having mastered settled agriculture and then manufacturing, they were into a service-based economy with expertise in art, architecture and administration. The script found in the region is yet to be deciphered. However, the evidences presented by the unearthing of a large bath with bitumen sealed bottom, the statue of a bearded man clad in a decorative robe with the look of vested authority - indicating that he is either a ruler or a priest - and the remnants of what is believed to have been a temple with several icons in the vicinity1, show that temples could have been part of the civilization. The icons are clearly part of the religious tradition. How these are part of India still, we shall see now.
The icon of the figure seated in a yogic posture with a headgear adorned with horns, famously called ‘Pashupati' or the Lord of Animals, is believed to have been proto-Siva. The headgear is believed to have transformed into the crescent later on. Some disagree, as seen in the referenced source above. However, the author desires to draw attention to the stark similarity between the figure and that of a popular present-day god Ayyappan. Ayyappan is also depicted riding a tiger, which is one of the prominent animals beside the yogi of Mohenjo-Daro. Therefore, the deity is still in vogue, whether or not the Pashupati figure represents proto-Shiva. The conclusion one draws is that the icon has survived until the modern day.
Pashupati-Ayyappan (source: Wikipedia)
Moortis or icons of gods and goddesses are an inherent part of the profoundly simple Hindu mind.
[Note: It has not been found necessary to do away with this form of worship by any of the great philosophers of Bharata. This is precisely because it is grounded in the psychology and working of the human mind. However, to a person steeped in Abrahamic religions, this appears strange although the fact still remains that even there, one finds the presence of some sort of symbol or another to meditate upon without expressly stating so. In this way, Hinduism is far more honest and makes clear the spiritual/inner path to the lay person].
The traditional use of the Sindur in the parting of the hair of married women has been proven to have been in use even during the Sarasvati-Sindhu era.
The fire altars of Kalibangan provide ample proof that rituals similar to the Vedic period originated well before they were textually documented in Sanskrit. These are practised even today.
Ritual ablutions are still a strong part of the Indian tradition. A bath everyday especially before offering prayers is a must. Temple tanks are found all over the subcontinent.
Nature worship is widely practised until today and is a vital part of temple architectural detail.
***
Now, moving over to the rest of the subcontinent, we shall see a few of the sites that have been lesser discussed than the Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization.
Very early religious systems have left behind archaeological evidences right from the Mesolithic period dating about 11,000 years ago. A site in Baghor2 in Madhya Pradesh with a circular shaped stone platform with a polished stone in the middle has, unto the present day, its equivalent arrangement and worship in the same region. The special stone is representative of a totem, a very early moorti (statue or icon held with reverence for the virtues it inherently represents).
The Bhimbetaka paintings (c. 7000 B.C.) of central Madhya Pradesh represent religion through depiction of Yakshas, tree gods, the Sun and magical sky-chariots. These are among the only paintings that are not interpreted as part of daily-life. Yet, these concepts represent highly evolved human minds. [Note that the techniques used to make these paintings continue to boggle man until the present day]. One cannot help observe the close similarity of these concepts with the much-later Yaksha of the Mahabharata, the trees that were relieved of their curse by Sri Krishna and the Pushpaka Vimana of the Ramayana respectively.
The presence of cow dung ash mounds in Kupgal, a Neolithic site in the Central Deccan region of Karnataka, has been interpreted to represent the importance of cattle, ash and cow dung. These associations have continued till date. Rock ‘gongs' for music are thought to have been used for rituals. Music, percussion drums (esp. In Kerala and Tamil Nadu) and bells (in lieu of the gongs) and religion continue to be inter-related to this day.
A more important find in the South was that of the urban settlement of Adichanallur (c. 1800 B.C.) close to Thirunelveli, Tamil Nadu. This discovery shows that urbanisation as a concept existed even in parts far-flung from the Sarasvati-Sindhu valley though it is in the latter that it shows highest maturity. In both the Sarasvati-Sindhu sites and the Adichanallur sites, the town-planning shows segregated settlements based on occupation. This continued on as castes until recently when it became independent of profession but remains simply lineage based.
In Adichanallur the burial-urn site with some personal belongings along with the people buried represents of veneration for the dead and belief in after life. These are still part of Hindu traditions.
The use of cow dung to coat floors in the site at Adichanallur continues to this day.
Figurines of the ‘Mother Goddess' have been found all over the subcontinent. Until today we worship the Mother.
