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

[Master Chief]

No, it's just that we don't really like Mughal empire. I didn't say they weren't successful. They were successful at capturing most of the land congratulations to them I guess.

144

Not really, the Mughal empire peaked and decline quite quickly. It wasn't golden age or anything. Their high GDP is because they had control of largest fertile plains and trading hubs they conquered. It's not like they conquered no man's land and transformed the regions. This old 1000 year story is especially true for Pakistan around 700 to 1700 before the British rule. That's where this 1000 years rule story comes from. Most of the foreign Empires in India didn't continuously control India. They were fighting constant wars, their hold was rather weak. Not even Mughals could hold on to it.

Why are you interested in Marathas now. I said they defeated the Mughals and removed them completely. I didn't say Maratha Empire was the greatest empire in history or anything. They were rather a rectionary empire which was a turning point in Indian history.
They were the last Indic empire in India. They also got defeated by the British.

Your analysis and knowledge on the history is weak. I'm not writing fictions, all the comments I made are from Mughal ministers who wrote down their stupid ass thoughts. Like how the war in Deccan is draining their wealth, how the Emperor is spending his time in Deccan. Tell me why did he die in Deccan instead of his capital city almost a thousand km away?
Aurangzeb death forced small kings to declare independence because his empire had no money. That lead to the decline of the empire. It wasn't some competition.

The land was ruled by Dharmics for the majority of it's written history. We influenced langauge, religion and culture of East Asia.

Dude I got nothing to prove here. This is the age of the internet you can easily fact check me. It's a well known fact that Ashoka Empire was the greatest empire that ruled over India. Not only because of his rule over Subcon but his influence to the east. Just because a bunch of invaders ruled over you doesn't mean we ignore our history and culture.
Why glaze over fact that Mughals were in fact degenerates. Come on tell me I am lying when I say Mughal emperors like babur were ghay. My guy wrote peoms celebrating his rather young boyfriend in Central Asia. Ye le Mughal contribution to "art". Delhi sultanate wasn't so different, Khilji types. At least they were woke before it was cool.

You're writing wordsalads instead of accepting a simple fact that oldest and largest sites of IVC are in India. That's what I said initially and triggered you for whatever reason. And look where we are now.

We even excavated and found another site in Sinauli which had chariots used by IVC people so they weren't some trading folks, they in fact had armies. (RC dated 2500BCE). So what is your problem exactly. You want to accept Mehrgarh as precursor, go ahead then. Let's agree to disagree.

So, you just "don't like" the Mughals. In a prior conversation you also "didn't like" Tipu. I am certain there is a recurring theme here of what you like and don't like about your own history.

One of many points to be made is that your ilk should detach your entire ecosystem from that which you "don't like". Raze the Taj Mahal once and for all and decline any interest in specific Islamic subcontinental artefacts such as Kohi Noor. Be true to your beliefs and "boycott" the 1000 year dark age.

Once again it is your understanding of history that is flawed regarding Mughal decline. In fact, your desperation to declare marathas as scions of ancient dharmic warlords exposes your ignorance. Do you actually think marathas did not align with Muslim groups against the Mughals at various points? They aligned with one of aurangzeb's own sons in the Deccan. Beyond that, there were two independent sultanates who also fought against Aurangzeb in the Deccan. This was all prior to his death.

Whom do you think Mughals were fighting in Afghanistan?

As stated clearly, the Muslim-Muslim rivalries initiated and propelled the decline of the Mughals long before Shivaji squeaked his intentions to capitalise.

We can discuss Ashoka further if you wish. He ruled over territory by liquidating dharmics. So the question to modern Indians is, why love one barbarian for his expansionist deeds but loathe others for theirs? This "Indic" concept holds no factual basis as Ashoka was an Iranian-AASI-Eurasian Steppe hybrid, like all dharmics were by the time of his rule. "Indic" is a word you have used to conveniently obviate this reality. I do sympathise. It is difficult for certain people acknowledging the influence of external races in their national story, but if truth be told, modern India is precisely that - a swamp of countless different foreign origin peoples who rapidly sidelined the one group who could claim genuine nativeness (AASI) and proceeded to fight one another for supremacy.

