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

[Master Chief]

Huh? So what you mean by this?


Free to do that, everyone got their own hypothesis these days. If you have any evidence of older sites that is radiocarbon dated, go ahead. History is an evolving science new excavations find new sites, some older, some younger. But the important point is, you have to do it instead of breaking down and defacing centuries old idols.

Nice word play. We are not talking about precursors here. Such Neolithic primitives existed even in Iran. That doesn't mean they are all IVC. Even if you consider Mehgarh the Radio carbon dating of Bhiranna sites is 7000BCE and higher it's not a hypothesis, which shows a contrast between Mehrgarh that's somewhere in Baluchistan at Bolan pass. There is a world of arid region in between these two.

Lets not discuss the scientific nature of either of our narratives or ideologies. It'll take a wild turn and you wouldn't like it. Lets stick to the topic.

Yeah not the Iranians you think, aka Iranian farmers it was the old Hunter gatherer type (IHG). What was the other 50% though? AASI.


Concentrate on topic, instead of me. You're writing essays of nothingburger.
Rakhigarhi is the largest site, and Bhiranna is the oldest site.

Also they did Radiocarbon dating on Rakhigarhi as well, like who wouldn't?
The site in Rakhigarhi had the same brics found in other IVC sites with the standard 1:2:4 ratio. They had the iconographies, ornaments and jewellery with previous gems, citadels and t, they had seals indicting trade as well.

Now why are you pushing this 50% Iranian story like it's a gotcha moment. Lmao so what? I never denied it.

To conclude IVC was the result of two primitive hunter gatherers the IHG and AASI that happened thousands of years before IVC took shape.

Again you are in simple denial over Mehrgahr. We know why that is.

My first statement informs you that there is as much likelihood that Mehrgahr is the precursor to Harappa as any Indian site. Proto-Harappan script is present in Mehrgahr, implying a direct flight of the inhabitants to Harappa and other sites.

Your claim that Haryana has the "oldest IVC site" is impossible in this context. The script observed at Mehrgahr is not some unrelated language - it is explicitly described as PROTO-HARAPPAN. I can't help you understand beyond this. If you still wish to believe that Rakhgiri came first (whether you define it as a "precursor" or not is irrelevant to the discussion), then you are denying the simple realities of the direction of evolution of Indus script.

And yes 50% Iranian is a gotcha moment. Keep coping though. Your fathers are simply not from the Indian subcontinent, (and they are certainly not from the Ganges).

In Pakistan, we are not concerned that we had influences from east, west, and north of our lands - indeed, no mature nation state is bothered by such genealogical truths.

India is of course deeply concerned at the harsh reality that 50% of its fathers (50% is the mininum btw...David Reich puts it at a much higher percentage, but allow me to humour you with a mere 50% for now) are NOT NATIVE because the current avatar of your nation state literally preaches NATIVISM as a deterministic moral policy. Who are the Mughals to dare contemplate leading your nation, those awful non-natives?!

Yes, those AASI folks you referred to are true natives of the land. But those Iranian farmers came from afar to build cities for you.

Let me know when you wish to discuss Aryans

 

[Vikramaditya1]

Again you are in simple denial over Mehrgahr. We know why that is.

Nobody denied Mehrgarh. But simply it's not an Indus Valley Site and why would I be in denial over it. Bhiranna site is still older than Mehrgarh. So it's a non issue for us.

My first statement informs you that there is as much likelihood that Mehrgahr is the precursor to Harappa as any Indian site. Proto-Harappan script is present in Mehrgahr, implying a direct flight of the inhabitants to Harappa and other sites.

It doesn't mean anything given there are sites same age and older in Haryana. There cannot exist two sites one proto and other modern.

Your claim that Haryana has the "oldest IVC site" is impossible in this context. The script observed at Mehrgahr is not some unrelated language - it is explicitly described as PROTO-HARAPPAN. I can't help you understand beyond this. If you still wish to believe that Rakhgiri came first (whether you define it as a "precursor" or not is irrelevant to the discussion), then you are denying the simple realities of the direction of evolution of Indus script.