***
Section - B: The Invalidity of the ARYAN INVASION THEORY
Geographic mentions in the Rig Veda - the first among the surviving Vedas - refer to almost the same regions of the Sarasvati-Sindhu belt as the archaeological sites. However, the gods and the primary economic mode differ
starkly. Again, what happened of the urban civilization remained an enigma during the time it was discovered. Even before the discovery of the Sindhu sites, there were ‘scholarly' theories of an invasion of the ‘natives' by a more powerful ‘Aryans'. When the site was discovered, the Invasion theory was strengthened to provide an explanation to the death of the civilization. It also presented a ‘racial' discriminatory platform to divide the subcontinent into the native ‘Dravidian' and the foreign ‘Aryan'.
The Aryan Invasion Theory was reinforced at the time of the discovery of the site as the reason responsible for the ‘sudden death' of the civilization. This has been largely ruled out now as many things do not fall in place, among the foremost being that there are evidences that the civilization did not die out suddenly but declined over several hundreds of years (the link I have provided here provides anthropological evidence of there being no sudden or large scale genetic changes in the region).
There are also many other reasons that the author wishes to present here.
It has been hitherto argued that Dravida is the root to the word ‘Thamizha' and explained as Dravida --> Dramila --> Thamila --> Thamizha. [One has this urge to provide the simile of the letter-change word-change that is often part of aptitude tests: ship-->slip-->slap-->clap-->clan but would ‘ship' therefore be the same as ‘clan' by the previous derivation?] One sees not even a single common letter between Dravida and Thamizha (when written in Tamil).
On the other hand, see the proximity of Dravida and Druid.
The reasoning is clear: The geographical connectivity of the regions to the South, the West and the North-West of the Himalayas makes it highly probable for peoples, cultures and languages to coalesce. Within this area, it seems very unlikely that the stark similarity in the names of two peoples is simple coincidence.
They comprised of (or later split into) two streams - the ascetic Sramanas (the Shamans) and the settled teacher-priest Brahmana (children of Brahma, of creation and learning; Abraham in the Middle East).
As well known, the Brahmanas were held in reverence for their knowledge and intellect. Often holding the advisory posts to the rulers, they wielded great amounts of power and privilege and this made them a feared people. The Druids were just as powerful in the Western world.
The Sramanas - the ones that exerted themselves to great extents - were held in high reverence and were the wandering teachers. Most of the great philosophies were crystallised by the Sramanas. They were the healers of body-mind-soul and lived a life of extreme self-deprivation. The similarity between Sramanas and the Shamans cannot be ignored.
The proximity in the roles of the Brahmana (Dravida) and the Sramana and correspondingly the roles of the Druid and the Shaman are highlighted and compared.
One does not know where any of these originated, but it was a pan South Asia-South-East Asia-Europe establishment but which Europe and South-East Asia lost consequent to the Christian and other subsequent persecutions.
Aryan was the rich warrior/trading class.
Dasu was the poor servile class.
Later these crystallised into Brahmana (Dravida), Kshatriya and Vaishya (Aryan) and Shudra (Dasu).
In short, these were all mere class/professional caste distinctions.
The above points along with evidences that there was no abrupt decline of the civilization point to the fact that there was no ‘Aryan Invasion' of any kind and the immigrants did not discriminate against the earlier inhabitants. Rather, the two integrated successfully into a megaculture.
References:
1, 3, 4 Harappan Civilization, Prabhat Kumar Basant (Ancient India - A Source book for Civil Services Examination - Publications Division, March 1995)
2 Himanshu Prabha Ray, http://www.ochs.org.uk/publications/multimedia/documents/HinduTemple2_Origins_HPRay_1106.doc
Close

Bharatborn
Your comment is just as simple and clear! Thanks a lot
Reply | | Report Abuse
Dear Uncle Keshav
I am so glad you wrote in your vviews - from the horse's mouth they say and you are an architect saying that the houses were pulled down and rebuilt... I too have read that: also that some houses with 5000 year old foundations but new walls are still accommodating people - is that true?

). Thanks!
The AIT might seem hare-brained to us now, but the power which it wielded politically and psychologically was far too immense and the damage done far too great...still, better late than never to discard the hare brained theory
(BTW I don't mean you are a horse anyway -- don't want an uncle that neighs
Reply | | Report Abuse
simplicity and clarity. the two pluses for this blog.
Reply | | Report Abuse
Riverine: Excellent!
Very well researched, most of the hypotheses make sense.