Lastly, Bhiranna is not proved to be the "oldest site" of the IVC. This is conjecture. Mehrgahr is demonstrably a far more likely candidate because of the hard visual evidence of characters and designs that are progenitory to the mature script seen in Harappa. Carbon dating is only as good as the layer of artefacts upon which it is deployed.

 

[Vikramaditya1]

Do you even know how much the tax was, it was around or less than 5% annually

I'm wondering why you are not more grateful for it

Alright, let's put protection Dhimmi tax on Muslims living in India. Also additional offer, if they revert to Hinduism all the debts, crimes are forgiven.

It got shoved out of the way by brahmins, who saw Buddhism as competition, they marginalized the Buddhists into the periphery

India can actually claim to be the place where Buddhism was diminished, and jizzya is a levy that allowed Hindus to persist, in a considered way, the contrast its clear

Yeahh no. The biggest problem Buddhism faced was wars. Which Brahmin destroyed Buddhism that was prevalent in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Was it Muhammed bin Pandit and Sharma Al Ghazni.

The main contributor of Buddhism decline in India was Adi Sankara. Add to that they had no state patronage and preaching peace ain't gonna cut it yeah?

Hindus are not successful in India, dalits as a group remain at the bottom of Hindu Indian society by design.

Indians flock when they can to societies which offer universal values, greater than where they are coming from.

Because if abrahamic principles were so abhorrent why would you benefit from it? You won't answer that one will you I know

Of course as India grows the many Dalits will also grow with it. Regardless the situation of Dalits in India is better than Muslims in Pakistan.

What universal values did Saudi Arabia offer? Money

What era do you think you were living in

You were defeated yet you want five star treatment lol it was just a small percentage of earnings that's it

I asked you for what your reference point is for an appropriate values system...... If you don't have one what are you crying for? Paying a tax

Well no wonder they got kicked out.

 

[mythbuster]

Alright, let's put protection Dhimmi tax on Muslims living in India. Also additional offer, if they revert to Hinduism all the debts, crimes are forgiven.

Yeahh no. The biggest problem Buddhism faced was wars. Which Brahmin destroyed Buddhism that was prevalent in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Was it Muhammed bin Pandit and Sharma Al Ghazni.

The main contributor of Buddhism decline in India was Adi Sankara. Add to that they had no state patronage and preaching peace ain't gonna cut it yeah?


Of course as India grows the many Dalits will also grow with it. Regardless the situation of Dalits in India is better than Muslims in Pakistan.

What universal values did Saudi Arabia offer? Money

Well no wonder they got kicked out.

Who are Brahmins , are they Dravidians ?....if you answer this question honestly your entire narrative unravels and makes you look like kalay bander ki Kali gaand ..... throughout recorded history you were at the bottom of racial hierarchy , you know it intrinsically and it's traumatizing you.....get over it , bashing mughals and Islam is not going to raise your stature .

 

[Vikramaditya1]

So, you just "don't like" the Mughals. In a prior conversation you also "didn't like" Tipu. I am certain there is a recurring theme here of what you like and don't like about your own history.

Who even likes Mughals? Only religion kangers like them. Their empire practically is used as a prop to earn money these days. "Come visit Taj Mahal pay ₹600, spend ₹5000 to get there and pay ₹500 to get photo taken with Taj Mahal background" support local economy.

One of many points to be made is that your ilk should detach your entire ecosystem from that which you "don't like". Raze the Taj Mahal once and for all and decline any interest in specific Islamic subcontinental artefacts such as Kohi Noor. Be true to your beliefs and "boycott" the 1000 year dark age.

Addresses it already. Ain't no way we delete Taj Mahal. We gonna use that grave to make money. $10 mil a year golden egg laying duck.

Once again it is your understanding of history that is flawed regarding Mughal decline. In fact, your desperation to declare marathas as scions of ancient dharmic warlords exposes your ignorance. Do you actually think marathas did not align with Muslim groups against the Mughals at various points? They aligned with one of aurangzeb's own sons in the Deccan. Beyond that, there were two independent sultanates who also fought against Aurangzeb in the Deccan. This was all prior to his death.

I'm not trying to, I'm just talking about the reality of history of the end of Mughal empire in a way you wouldn't like it. Can I say it nicely? Yes but using oxford english would still convey the same message. Mughals spend too much time and money on their deccan campaign pointlessly. Marathas took over from them, they are the last major empire in India before British took over. I don't know what to say to you. But these are well written history. I can waste time quoting the sources searching them up. But you can also fact check me.

