Gyanvapi mosque in Kashi - whats going on?

[rkt.india]

25 minutes ago, Lone Wolf said:

One cannot refute the written evidence.  Rigvedic hymns are closest to what we will ever be able to understand the given time period

Given time period is important but it doesn't necessarily denotes anything regarding Aryan invasion.

[Lone Wolf]

The greatest tribes of RigVedas is Bharatas as the protagonists in the Battle of the Ten Kings, where they are on the winning side. They appear to have been successful in the early power-struggles between the various Arya and non-Arya tribes so that they continue to dominate in post-Rigvedic texts and later in the (Epic) tradition the Mahabharata the eponymous ancestor becomes Bharata Chakravartin conqueror of all of BHARATA and his tribe and kingdom is called BHARATA.

The BHARATA TRIBE Called their homeland the Sapta Sindhu. That avesta mentions Sapta Sindhu as Hapta Hindu and thats how arabtards started calling it Hindu you all know that story.

 

Edited May 30, 2022 by Lone Wolf

[rkt.india]

3 hours ago, Lone Wolf said:

The greatest tribes of RigVedas is Bharatas as the protagonists in the Battle of the Ten Kings, where they are on the winning side. They appear to have been successful in the early power-struggles between the various Arya and non-Arya tribes so that they continue to dominate in post-Rigvedic texts and later in the (Epic) tradition the Mahabharata the eponymous ancestor becomes Bharata Chakravartin conqueror of all of BHARATA and his tribe and kingdom is called BHARATA.

The BHARATA TRIBE Called their homeland the Sapta Sindhu. That avesta mentions Sapta Sindhu as Hapta Hindu and thats how arabtards started calling it Hindu you all know that story.

 

Kuru kingdom was more around hastinapur area haryana, west up, Punjab. Sp it's quite several tribes existed simultaneously and they had power struggle. Rakhigarhi had turned out to be much more important place than Mohenjo Daro.

Edited May 30, 2022 by rkt.india

[coffee_rules]

4 hours ago, ash said:

This is a pointless exercise to feed the delusions of the Indian RW with massive inferiority complex. Let’s say as the evidence suggest AIT is right, why should we get all defensive  about it? The vedas are still one of the most powerful religious text in the world and the Vedic culture is still thriving. Does it even matter if it came to India only after 1500 BC? I don’t understand the need to manufacture proof to backdate the Vedic culture.

 

The issue is not even mainstream and it won’t even help the vote bank politics of BJP. The only thing the OOT theory will do is inflate the egos of RW NRIs , desperate to cling on to some “culture” in a Christian white country. 

 

 

You have mixed up The inferiority complex. It is the other way around. You guys think that we are good for nothing. How can indigenous people like sanatanis create such a complex language which is the mother of all languages or such advanced philosophy 5000 years ago? It has to be the foreigners, Mai baaps to come and deliver out of our uncivilized world.

 

There is no Sanskrit genes, btw! You cannot prove Sanskrit was invented outside of India in the Steppe areas! This AIT is used to only undermine our own people as outsiders just based on a linguistic hunch. 
 

As far as OP is concerned, you don’t believe in sanctity of Kashi, but want to start a clean slate from 1947. Why not do the same for reservations? Based on some alleged discrimination 1000s of years ago. You are fighting it out and want to add Muslims and Christians too in your reservation fold. 

[coffee_rules]

9 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

All I am asking is - other than academic curiosity and gaining knowledge in general, why is it important for the world to get this right?  Let's say the last nail is hit in 10 years.  What then?

 

  

History should be viewed like Science. If a scientific theory is disproved by a newer hypothesis and agreed upon by majority, it should be revised. This doesn’t mean accept a myth about Tejomahalaya and bring down Taj Mahal.
 

But History is always written by the victor. And is occupied by a few in the academia and political world. 

“Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past."

 

 

Edited May 30, 2022 by coffee_rules

[coffee_rules]

3 hours ago, Lone Wolf said:

The greatest tribes of RigVedas is Bharatas as the protagonists in the Battle of the Ten Kings, where they are on the winning side. They appear to have been successful in the early power-struggles between the various Arya and non-Arya tribes so that they continue to dominate in post-Rigvedic texts and later in the (Epic) tradition the Mahabharata the eponymous ancestor becomes Bharata Chakravartin conqueror of all of BHARATA and his tribe and kingdom is called BHARATA.

