Revision of History textbooks- NCERT

[Lone Wolf]

48 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

yes impact and influence for sure. But don't make it as though they brough civilization here. Mughlai khana is an amalgamation of what was being cooked in Kashmir and NW India, but with a persiam inluence.

They helped it mainstreaming a lot of those things. 

Except Rana Sangha and Vijayanagara guys contemporary Indian kings tactically were pretty backward in almost every aspect.  That's a fact we all know. 

 

 

Indian cuisine is mostly western derived coupled with Indigenous flavour. 

English and Portuguese brought a lot of other stuff when they came along so did the Arabs in North Western portions.

 

Innovation is probably the last thing Indian subcontinent brought in Medeival Era.  We had to look westward for all kinds of advancements.  Stark difference from ancient era when India was true Vishwaguru.

Edited July 18, 2025 by Lone Wolf

[BacktoCricaddict]

4 minutes ago, Lone Wolf said:

Timur is a national Hero in Uzbekistan.  There is a huge statue there in his honor.

 

Unsurprising. Someone who shares their heritage conquered other lands and spread the culture has to be a hero there.

 

Interesting how one man's hero-king is another man's plunderer. I have often argued on this board and elsewhere that most (if not all) kings/emperors were glorified tyrants who may have possessed brilliant minds, but were narcissistic, cruel megalomaniacs who had no qualms about mowing people down in the name of expanding their kingdom's footprint, spreading their religion, punishing another king for some transgression or whatever other excuse they could come up with. 

 

Just like Timur is a hero to Uzbeks and villain to us, would our glorious emperors be someone else's plunderer?  

[coffee_rules]

1 hour ago, MechEng said:

Apart from actual history, we must be taught about the supernatural stuff as well.

 

As unrealistic as they may sound, you never know that they could actually be true even though they may challenge the current scientific understanding of evolution and physics.

 

For example how Fa Xian and Xuangxuang encountered actual fire breathing dragons on their foot journey to India (lots of Romans confirmed the existence of dragons in India).

 

While you are at it, we can also include texts about Kumari Kandam/Kumari nadu

 

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5j9G4CzyIKk

 

[rangeelaraja]

6 minutes ago, Lone Wolf said:

Indian cuisine is mostly western derived coupled with Indigenous flavour. 

English and Portuguese brought a lot of other stuff when they came along so did the Arabs in North Western portions.

 

For the true Indian cuisine , you have to eat at old temples in South India.  The bhog they serve has the same ingredients, same recipe for centuries.  All ingredients native to India.

Edited July 18, 2025 by rangeelaraja

[coffee_rules]

1 minute ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Unsurprising. Someone who shares their heritage conquered other lands and spread the culture has to be a hero there.

 

Interesting how one man's hero-king is another man's plunderer. I have often argued on this board and elsewhere that most (if not all) kings/emperors were glorified tyrants who may have possessed brilliant minds, but were narcissistic, cruel megalomaniacs who had no qualms about mowing people down in the name of expanding their kingdom's footprint, spreading their religion, punishing another king for some transgression or whatever other excuse they could come up with. 

 

Just like Timur is a hero to Uzbeks and villain to us, would our glorious emperors be someone else's plunderer?  

History is written by victors. So, Indian history is all about how foreign invaders won against Indians. Not a wise thing to do for nation building

[BacktoCricaddict]

5 minutes ago, rangeelaraja said:

 

For the true Indian "cuisine" , you have to eat at old temples in South India.  The bhog they serve has the same ingredients, same recipe for centuries. 

What are some of those ingredients?

[BacktoCricaddict]

18 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

History is written by victors. So, Indian history is all about how foreign invaders won against Indians. Not a wise thing to do for nation building

My rather unpopular opinion is that nation-building should be based on common goals for the present and future, not on perceived past glory. Today is the first day of the rest of the nation's life - how do we make it better starting today? 

 

Things that should be sacred and the basis for all pride: Economic upliftment and educational opportunities for all.  

[rangeelaraja]

15 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

What are some of those ingredients?

 

 

Barley, Millets, Moong, Urad, Banana, Mango, Coconut, Jackfruit, Milk, Curd, Ghee,Jaggery, Honey, pipalli, black pepper, turmeric.

 

[MechEng]

26 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

 

While you are at it, we can also include texts about Kumari Kandam/Kumari nadu

 

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5j9G4CzyIKk

 

 

It could be factual.

[coffee_rules]

59 minutes ago, Lone Wolf said:

They helped it mainstreaming a lot of those things. 

Except Rana Sangha and Vijayanagara guys contemporary Indian kings tactically were pretty backward in almost every aspect.  That's a fact we all know. 

 

You are grossly mistaken. Natyashastra and Atharva veda has details texts on dance, music, cuisine, painting etc. What do you mean by mainstreaming?  That is a vague attribution.  That version of yours is what marsists historians narrate about medieval India.  Vijyyanagar didn't spring out of nowthere  and start innovating. 6th century was the golden age in Indian history. Kalidasa , Bhasa and many advanced literature beyon what the world was known in that time . You wouldn't have invaders trying to attack India , if we had mediocre kings. Even europeans were in search of India to trade in the 14th and 15th century What a shocking view to have.

 

59 minutes ago, Lone Wolf said:

Indian cuisine is mostly western derived coupled with Indigenous flavour. 

English and Portuguese brought a lot of other stuff when they came along so did the Arabs in North Western portions.

 

Innovation is probably the last thing Indian subcontinent brought in Medeival Era.  We had to look westward for all kinds of advancements.  Stark difference from ancient era when India was true Vishwaguru.

