Who Created Harappan / Indus Valley Civilisation? | How Did It End? | Samvaad With Devdutt Pattanaik

[Master Chief]

Again you're insertion Islam unnecessarily. Fine then, it's straight forward Semitic culture, just like Judaism is Semitic and by the people of Levant, Christianity by Jesus a Jewish man from the tribe of Judah. Are you going say oh these cultures are not native to Levant or Arabean peninsula. But brought by Zagros people? And arguing to death for Zagros as soneone who brought those "foreign cultures".

Similarly Vedism-Hinduism/Buddhism/Sikhism/Jainism are native to India they are called Indic cultures afterall. Not AASI, Steppe Aryan R1a admixed IVC AASI Zagros culture which it is afterall. Like Judaism is x, y, z yada yada yada DNA admixed peoples culture.

Or take a different contrast, say a Hindu of Russian origin or a Hindu of African origin, Balinese Hindu, a Khmer Buddhist. Do they not know their culture is Indic? They do. You're somehow irked by the idea that an Indian calls his religion native and you straight dive into DNA and genetics to prove its "not native". I say Nice try.

"India" and "Indic" are meaningless terms in the context you are deploying then under.

What bearing does the India described by Herodotus and the Persians have on the modern nation state of India?

None whatsoever. They knew of the Indus Valley and the hordes of Nanda that lay beyond.

Your conjecture is based on an accident of nomenclature.

In reality, Sikhism arose in ancient Pakistan. It is "Indic" as per Herodotus' definition of India, not Nehru's.

I have explained to you that Vedic Hinduism is a syncretism between genuinely foreign influences (Eurasian Steppe), IVC influences (Pakistan) and local (true "Indian") influences, therefore to describe this as purely "Indian" is misleading from a historical perspective.

I'll give you buddhism and jainism for now, as I'm not knowledgeable on either of their antecedent histories.

 

[Vikramaditya1]

Vedism ITSELF did not immediately ban beef consumption - you would know better than me!

Yeah because I said it. Duh!

Kerala and NE have heavy foreign influence although Cattle slaughter was banned in Kerala the rules were later relaxed to accomodate foreign cultures."

In your last paragraph you have directly inferred the "foreignness" of cow consumption. A foreign trait to be tolerated in the case of Keralans and NE folk. Apparently, this foreign train cannot be tolerated for Indian muslims.

Indeed but cow slaughter is not a central character it's something we accomodated along with the foreign communities allowing them land for their sinagogues, Churches or Mosques.

There is contrast to this, take Parsis communities for example they voluntarily gave up cattle slaughter to respect the beliefs of the locals and are well integrated and settled. I don't see a Parsi claiming opression for not being allowed to slaughter cow. It's also a foreign culture although very closely related to vedism. Why this beef issue so central in the discussion anyway.

 

[Master Chief]

to respect the beliefs of the locals and are well integrated and settled.

Here's the central problem.

What you mean is, to respect the beliefs of the MAJORITY.

MUSLIMS ARE "LOCAL" TO THE SUBCONTINENT. AS "LOCAL" AS HINDUS. YOUR FOREFATHERS CHOSE ONE SET OF RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCES AND MINE CHOSE ANOTHER.

You'd think that a nation whose historical development was propelled forwards by Muslims at multiple junctures throughout its history, both medieval and modern, would show a semblance more respect for a significant portion of their own, folks who are literally derived from the same genomes as you.

Simple majoritarianism disguised as nativism which itself is founded on a pack of lies.

 

[Master Chief]

it's something we accomodated

Who are you to offer "accommodation" of the beliefs of Indian Muslims?

 

[Vikramaditya1]

"India" and "Indic" are meaningless terms in the context you are deploying then under.

What bearing does the India described by Herodotus and the Persians have on the modern nation state of India?

None whatsoever. They knew of the Indus Valley and the hordes of Nanda that lay beyond.

Your conjecture is based on an accident of nomenclature.

In reality, Sikhism arose in ancient Pakistan. It is "Indic" as per Herodotus' definition of India, not Nehru's.

I have explained to you that Vedic Hinduism is a syncretism between genuinely foreign influences (Eurasian Steppe), IVC influences (Pakistan) and local (true "Indian") influences, therefore to describe this as purely "Indian" is misleading from a historical perspective.

I'll give you buddhism and jainism for now, as I'm not knowledgeable on either of their antecedent histories.

Herodotus never travelled to India. He claimed people were made from gold, and there are flying giants and what not guy thought India was an exotic place full of wonders, I mean probably yes? But not flying giants.

But you can take the word of Ancient Greeks who in fact travelled to India you seem to carefully avoid the guy who wrote the famous book Indica. Megasthenes did travel to India and described India as a quadrilateral shaped region surrounded by sea he was afterall an Ambassador in Mauryan kingdom or say the famous Eratozthenes who gave an even more detailed account of how India is who described India more accurately as Rhomboidal shape. Let's not start with the Chinese sources.