Whom do you think Mughals were fighting in Afghanistan?

As stated clearly, the Muslim-Muslim rivalries initiated and propelled the decline of the Mughals long before Shivaji squeaked his intentions to capitalise.

Aurangzeb spend 27 years fighting Marathas living in a tent in Deccan and he died there. Not in Peshawar. Who succeeded the Mughals, Marathas. They still faught those small kingdoms controlled by Mughals.

We can discuss Ashoka further if you wish. He ruled over territory by liquidating dharmics. So the question to modern Indians is, why love one barbarian for his expansionist deeds but loathe others for theirs? This "Indic" concept holds no factual basis as Ashoka was an Iranian-AASI-Eurasian Steppe hybrid, like all dharmics were by the time of his rule. "Indic" is a word you have used to conveniently obviate this reality. I do sympathise. It is difficult for certain people acknowledging the influence of external races in their national story, but if truth be told, modern India is precisely that - a swamp of countless different foreign origin peoples who rapidly sidelined the one group who could claim genuine nativeness (AASI) and proceeded to fight one another for supremacy.

Your history is pretty weak to discuss Ashoka Empire. Let's say Ashoka was in fact a scandanavian named Asheshka not some hybrid Aryan whatever.

Lastly, Bhiranna is not proved to be the "oldest site" of the IVC. This is conjecture. Mehrgahr is demonstrably a far more likely candidate because of the hard visual evidence of characters and designs that are progenitory to the mature script seen in Harappa. Carbon dating is only as good as the layer of artefacts upon which it is deployed.

Haha Bhiranna we examined those invisible evidence. Not "hard visual evidence".
We also did Thermoluminescence dating on the crystalls we found in Bhiranna site which validated the Radio carbon dating. When we first did the RC the numbers were thought to be inaccurate we expected the same age as Rakhigarhi, so the TL dating was done which cross verified it. So yeah.

 

[Vikramaditya1]

Who are Brahmins , are they Dravidians ?....if you answer this question honestly your entire narrative unravels and makes you look like kalay bander ki Kali gaand ..... throughout recorded history you were at the bottom of racial hierarchy , you know it intrinsically and it's traumatizing you.....get over it , bashing mughals and Islam is not going to raise your stature .

Wtf are you on about? Who are Brahmins? People who used to be teachers, scholars, priests are Brahmins.
People who used to live in the South of India were called Dravidians.
What racial hierarchy in history tf

 

[r3alist]

Alright, let's put protection Dhimmi tax on Muslims living in India. Also additional offer, if they revert to Hinduism all the debts, crimes are forgiven.

You see even under pressure this thought you have shared condemns you and doesn't need any response.

Which Brahmin destroyed Buddhism that was prevalent in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Was it Muhammed bin Pandit and Sharma Al Ghazni.

The main contributor of Buddhism decline in India was Adi Sankara. Add to that they had no state patronage and preaching peace ain't gonna cut it yeah?

They didn't have state patronage because the Brahmins have a different anti universalist morality


I mean if you guys had a jizzya type of provision who knows they could have been surviving until now.


But the mughuls gave you a system to pay a basic tax under a better governed state.

Of course as India grows the many Dalits will also grow with it. Regardless the situation of Dalits in India is better than Muslims in Pakistan.

What universal values did Saudi Arabia offer? Money

Dalits cannot even escape caste tyranny if they go to silicon valley, this shows you the historical determined system of groupings and caste genetically encoded at this stage, so the IVC tribes would hardly have much in common with rest of India.

 

[Vikramaditya1]

You see even under pressure this thought you have shared condemns you and doesn't need any response.

Why? Do you think it's regressive? Don't blame me, such a system existed in India. Which you were saying was the best.

They didn't have state patronage because the Brahmins have a different anti universalist morality


I mean if you guys had a jizzya type of provision who knows they could have been surviving until now.


But the mughuls gave you a system to pay a basic tax under a better governed state.

Nothing to do with Brahmins, the kings didn't see any benefits. Besides Buddhists were peaceful people they denounced violence and preferred a life style that didn't harm living being.