The Aryan invasion theory was indeed one of the most hare-brained ones, invented by the British to validate their racial supremacy. Bullshit... that points to more use of the much revered cattle...
It also makes sense that the Saraswati-Sindhu civilization didn't exist in isolation, nor that it suddenly died out. There also exists archaeological evidence that the houses were re-built repeatedly after being destroyed. This points towards periodic flooding due to changing courses of the rivers. Probably, they got sick of this and abandoned the spot to migrate elsewhere.
cheers,
Keshav
Reply | | Report Abuse
Dear Riverine,
Thanks aton. I respect your views, albeit not convinced---you might like to pardon me for this. I have quoted the BRITISH author only to higlight the CURRENT CUURENCY & APPLICATION of the term DRAVIDA. you need not agree. Regards. Rajee.
Reply | | Report Abuse
Rajee K
Corrigendum in my comment earlier: I meant it is the 'd' as in 'damaru' and not the 'dh' as in 'vidhya'.
Reply | | Report Abuse
Kishore Patnaik
Thanks a lot for the appreciation. Would try to contact you or better still, you could see my writings/discussions at www.Medhajournal.com as it would give a wider picture with more contributions from several intellectuals/scholars etc.
Thanks again!
Reply | | Report Abuse
Rajee K
You have missed the most important point: I used 'd' and 'dh' to distinguish between the dental and labial sounds (check out the phonetics to understand what I mean).
Certainly it is the 'dh' as in vidhya and not the 'd' as in damaru (drum) -- I hope that clarifies.
I have not quoted or referred to any British work here. So I think that section of the discussion is without relevance although I agree with you that misinterpretations and their proliferation were part of Brit/western agenda.
Regarding Tamil-Sanskrit-Prakrit and SS script/language, I shall be writing shortly.
Thanks.
Reply | | Report Abuse
Dear riverine,
I would like to clarify---SANSKRIT root "VID" is KNOWLEDGE and not "VIDH". Pardon me, but probably it is how you in SOUTH pronounce most words---such as AJITH and not AJI---VINITHA and not VINITA. Kindly check on this. As regards " DRI" it is not "DRA" -------DRI becomes 'DRA' after SANDHI with' VID' It implies----- one which is liquid----something like DRAVYA ( DRI+ VYA)---- not STABLE---Something you do not possess and are lacking in. This is what DRAVIDA meant when KUMARAILA BHATTA used it first time in the SIXTH CENTURY. HE DID NOT USE IT FOR SOUTH INDIANS. It was done by ROBERT CALDWELL some 1200 years later--when he read about PANCH DRAVIDA( much later than KUMARILLA--this term was used by some sanskrit scholars)---they are five regions i.e. GUJRAT, MAHARASHTRA, KANNADA, TAMIL and TELGU---to describe the BACKWARD and underdeveloped areas.
It was certainly not a synonym for SOUTH INDIA.This was done by ROBERT CALDWELL, who deduced it from Budhhists texts where TAMIL has been referred to as DRAMILA or DAMLA. He found some similarity in the TAMIL and south Indian scripts with central Asian and European scripts ---which were closer to PICTORIAL scripts or BRAHMI and PRAKRITI.
Ever since ROBERTS book of GRAMMAR of SOUTH INDIAN languages in 1854, the word DRAVIDA has got currency to define South Indians--which is a big fallacy. This is my point on the ORIGIN and SUBSEQUENT USAGE of the word DRAVIDA.
As regards BRAHMINS of SOUTH INDIA---I am repeatedly saying------- they came along with SAINT AUGUSTYA--younger brother of SAINT VASHISHTA. This term DRAVIDA has been used enmasse by ROBERT CLDWELL in 1854 to describe all South Indians. This is the point I am harping about---the WRONG INTERPRETATION by a BRITISHER and its WRONG USAGE.
Thanks for your patience. these are my views based on EMPIRICAL STUDIES. UTMOST REGARDS. RAJEE.
Reply | | Report Abuse
Dear Riverine,
I am an individual researcher into Ancient Indian History.
I have seen your posts and they are very nicely written. Good work.
You can contact me at Kishorepatnaik09@gmail.com as it may not be possible for me to visit here again.
I have given a private mail also.
Please keep up the good work.
best regards,
Kishore patnaik
groups.yahoo.com/group/ancientindia
Reply | | Report Abuse
- 1
- 2
Displaying 1 - 10 of 18 Blog Comments