Your descriptions of Indic cultures is simply a cope because somehow you can't seem to accept the culture originated in India. It may work in your safe spaces but will get laughed at by academicians.

 

[Vikramaditya1]

Here's the central problem.

What you mean is, to respect the beliefs of the MAJORITY.

MUSLIMS ARE "LOCAL" TO THE SUBCONTINENT. AS "LOCAL" AS HINDUS. YOUR FOREFATHERS CHOSE ONE SET OF RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCES AND MINE CHOSE ANOTHER.

You'd think that a nation whose historical development was propelled forwards by Muslims at multiple junctures throughout its history, both medieval and modern, would show a semblance more respect for a significant portion of their own, folks who are literally derived from the same genomes as you.

Simple majoritarianism disguised as nativism which itself is founded on a pack of lies.

You're again confusing modern "people" to ancient history. I'm not saying Pakistanis don't belong to Pakistan or Indian Muslims are not Indians. Somehow you got that idea and raging over it. You can't seem to get a fix on the timeline.

Muslims came to Kerala in around 700AD, that's a foreign culture, they came in where welcomed and allowed land to pray, those times Hindu Kings controlled who gets what. Similarly Christians or Jews they all lived in Kerala it was very Cosmopolitan and like a cosmopolitan place it allowed them to co exist accomodating practices that are not allowed for general Hindu pops. That timeline is put as an example, it does not apply to modern times. Kerala Christians or Mulsims are as Indian as any Hindu. Me objecting to it is your hallucination.

 

[Vikramaditya1]

Who are you to offer "accommodation" of the beliefs of Indian Muslims?

I'm king Kulasekhara of Mahodayapuram.

 

[Neojinnah]

And not every Iranian, the elites, and less frequently in Avestan

...Just like Aryan did not apply to every South Asian. In your mind, somehow these nuances don't seem to apply to Hindus and every Ramesh, Sukdeep, and Hardik is a direct descendant of Vedic Aryans.

Not quite but for arguments sake you can figure o

Nope. You're wrong and engaging in reality denial.

NW Indo Aryan? You mean North West Indians lol

No, I do not mean North West Indian. I mean Aryan. A specific group of people. Not a hodge podge of different races and nations which is what Indian means today. Indian is a useless term now that it's been appropriated by Hindus from Central South Asia to refer to their post colonial state and kang on everything in the subcontinent.

Quite the opposite, more AASI the higher chance you conquered vast lands.

Really? Are the hundreds of millions of AASI Hindus living on subsidies and freebies today descendants of conquerors and empire builders? What empires did they build in the last 500 years? The best example which comes to my mind is the Maratha Empire, and from my understanding, all they did was rape, pillage, and persecute other Hindus with more AASI.

Says the guy who wrote this verbal diarrhea.

Not a single lie in that "verbal diarrhea".

 

[Master Chief]

Herodotus never travelled to India. He claimed people were made from gold, and there are flying giants and what not guy thought India was an exotic place full of wonders, I mean probably yes? But not flying giants.

But you can take the word of Ancient Greeks who in fact travelled to India you seem to carefully avoid the guy who wrote the famous book Indica. Megasthenes did travel to India and described India as a quadrilateral shaped region surrounded by sea he was afterall an Ambassador in Mauryan kingdom or say the famous Eratozthenes who gave an even more detailed account of how India is who described India more accurately as Rhomboidal shape. Let's not start with the Chinese sources.

Your descriptions of Indic cultures is simply a cope because somehow you can't seem to accept the culture originated in India. It may work in your safe spaces but will get laughed at by academicians.

It was giant ants, not giants, btw, that Herodotus mentioned.

Megasthenes did not give India its name. That was already given by his predecessors (both Greeks and Persians). Moreover, he knew of the Mauryan Empire, which came into being after India was first described.

There was no border between Indus and Gangetic territories under Maurya, as it was a contiguous empire, just as under the Mughals, just as under the British.

It is no different to you describing India in today's terms or some andhbhakt calling the whole subcontinent "India".

But "India" as a descriptive term did not include the Nanda empire.

It was defined VERY PRECISELY on the ancient Persian satrap of "Hindush", an administrative region of the Achaemenid Empire from the Hindu Kush to the IVC and NOT beyond.

 

[Neojinnah]

You're again confusing modern "people" to ancient history. I'm not saying Pakistanis don't belong to Pakistan or Indian Muslims are not Indians. Somehow you got that idea and raging over it. You can't seem to get a fix on the timeline.

Muslims came to Kerala in around 700AD, that's a foreign culture, they came in where welcomed and allowed land to pray, those times Hindu Kings controlled who gets what. Similarly Christians or Jews they all lived in Kerala it was very Cosmopolitan and like a cosmopolitan place it allowed them to co exist accomodating practices that are not allowed for general Hindu pops. That timeline is put as an example, it does not apply to modern times. Kerala Christians or Mulsims are as Indian as any Hindu. Me objecting to it is your hallucination.