 

 

Indian vegetables came from elsewhere, but the cuisine itself was not adopted. Indians had spices since the BC period and that is noted even in Roman history.  British imported the textile and zinc industrues from India and built the empire and funded their industrial revolution. Don't read too much of marxist historians.

Edited July 18, 2025 by coffee_rules

[MechEng]

49 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

You yourself said current scientific evidence does not support these claims.

 

Like this? There are also among them venomous dragons, which, when provoked, spit forth poisonous winds, and cause showers of snow and storms of sand and gravel.

 

I can see venomous. But the rest of it is serious dramatization. Maybe they saw a komodo dragon, which still exists.

 

 

 

Let the evidence come first, and then it can be included in textbooks afterward. 

 

You can believe in what feels real, but actual reality can never be known.

 

How about that lizard that helped Tanhaji Malusare to climb the Sinhagad Fort? Not just Tanhaji but also 300 Maratha warriors. Ghorpad Yashwanti something like that.

 

Now a tiny monitor lizard cannot help them climb those fort walls. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

4 minutes ago, rangeelaraja said:

 

 

Barley, Millets, Moong, Urad, Banana, Mango, Coconut, Jackfruit, Milk, Curd, Ghee,Jaggery, Honey, pipalli, black pepper, turmeric.

 

Off the top of my head - at least two of these ingredients originated outside India - barley and banana. And there's nothing wrong with that. I am glad we have them. 

 

My point is that there is really nothing truly "from here" or "from there." Humanity has been around long enough, traveled far enough, and traded and mixed and mingled enough. So much so that, if you go back far enough in history, something that we think of as "ours" today may actually have originated elsewhere and been adopted and adapted by "us." I think we should simply embrace it without getting caught up in "tradition," "authenticity" etc. 

 

There is no better example than Sambar, which is the "pride of South India." Everyone associates it with Tamizhnad. But it was created by a Maharashtrian cook and named for a Maratha king.  

[BacktoCricaddict]

3 minutes ago, MechEng said:

You can believe in what feels real, but actual reality can never be known.

You say: The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

I say: The absence of evidence is still the absence of evidence. 

[rangeelaraja]

3 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Off the top of my head - at least two of these ingredients originated outside India - barley and banana. And there's nothing wrong with that. I am glad we have them. 

 

My point is that there is really nothing truly "from here" or "from there." Humanity has been around long enough, traveled far enough, and traded and mixed and mingled enough. So much so that, if you go back far enough in history, something that we think of as "ours" today may actually have originated elsewhere and been adopted and adapted by "us." I think we should simply embrace it without getting caught up in "tradition," "authenticity" etc. 

 

There is no better example than Sambar, which is the "pride of South India." Everyone associates it with Tamizhnad. But it was created by a Maharashtrian cook and named for a Maratha king.  

 

 

Both Barley and Banana have been cultivated in India for over 5000 years. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

Speaking of food ingredients, one of my pet peeves is when I hear on the American food network "we only use Tellichery black pepper." And am like "cheTTa, do you even know where Thalassery is? Literally, my Ammai's Achan was born there. And really, black pepper grown in Kodagu will taste just the one from your "Tellichery." 

[BacktoCricaddict]

12 minutes ago, rangeelaraja said:

 

 

Both Barley and Banana have been cultivated in India for over 5000 years. 

Perhaps. But these crops were first cultivated in the other parts of the world and probably brought to India from elsewhere. There are records of trades between India and the Mesopotamia 5000 years ago. Barley was first cultivated in the ME and likely brought over from there. And bananas were first cultivated near Indonesia 8000 years ago.

 

In other words, if you went back 10,000 years ago when agriculture first started, you wouldn't call barley or banana Indian. And to me, it doesn't really matter. 5000 years from now, if people want to say, KFC is Indian, that's perfectly good with me. 

Edited July 18, 2025 by BacktoCricaddict

[coffee_rules]

15 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Off the top of my head - at least two of these ingredients originated outside India - barley and banana. And there's nothing wrong with that. I am glad we have them. 

 

My point is that there is really nothing truly "from here" or "from there." Humanity has been around long enough, traveled far enough, and traded and mixed and mingled enough. So much so that, if you go back far enough in history, something that we think of as "ours" today may actually have originated elsewhere and been adopted and adapted by "us." I think we should simply embrace it without getting caught up in "tradition," "authenticity" etc. 

 

There is no better example than Sambar, which is the "pride of South India." Everyone associates it with Tamizhnad. But it was created by a Maharashtrian cook and named for a Maratha king.  

 

I am not sure if you are trolling, but that story is an urban myth spread on SM. It is a fake one. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

3 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

 

I am not sure if you are trolling, but that story is an urban myth spread on SM. It is a fake one. 

Oh really? No I am not trolling. My Maharashtrian wife may have brainwashed me :-))))

 

I need some new evidence for my hypothesis now. 

Edited July 18, 2025 by BacktoCricaddict

[coffee_rules]

3 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

which story, guru?

highlighted one. But it was created by a Maharashtrian cook and named for a Maratha king.  

No, it is not named after Sambaji, if  that's what you mean.  South Indian versions of Huli, Sambar has references  in literature even in the 2nd century AD. So, no it was not cooked by a MH  cook.

Edited July 18, 2025 by coffee_rules

[BacktoCricaddict]

1 minute ago, coffee_rules said:

highlighted one. But it was created by a Maharashtrian cook and named for a Maratha king.  

No, it is not named after Samnaji, if  that's what you mean.  South Indian versions of Huli, Sambar has reference to literature even in the 2nd century AD. So, no it was not cooked by a ghati cook.

From what I have read, others versions have existed (huli etc.) for a long time. But what we know as sambar today was invented by a Maharashtrian chef.