The BHARATA TRIBE Called their homeland the Sapta Sindhu. That avesta mentions Sapta Sindhu as Hapta Hindu and thats how arabtards started calling it Hindu you all know that story.

 

There is no such thing as the Arya tribes in Rigveda. It is an adjective for a noble men, a quality that is respected. The battle of ten kings , even though won by the Bharatas, they gave space for other tribes to accept their rituals and philosophy as well. 
 

https://www.indica.today/long-reads/racial-wars-how-misinterpretations-vedic-hymns-myth-aryan-race/
 

“

Despite the wild Eurocentric imaginations and misinterpretations of the sacred texts of Hindus by early European authors with racial prejudices in their minds, it can be assured that the Vedic texts do not contain any mention of racial wars which is prevalent in the history of Europeans in the colonial period.

It is clear that the term Arya in Vedic context referred to those who followed the path of ritualism based on Agni established by Father Manu, and their riteless foes were conquered with rites by Vedic Aryans as they spread all over from their homeland in northern India. The term Arya has nothing to do with any race.”

[Lone Wolf]

37 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Kuru kingdom was more around hastinapur area haryana, west up, Punjab. Sp it's quite several tribes existed simultaneously and they had power struggle. Rakhigarhi had turned out to be much more important place than Mohenjo Daro.

Ummm...  No that's a quite later period.  Rig vedic & Avestan texts point out that the Bharatas were fewer in number & Proto Indo Iranian branch was also involved in the conflict along with natives.  Fact is battle is thought to be fought in modern day Punjab. 

The defeated branch were Later pushed into Iran. 

 

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/14832272-ten-kings

 

 

[Lone Wolf]

5 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

There is no such thing as the Arya tribes in Rigveda. It is an adjective for a noble men, a quality that is respected. The battle of ten kings , even though won by the Bharatas, they gave space for other tribes to accept their rituals and philosophy as well. 
 

https://www.indica.today/long-reads/racial-wars-how-misinterpretations-vedic-hymns-myth-aryan-race/
 

“

Despite the wild Eurocentric imaginations and misinterpretations of the sacred texts of Hindus by early European authors with racial prejudices in their minds, it can be assured that the Vedic texts do not contain any mention of racial wars which is prevalent in the history of Europeans in the colonial period.

It is clear that the term Arya in Vedic context referred to those who followed the path of ritualism based on Agni established by Father Manu, and their riteless foes were conquered with rites by Vedic Aryans as they spread all over from their homeland in northern India. The term Arya has nothing to do with any race.”

Well that could be true no denying that...  My whole point is Rigvedic texts point out towards probable bloodshed did happened...  Which is natural as the region was quite rich in resources compared to Iran & Afghanistan. 

Identity of sudas & enemies in battle of the Ten kings has been wrongly shown in most cases.  Lots of parties were involved in probably biggest battle much before Mahabharata.

 

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-identity-of-enemies-of-sudas-in.html?m=1

 

To most people with a general knowledge of India and Hinduism, the most famous war or battle in ancient India is the Mahābhārata war described in India's Great National Epic of the same name.

However, to people with a much deeper knowledge of Indian and Hindu history and texts, and to Indologists and Vedicists, there is another very important and more  ancient battle in India's history: the Dāśarājña battle described or referred to in the seventh Maṇḍala (book) of the Rigveda: more specifically in VII.18 and 83, and also referred to in VII.19 and 33, and indirectly in VII.5 and 6.

This battle has always been grossly misinterpreted by the Indologists to be a battle between invading "Aryans" and a coalition of "non-Aryan natives". But as has been clearly shown in my various books and articles, the battle was very clearly a battle between the Pūru Bharata king Sudās and his warriors on the one side, and a coalition of tribes mainly belonging to the Anu or Ānava tribal conglomerate on the other. These Anu  tribes were the ancestors of the various Iranian  tribes―and also of the Greeks, Armenians and Albanians―of latter-day history.

This completely revolutionizes Indo-European history. As per the linguistic analysis, the twelve known branches of Indo-European languages were together in a contiguous area of mutual contact, in and around the Proto-Indo-European Homeland, till around 3000 BCE. The first branch to separate from the rest was the Anatolian (Hittite) branch. The next was the Tocharian  branch. Then the five European branches: Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic. Finally, five branches were left in the Homeland after the departure of the other seven, and these five Last Branches―Albanian, Greek, Armenian, Iranian and IndoAryan―developed certain new linguistic features in common which are missing in the other earlier departed branches

 

[rkt.india]

9 minutes ago, Lone Wolf said:

Ummm...  No that's a quite later period.  Rig vedic & Avestan texts point out that the Bharatas were fewer in number & Proto Indo Iranian branch was also involved in the conflict along with natives.  Fact is battle is thought to be fought in modern day Punjab. 