How so? Did you find sites older than Bhiranna? Please do RC dating and show proofs. You can easily debunk us like that. I think you mixed up Rakhigarhi the largest site with the oldest Bhiranna regardless we have the proofs you have words.

And yes 50% Iranian is a gotcha moment. Keep coping though. Your fathers are simply not from the Indian subcontinent, (and they are certainly not from the Ganges).

That's like saying humans are from Africa. Of course, nobody is original here we all came from somewhere. Our fore fathers are from Indian subcontinent where else would they be? They ain't Arabs, or Turks for sure.

In Pakistan, we are not concerned that we had influences from east, west, and north of our lands - indeed, no mature nation state is bothered by such genealogical truths.

India is of course deeply concerned at the harsh reality that 50% of its fathers (50% is the mininum btw...David Reich puts it at a much higher percentage, but allow me to humour you with a mere 50% for now) are NOT NATIVE because the current avatar of your nation state literally preaches NATIVISM as a deterministic moral policy. Who are the Mughals to dare contemplate leading your nation, those awful non-natives?!

Yeah sure, count the number of Bhajwas, Bhatts, you sure care a lot about Hindu upper caste surnames.
No Indian goes we wuzz 50% Iranian saar. Even the AASI is not native to this land. Goes back to the human migration story. That besides, the IHG AASI mix created IVC and this happened over thousands of years. You really have some issue about it. I don't even care.

Yes, those AASI folks you referred to are true natives of the land. But those Iranian farmers came from afar to build cities for you.

Let me know when you wish to discuss Aryans

Not at all, they came here in Paleolithic era. Some 30-40k years back. The IHG AASI mix happened 10k years back. Took another 7k years for R1A to come. All of them build on something. If IHG was so advanced where is their civilization in Iran? There is no super IVC in Iran Did they forget it back home? Same case with Aryans, what happened to their civilisational homeland? Where is the Vedas from caucasus mountain glorifying their rivers.

 

[Master Chief]

Nobody denied Mehrgarh. But simply it's not an Indus Valley Site and why would I be in denial over it. Bhiranna site is still older than Mehrgarh. So it's a non issue for us.

It doesn't mean anything given there are sites same age and older in Haryana. There cannot exist two sites one proto and other modern.

How so? Did you find sites older than Bhiranna? Please do RC dating and show proofs. You can easily debunk us like that. I think you mixed up Rakhigarhi the largest site with the oldest Bhiranna regardless we have the proofs you have words.

That's like saying humans are from Africa. Of course, nobody is original here we all came from somewhere. Our fore fathers are from Indian subcontinent where else would they be? They ain't Arabs, or Turks for sure.

Yeah sure, count the number of Bhajwas, Bhatts, you sure care a lot about Hindu upper caste surnames.
No Indian goes we wuzz 50% Iranian saar. Even the AASI is not native to this land. Goes back to the human migration story. That besides, the IHG AASI mix created IVC and this happened over thousands of years. You really have some issue about it. I don't even care.

Not at all, they came here in Paleolithic era. Some 30-40k years back. The IHG AASI mix happened 10k years back. Took another 7k years for R1A to come. All of them build on something. If IHG was so advanced where is their civilization in Iran? There is no super IVC in Iran Did they forget it back home? Same case with Aryans, what happened to their civilisational homeland? Where is the Vedas from caucasus mountain glorifying their rivers.

Naturally we all came from Africa.

But nativism for RSS is inclusive of supposedly "settled" tribes, such as those for whom there is NO KNOWN OLDER IPSILOCATED tribe. The AASI Indians satisfy this category. The Iranian Farmers (and their predecessors the Iranian Hunter Gatherers) do not, since they necessarily came from outside and massively altered the established local genetic composition (which by your own acceptance - corroborated by various studies - was AASI). We are literally now talking about a gap of TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS between AASI having settled the subcontinent and the Iranian Farmers arriving. I don't know what else to say!

There is no difference between the foreign-ness of Iranian Farmers and the foreign-ness of Aryans and the foreign-ness of Mughals. They all came and exerted their influence over groups previously there. I.e. primacy of establishment was ignored by them. Again, all countries evolved this way and nobody except Hindustan is offended by this.