No, you are just very unintelligent and unable to understand that you can't kang on Aryan settlers and claim their religion is "local" and simultaneously claim Islam is foreign. Your argument entirely hinges on the fact that the Aryan settlers stayed and the natives they subjugated eventually adopted their foreign culture, so it became "local" and "Indian". Everyone here is pointing out that also applies to Islam. This entire discussion is only going on because you're too obstinate and insecure to acknowledge that Aryans were foreigners.

 

[Vikramaditya1]

Just like Aryan did not apply to every South Asian.

True that. See what happened to the Gandharans, they dropped Aryan culture and was considered Anarya.

 

[Neojinnah]

True that. See what happened to the Gandharans, they dropped Aryan culture and was considered Anarya.

See, the polluted Ganga is not the centre of the universe. So when bloated Gangetic priests decided someone is mleccha or Anarya, it doesn't mean that they became Anarya. It just means bloated Gangetic priests thought so. That should be a disclaimer behind every single one of your assertions. When you declare something was foreign or local or mleccha , etc, it just means a bloated priest thought so.

If you treat every opinion of bloated priests as a universal fact, you will eventually have to acknowledge most Indians are barbaric lowborns.

Besides your obstinance, another reason we are having this useless discussion is bc you seem to think that bloated priests from the Ganga have lordship on South Asia and their opinions just manifest themselves into reality and become universal categories -
"Gandharas are mlecchas saar. Vhy? Becauj Broms from a completely different part of the region thought so!" *head bobble*

Completely ridiculous

 

[Vikramaditya1]

It was giant ants, not giants, btw, that Herodotus mentioned.

Megasthenes did not give India its name. That was already given by his predecessors (both Greeks and Persians). Moreover, he knew of the Mauryan Empire, which came into being after India was first described.

There was no border between Indus and Gangetic territories under Maurya, as it was a contiguous empire, just as under the Mughals, just as under the British.

It is no different to you describing India in today's terms or some andhbhakt calling the whole subcontinent "India".

But "India" as a descriptive term did not include the Nanda empire.

It was defined VERY PRECISELY on the ancient Persian satrap of "Hindush", an administrative region of the Achaemenid Empire from the Hindu Kush to the IVC and NOT beyond.

Yeah giant ants that dig I didn't bother with the details but they are larger than foxes smaller than dogs. Not relevant anyway.

This was not the first time gangetic plains and Indus region came under one ruler but that's topic for another time. First let's address an important point.

"very Precisely" in the satrap of Hindukush my foot. Achaemenid Hindus was not “from the Hindu Kush to the IVC". They seperately used Gandhara, as an exclusion which is interesting considering their exclusion from Aryan fold and their anarya status. The Iranians also excluded Gandhara region.

Also just because a geographical name originates from a river/region doesn't mean the geographical term must forever possess exactly the borders of an Achaemenid administrative province.

Now megasthenes doesn't describe India as regions conquered by Maurya, he describes region outside Mauryan Empire too like the Southern parts. So it's not entirely a Mauryan Empire extension as you claimed. You opened the door to Greeks interpretation now you want to exclude certain ones? Very convenient.

 

[Vikramaditya1]

So when bloated Gangetic priests decided someone is mleccha or Anarya, it doesn't mean that they became Anarya.

Take it up with your favorite "Aryans" the Iranians, who didn't consider Gandharans either.

As the saying goes one who finds it gets to decide who can own it.

Also I'm not saying Gandharans are some terrible people, they probably were on the wrong side of something that happened 3000 years ago, there is no point raging about it in 2026 much less defending those Gandharans.

Maybe you can switch to the theory that Gandharans maybe the original IVC people who first converted to Aryanism or whatever then they lost interest and reverted to their original stuff. Who knows, I think @Master Chief made this point some time before.

 

[Neojinnah]

Take it up with your favorite "Aryans" the Iranians, who didn't consider Gandharans either.

As the saying goes one who finds it gets to decide who can own it.

Also I'm not saying Gandharans are some terrible people, they probably were on the wrong side of something that happened 3000 years ago, there is no point raging about it in 2026 much less defending those Gandharans.

Maybe you can switch to the theory that Gandharans maybe the original IVC people who first converted to Aryanism or whatever then they lost interest and reverted to their original stuff. Who knows, I think @Master Chief made this point some time before.

I personally have no interest in the Aryan/nativity debate. But the sad reality is that there are many groups in South Asia today, particularly India, where natives are being hounded by fanatics and it's all downstream of the bigotry of orthodox Brahmins from the Ganga.

Literally no one would care about any of this if in the 19th century, a class of UC Hindu British collaborators didn't start getting itches in their behind over who was a true native and who wasn't.