The defeated branch were Later pushed into Iran. 

 

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/14832272-ten-kings

 

 

It says the site of the war became Harappa which means it was preHarappan period.

[coffee_rules]

18 minutes ago, Lone Wolf said:

Well that could be true no denying that...  My whole point is Rigvedic texts point out towards probable bloodshed did happened...  Which is natural as the region was quite rich in resources compared to Iran & Afghanistan. 

Identity of sudas & enemies in battle of the Ten kings has been wrongly shown in most cases.  Lots of parties were involved in probably biggest battle much before Mahabharata.

 

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-identity-of-enemies-of-sudas-in.html?m=1

 

To most people with a general knowledge of India and Hinduism, the most famous war or battle in ancient India is the Mahābhārata war described in India's Great National Epic of the same name.

However, to people with a much deeper knowledge of Indian and Hindu history and texts, and to Indologists and Vedicists, there is another very important and more  ancient battle in India's history: the Dāśarājña battle described or referred to in the seventh Maṇḍala (book) of the Rigveda: more specifically in VII.18 and 83, and also referred to in VII.19 and 33, and indirectly in VII.5 and 6.

This battle has always been grossly misinterpreted by the Indologists to be a battle between invading "Aryans" and a coalition of "non-Aryan natives". But as has been clearly shown in my various books and articles, the battle was very clearly a battle between the Pūru Bharata king Sudās and his warriors on the one side, and a coalition of tribes mainly belonging to the Anu or Ānava tribal conglomerate on the other. These Anu  tribes were the ancestors of the various Iranian  tribes―and also of the Greeks, Armenians and Albanians―of latter-day history.

This completely revolutionizes Indo-European history. As per the linguistic analysis, the twelve known branches of Indo-European languages were together in a contiguous area of mutual contact, in and around the Proto-Indo-European Homeland, till around 3000 BCE. The first branch to separate from the rest was the Anatolian (Hittite) branch. The next was the Tocharian  branch. Then the five European branches: Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic. Finally, five branches were left in the Homeland after the departure of the other seven, and these five Last Branches―Albanian, Greek, Armenian, Iranian and IndoAryan―developed certain new linguistic features in common which are missing in the other earlier departed branches

 

Agree, never meant to say there was no war In Rigveda. But it was for right to their way of life,?the philosophy, dharma and rituals. And not for establishment of one’s race over others. Explained nicely by Sanjeev Sanyal here
 

 

Edited May 30, 2022 by coffee_rules

[BacktoCricaddict]

10 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Of course, I meant DNA usage. I don’t get such cryptic questions. The general interest is purely on narratives. I don’t care if I have 10% of African, 15% of Scandinavian and whatever. But I don’t like to be told it is ok to undermine citizens just because of a migration that happened 4000 years ago. 

Didn't mean to imply that you meant something else - but I can see how it might have come across like that.  Kshamisi - I was just showing off that I studied population genetics and struggled with the math involved :-).

 

The problem - as I see it - is that findings on origins are used to instill some kind of pride in "we were there before you think we were there."  And with that kind of pride come divisions. 

 

I heard throughout my childhood that I should be proud of being among the "original" Indians, i.e., Dravidians ... ya know ... North Indians came later and chased us South.  And, of course, I bought it, ignoring the fact that I was myself a Brahmin albeit a dark-skinned one (so was I the subjugator or the subjugated?).  And while what I was told then may be true (or, as recent evidence shows, the opposite may be true ... or both could be true because you can have an OOI event 10000 yrs ago followed by an AI event 5000 yrs later),  it just seems pointless to use it as a point of pride or division.  Where someone or something originated depends where you draw the timeline of origin.  It is simply nothing to be proud of or ashamed of; just fascinating to know how cultures and societies evolved and intermingled and will continue to do so. 

 

Keep debating!  I will continue to be Ekalavya, using y'all's posts to dig and learn more about the origin of peoples.

 

Edited May 30, 2022 by BacktoCricaddict

[coffee_rules]

2 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Didn't mean to imply that you meant something else - but I can see how it might have come across like that.  Kshamisi - I was just showing off that I studied population genetics and struggled with the math involved :-).