Do you think Anglo-Saxons were the first tribal phenotype to exist in Brittania? Are modern whites in UK crying perpetually because Celts and Britons were displaced by germanic Anglo-Saxons (not to mention Romans, Vikings, Normans...and everyone else who wanted a turn)?

Bhiranna's and Mehrgahr's archaeological ages are actually similar. A few hundred years in carbon dating is a negligible difference in anthropological terms, which is why I stated clearly and repeatedly that there is no hard evidence that ANY Indian site predated the oldest known Pakistani site. BEYOND THAT, the script uncovered at Mehrgahr does offer circumstantial evidence that the Pakistani site may well predate the central IVC sites because of necessary unidirectional linguistic evolution, unless you wish to suggest that languages can evolve backwards! Fundamentally, you are arguing for a WESTWARD flow of genomics and linguistics, which is far less likely than an EASTWARD flow from Zagros (+ the known southward linguistic flow from the Asiatic Steppe, which we can also discuss if you wish).

Which brings us to your final paragraph, that Iranians had forgotten to civilise the regions of Iran, Zagros etc and jumped straight to Harappa.

I mean really?? I am now very concerned at what has been omitted from even your most basic high school syllabi. Elamites, BMAC and the whole of the fertile crescent for starters. I must say, you really are taking us on a wild ride with some of your conjecture.

 

[Vikramaditya1]

But nativism for RSS is inclusive of supposedly "settled" tribes, such as those for whom there is NO KNOWN OLDER IPSILOCATED tribe. The AASI Indians satisfy this category. The Iranian Farmers (and their predecessors the Iranian Hunter Gatherers) do not, since they necessarily came from outside and massively altered the established local genetic composition (which by your own acceptance - corroborated by various studies - was AASI). We are literally now talking about a gap of TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS between AASI having settled the subcontinent and the Iranian Farmers arriving. I don't know what else to say!

You don't need to speak on behalf of RSS. From your own words you have no clue what RSS thinks of nativism is. You're making shit up as you go and it's laughable.
I don't know what the gap got to do with any of this. What are you trying to prove?

There is no difference between the foreign-ness of Iranian Farmers and the foreign-ness of Aryans and the foreign-ness of Mughals. They all came and exerted their influence over groups previously there. I.e. primacy of establishment was ignored by them. Again, all countries evolved this way and nobody except Hindustan is offended by this.

Yeah no. You can't infiltrate Mughals into this will be shot down at the border. The reason people see Mughals with contempt is their lack of any contribution to the larger Indian polity. They were after the richness of this land they couldn't care about the culture. Unlike say Shakas and Kushans despite being some pagans they assimilated well into Indian society and are revered for it. Heck Indian official calender is called Shaka calender. Mughals were resisted and their empire declined due to constant war with Indic kingdoms.

That beside, did you know the Mughals never considered themselves Indian Empire. So your point of Mughals being rejected by Indians, the feelings were mutual.

Do you think Anglo-Saxons were the first tribal phenotype to exist in Brittania? Are modern whites in UK crying perpetually because Celts and Britons were displaced by germanic Anglo-Saxons (not to mention Romans, Vikings, Normans...and everyone else who wanted a turn)?

Well constant invasions is probably why they failed to develop a civilization and were swamp dwelling barbarians even when Romans found them. Or maybe they just didn't care.

Bhiranna's and Mehrgahr's archaeological ages are actually similar. A few hundred years in carbon dating is a negligible difference in anthropological terms, which is why I stated clearly and repeatedly that there is no hard evidence that ANY Indian site predated the oldest known Pakistani site. BEYOND THAT, the script uncovered at Mehrgahr does offer circumstantial evidence that the Pakistani site may well predate the central IVC sites because of necessary unidirectional linguistic evolution, unless you wish to suggest that languages can evolve backwards! Fundamentally, you are arguing for a WESTWARD flow of genomics and linguistics, which is far less likely than an EASTWARD flow from Zagros (+ the known southward linguistic flow from the Asiatic Steppe, which we can also discuss if you wish).

Yeah, but Bhiranna was advanced which actually pushes IVC age back, so your point that Mehrgarh being proto IVC is strange. I'm not saying they have no relationship whatsoever but IVC was well developed by that time. Saying Mehrgarh which is outside the general site map say they were quite different and not too developed to be considered part of the IVC.

My point is not where they came from, because it's not a one time affair, it happened over thousands of years so pushing this "they are foreign invaders " is illogical and you can't tie Mughals into that tree.

Which brings us to your final paragraph, that Iranians had forgotten to civilise the regions of Iran, Zagros etc and jumped straight to Harappa.

I mean really?? I am now very concerned at what has been omitted from even your most basic high school syllabi. Elamites, BMAC and the whole of the fertile crescent for starters. I must say, you really are taking us on a wild ride with some of your conjecture.

Fertile crescent is dominated by Mesopotamia which makes the others look like minions in comparison. To be fair the Zegros region was indeed good in certain things. Just not in well developed cities and towns like IVC.

 

[Distant_Observer]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Master Chief]

You don't need to speak on behalf of RSS. From your own words you have no clue what RSS thinks of nativism is. You're making shit up as you go and it's laughable.
I don't know what the gap got to do with any of this. What are you trying to prove?

Yeah no. You can't infiltrate Mughals into this will be shot down at the border. The reason people see Mughals with contempt is their lack of any contribution to the larger Indian polity. They were after the richness of this land they couldn't care about the culture. Unlike say Shakas and Kushans despite being some pagans they assimilated well into Indian society and are revered for it. Heck Indian official calender is called Shaka calender. Mughals were resisted and their empire declined due to constant war with Indic kingdoms.

That beside, did you know the Mughals never considered themselves Indian Empire. So your point of Mughals being rejected by Indians, the feelings were mutual.

Well constant invasions is probably why they failed to develop a civilization and were swamp dwelling barbarians even when Romans found them. Or maybe they just didn't care.

Yeah, but Bhiranna was advanced which actually pushes IVC age back, so your point that Mehrgarh being proto IVC is strange. I'm not saying they have no relationship whatsoever but IVC was well developed by that time. Saying Mehrgarh which is outside the general site map say they were quite different and not too developed to be considered part of the IVC.

My point is not where they came from, because it's not a one time affair, it happened over thousands of years so pushing this "they are foreign invaders " is illogical and you can't tie Mughals into that tree.



Fertile crescent is dominated by Mesopotamia which makes the others look like minions in comparison. To be fair the Zegros region was indeed good in certain things. Just not in well developed cities and towns like IVC.

https://www.aninews.in/videos/national/dna-indians-has-been-same-over-40000-years-mohan-bhagwat/

Frontier articles on Society & Politics

So apparently, RSS does not believe in nativism, or I do not understand RSS's views on nativism.

Hardly 5 minutes were needed to confirm Mohan Bhagwat's and MS Golwalkar's views on the matter. I put it to you that you have no clue whatsoever on the RSS narratives regarding your population's evolution over the last 10,000 years.

Mughals were resisted by some and welcomed by others. They could not have ruled for hundreds of years unless this was the case. You are allowing your personal bias to obviate historical objective truth. Ashoka was far more evil and brutal to dharmic "natives" than all the Mughals put together, yet here we are with Ashoka chakras worshipped on flags and Mughals erased from textbooks.

Your point that Mughals did not consider themselves "Indian" is irrelevant. Ashoka was similarly expansionist and the Mauryan empire spread well beyond its supposed homeland territory in modern day Bihar. Ashoka was a "Bihari" who conquered much of coterminous Hindustan. But his exploits are deemed halal by your history syllabus writers? Honestly we could talk all day just about Ashoka if you wish to compare his achievements for the subcontinent versus those of the Mughals.

For the record, Iranian Farmers' haplotypes did very much contribute to several of the great Mesopotamian civilisations just as they did to the IVC. This is well documented.