 

The problem - as I see it - is that findings on origins are used to instill some kind of pride in "we were there before you think we were there."  And with that kind of pride come divisions. 

 

I heard throughout my childhood that I should be proud of being among the "original" Indians, i.e., Dravidians ... ya know ... North Indians came later and chased us South.  And, of course, I bought it, ignoring the fact that I was myself a Brahmin albeit a dark-skinned one (so was I the subjugator or the subjugated?).  And while what I was told then may be true (or, as recent evidence shows, the opposite may be true ... or both could be true because you can have an OOI event 10000 yrs ago followed by an AI event 5000 yrs later),  it just seems pointless to use it as a point of pride or division.  Where someone or something originated depends where you draw the timeline of origin.  It is simply nothing to be proud of or ashamed of; just fascinating to know how cultures and societies evolved and intermingled and will continue to do so. 

 

Keep debating!  I will continue to be Ekalavya, using y'all's posts to dig and learn more about the origin of peoples.

 

Guru, not a student of biology unlike you puntru, but of any reading material especially when it has so much controversy. My interest in DNA analysis is merely academic on why it is used to reset the narrative on AMT or AIT. Common Westerners are interested to find out their lineage in websites like ancestry.com. Frankly, I don’t care if I am found out to have 100% middle eastern DNA, there is nothing to be proud or ashamed of who you are. AIT is a bane on progressive Indian thought, it has affected Vedic understanding and reduced to a race theory. It divided EU in two world wars and has divided India into regional (north and Dravidian) and casteist (UC vs SC/ST) wars. Debunking  AIT will solve a lot of problems for modern India. It is sad that Subaltern and Post-Colonism intelligentsia is  championing the cause of this purely western colonial concept 

[BacktoCricaddict]

2 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Debunking  AIT will solve a lot of problems for modern India.

Hope you are right about this.  Often I wonder if tribal wars will ever end.  If not this particular division, will we come up with others to then fight over? 

[ravishingravi]

 

[Lone Wolf]

4 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Agree, never meant to say there was no war In Rigveda. But it was for right to their way of life,?the philosophy, dharma and rituals. And not for establishment of one’s race over others. Explained nicely by Sanjeev Sanyal here
 

 

Yes Sanyal Ji is most accurate expert I have found who has explained this.  Loved this series. 

[Lone Wolf]

5 hours ago, rkt.india said:

It says the site of the war became Harappa which means it was preHarappan period.

Yes the most accurate assumption is IVC/Saraswati Sindhu civilization was already composed of Indo Aryan branches that migrated lot earlier than shown.  Recent studies show that Mahabharata happened around 3000 BC or so I don't recall exact date.   

 

Fact is various branches including Iranian & other tribes fought to control the Indian plains.   Now biggest problem is coming into exact timeline of these events.  I agree with the fact that all these events are Pre Harrapan.  Never doubted that. 

[coffee_rules]

 

Clearly looks like a Shiv Ling. The Nandi is facing the mosque is also evident and Aurangzeb’s own acceptance of temple destruction in his Alamgirinama is proof. Also look at the pillars in the back of the mosque. I don’t know what is the SC thinking? Accept there was a temple there

 

Edited May 30, 2022 by coffee_rules

[Mariyam]

On 5/28/2022 at 5:52 PM, rkt.india said:

Every muslim is a convert. So, there is no such thing like true Muslim. Even Arabians converted to Islam from some other religions. Only religion that can be talked about as far back as possible in history is Hinduism or what we call Sanatan Dharma. In fact, everyone east of Sindhu was Hindu and the religion they followed was Sanatan Dharma. We have no story available beyond that. 

What defines (canonically speaking) a true Muslim is piety, thought and action. *Not* purity of blood line.

 

Not sure what all of this has to do with the topic though.

[Mariyam]

In all this talk of history, genetics, chipotle and Bollywood on this thread, an important detail was lost:

 

The SC observed that the "Ascertainment of religious character of a place of worship is not barred under the Places of Worship Act".

 

 

[coffee_rules]

2 hours ago, Mariyam said:

In all this talk of history, genetics, chipotle and Bollywood on this thread, an important detail was lost:

 

The SC observed that the "Ascertainment of religious character of a place of worship is not barred under the Places of Worship Act".

 

 

 Good to know.
Places of worship act is not a constitutional article, just a law passed by legislation. It can be repealed . This could be a precursor to 2024, a bait dangled to junta by the BJP