Lastly your point that Bhiranna was relatively advanced linguistically does not prove it was an older site than Mehrgahr. It actually suggests the opposite, that someone must have brought the prototypical form of Bhiranna's (and indeed Harappa's) script with them from Mehrgahr at some point in history.

 

[Vikramaditya1]

https://www.aninews.in/videos/national/dna-indians-has-been-same-over-40000-years-mohan-bhagwat/
Frontier articles on Society & Politics
So apparently, RSS does not believe in nativism, or I do not understand RSS's views on nativism.

Political statements. The gist is you have to Indianise. Don't do the same mistake as Mughals. It's not that hard to figure out you don't have to treat every statement of politicians as scientific facts.

Mughals were resisted by some and welcomed by others. They could not have ruled for hundreds of years unless this was the case. You are allowing your personal bias to obviate historical objective truth. Ashoka was far more evil and brutal to dharmic "natives" than all the Mughals put together, yet here we are with Ashoka chakras worshipped on flags and Mughals erased from textbooks.

Invaders were never allowed to settle weren't they? They ruled for around 200 years with most of their years spending time fighting a kingdom or two and never getting a time to rule peacefully.

The issue with Mughals were not that they were Brutal. They failed to assimilate, they tried to bring a culture alien to this land while driving down innovation and science this land is known for.

Your point that Mughals did not consider themselves "Indian" is irrelevant.

Haha then why should you bother about Indians failing to honour them? It is the core issue, why we consider them foreign is well they are foreign invaders and they ruled like one.

Ashoka was similarly expansionist and the Mauryan empire spread well beyond its supposed homeland territory in modern day Bihar. Ashoka was a "Bihari" who conquered much of coterminous Hindustan.

Ashoka Empire is considered peak because they expanded Indic influence beyond India, well we all know Buddhism expansion to East and more. So he was considered the greatest because he expanded Indian culture beyond its borders. In comparison Mughal Empire is not even worth a discussion. Why do you even bring Ashoka Empire it's a losing battle if you compare them to Mughals.

Lastly your point that Bhiranna was relatively advanced linguistically does not prove it was an older site than Mehrgahr. It actually suggests the opposite, that someone must have brought the prototypical form of Bhiranna's (and indeed Harappa's) script with them from Mehrgahr at some point in history.

Your argument is ironic, on one hand you claim Mehrgarh is the oldest based on RC dating but then claim Bhiranna isn't the oldest because RC is not accurate. Well we didn't just do RC dating we cross verified it with Thermoluminescence and OSL dating on the potteries not just the charcoal fragments (RC), that's how we arrived at the conclusion that it is older. So how do you explain someone bringing xyz from Mehrgarh when we don't even have a definitive proof that your Mehrgarh site is in fact connected to IVC.

 

[Master Chief]

Political statements. The gist is you have to Indianise. Don't do the same mistake as Mughals. It's not that hard to figure out you don't have to treat every statement of politicians as scientific facts.


Invaders were never allowed to settle weren't they? They ruled for around 200 years with most of their years spending time fighting a kingdom or two and never getting a time to rule peacefully.

The issue with Mughals were not that they were Brutal. They failed to assimilate, they tried to bring a culture alien to this land while driving down innovation and science this land is known for.

Haha then why should you bother about Indians failing to honour them? It is the core issue, why we consider them foreign is well they are foreign invaders and they ruled like one.


Ashoka Empire is considered peak because they expanded Indic influence beyond India, well we all know Buddhism expansion to East and more. So he was considered the greatest because he expanded Indian culture beyond its borders. In comparison Mughal Empire is not even worth a discussion. Why do you even bring Ashoka Empire it's a losing battle if you compare them to Mughals.

Your argument is ironic, on one hand you claim Mehrgarh is the oldest based on RC dating but then claim Bhiranna isn't the oldest because RC is not accurate. Well we didn't just do RC dating we cross verified it with Thermoluminescence and OSL dating on the potteries not just the charcoal fragments (RC), that's how we arrived at the conclusion that it is older. So how do you explain someone bringing xyz from Mehrgarh when we don't even have a definitive proof that your Mehrgarh site is in fact connected to IVC.

Yes we know already.

Mughals bad. Ashoka good.

Mughals brutal. Kalinga a picnic.

Mughals saar achieved nothing for Hindustan but bloodletting.

200 years? Lol. Anyway, you're right. Nothing was achieved by them in that period of rule they enjoyed over the subcontinent.

It was Ashoka who built roads, inducted complex engineering, bureaucracy, military industry, ornate architectural masterpieces, irrigated gardens and parks, sanctioned intricate and unique artwork, standardised currency and language, unified a diverse and disparate horde of "irregulars" into a single economic and military power.

Mughals were fighting primarily against other abrahamics. I don't think many dharmics were capable of challenging them aside from Marathas.

Your argument about Bhiranna is repetitive and presumably has become so because it remains your last refuge for salvation. I never denied scientific dating techniques, but these are only ever as good as the items being dated, I.e. if older items are not yet uncovered and tested, then the declared age is erroneous. Now you tell me, instead of dodging my very simple point, how can a proto-script come AFTER a script?

 

[mythbuster]

As far as IVC goes, there are no pyramids, no Rosetta stones here

IVC was created by ordinary people for ordinary people , there weren't any God Kings and the associated trappings , it was a society that was harmonious with nature and at peace with herself.

 

[mythbuster]

What is your factual basis for this

Unless you being in prehistoric times less people existed?

Don't deny historical facts , he is right about this one.

 

[hussain0216]

Even the sites in India tend to be stones throw from the Pakistani border

Yet we have 1.4 billion Indians trying to claim heritage and lineage from our land

Indians are pathetic fantasy driven people, the more we can split Pakistan from South Asia, the better

 

[r3alist]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Below is exactly the problem with this discussion, suddenly history has to be held hostage by the Indian communal social contract, if you want to showcase your lands history please check in with mr RSS 2000 miles away on what you have to do.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[r3alist]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[r3alist]

Coming back to the land from which they were created

That's not complicated to understand

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Vikramaditya1]

Mughals brutal. Kalinga a picnic.

Why are you obsessed with Mughals. I don't even know what exactly the Mughals achieved for us. Expanding empire and building some roads is not really pinnacle of empire and collecting jizya isn't such a great achievement. Neither is sending gifts to Macca or Persians because Mughals used to we wuzzed Persiana (when they weren't).

Mughals saar achieved nothing for Hindustan but bloodletting.

Give ten scientific or cultural achievement of Mughals. Comparable to Ashoka from 300BCE. Both of them ruled around similar geography Ashoka is called "The great" the Mughals are mocked. Not to mention all Mughals were ghay, and had a bachabazi problem. Such a perverted empire, something I wouldn't be proud of having.

200 years? Lol. Anyway, you're right. Nothing was achieved by them in that period of rule they enjoyed over the subcontinent.

At least not for long.

It was Ashoka who built roads, inducted complex engineering, bureaucracy, military industry, ornate architectural masterpieces, irrigated gardens and parks, sanctioned intricate and unique artwork, standardised currency and language, unified a diverse and disparate horde of "irregulars" into a single economic and military power.

Indian artisens were indeed great. They did great work in building structures. One should wonder why the so called inheritors of Mughal Empire didn't build anything anymore but these dharmics are still making those dope buildings around the world.

Mughals were fighting primarily against other abrahamics. I don't think many dharmics were capable of challenging them aside from Marathas.

Dharmics did eventually route the Mughals yeah? The Mughals became a suzerainty of the Marathas. Only after the anglo Maratha war Marathas transferred Mughal ownership to the British who since owned them.

Your argument about Bhiranna is repetitive and presumably has become so because it remains your last refuge for salvation. I never denied scientific dating techniques, but these are only ever as good as the items being dated, I.e. if older items are not yet uncovered and tested, then the declared age is erroneous. Now you tell me, instead of dodging my very simple point, how can a proto-script come AFTER a script?

I could say the same, you can't really disprove my original point. Oldest and largest sites are in India and more sites are being excavated. Your inability, or should I say your archeology departments inability to excavate more is not on us, it's on you. What's the point of trying to insert some non IVC sites when you can simply take a chisel, brush and dig.