Sramana movement has different layers. Jains took it to the extreme. But none of them were successful in India.

You wiped out the Buddhists, now crying about Buddhism in India is ironic. Buddhists texts specifically Tibetan Buddhists describe how Turkik invaders destroyed Buddhist monasteries in India. Turushka is how they described them. Lol!

Dalits cannot even escape caste tyranny if they go to silicon valley, this shows you the historical determined system of groupings and caste genetically encoded at this stage, so the IVC tribes would hardly have much in common with rest of India.

That silicon valley caste descrimination case was withdrawn and the agency who bought such fake case got sued.
Caste became rigid after 100CE. And Tribes such as Gandharans were considered near mlechcha, but zero mention of any IVC tribes in any religious texts.

 

[r3alist]

Why? Do you think it's regressive? Don't blame me, such a system existed in India. Which you were saying was the best.

That's the thing with you guys, you don't actually share a decisive opinion or worldview.


It's nothing and everything all at the same time

Nothing to do with Brahmins, t

There were only brahmins back then, all this talk of inclusive absorption suddenly falls apart when the priestly class lose influence, then it was financial and reputational war

 

[r3alist]

That silicon valley caste descrimination case was withdrawn and the agency who bought such fake case got sued.
Caste became rigid after 100CE. And Tribes such as Gandharans were considered near mlechcha, but zero mention of any IVC tribes in any religious texts.

these silicon valley caste cases merely demonstrate that you come to the USA under universalist principles of humanity, you hold the host nation to that standard but then you find someone lower caste and you still want to harm them ....if you can

 

[Vikramaditya1]

these silicon valley caste cases merely demonstrate that you come to the USA under universalist principles of humanity, you hold the host nation to that standard but then you find someone lower caste and you still want to harm them ....if you can

It demonstrates how most of these atrocity stories are fake cash schemes. Nothing more.

 

[Vikramaditya1]

That's the thing with you guys, you don't actually share a decisive opinion or worldview.


It's nothing and everything all at the same time

I'm letting you answer your own question. Since you said how great it was I ran a thought experiment and you quickly went defensive.

There were only brahmins back then, all this talk of inclusive absorption suddenly falls apart when the priestly class lose influence, then it was financial and reputational war

Only smartest crop became Brahmins back in the day, I guess such selectivity brought the results. Only around 4% of Indians are Brahmins now.

Regardless how soon your Buddhist love disappeared when I pointed out Turkiks were credited for deleting Buddhists according to Buddhists themselves. Eh?

 

[r3alist]

It demonstrates how most of these atrocity stories are fake cash schemes. Nothing more.

I think they prove casteism as deeply engraved, that you cannot doubt, it has happened in the UK as well

But it is a bit wild you can imagine your own persecution complex hundreds of years ago but see nothing anywhere else in the present day in your country

 

[r3alist]

I'm letting you answer your own question. Since you said how great it was I ran a thought experiment and you quickly went defensive.

You want to apply an Islamic principal to current day world, and you want to invert this principle for Hindus?


Yeah I should definitely be asking you why you can't answer a question straight.


Maybe because you have no actual real value system in place back then?

 

[Master Chief]

Alright, let's put protection Dhimmi tax on Muslims living in India. Also additional offer, if they revert to Hinduism all the debts, crimes are forgiven.

Yeahh no. The biggest problem Buddhism faced was wars. Which Brahmin destroyed Buddhism that was prevalent in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Was it Muhammed bin Pandit and Sharma Al Ghazni.

The main contributor of Buddhism decline in India was Adi Sankara. Add to that they had no state patronage and preaching peace ain't gonna cut it yeah?


Of course as India grows the many Dalits will also grow with it. Regardless the situation of Dalits in India is better than Muslims in Pakistan.

What universal values did Saudi Arabia offer? Money

Well no wonder they got kicked out.

Oh fraudu from the distant gangetic hinterland! Amidst your effusive diatribe for Ashoka uncle and his love for buddhists, you forget that even today there are SO FEW buddhists in mighty India, that Pakistan has a HIGHER percentage population of hindus than India has buddhists. Could Abrahamics possibly have harmed Buddhism more than Dharma did already, before muslims even arrived in the subcontinent? Yes, you have co-opted Buddhists under the dharma umbrella, but this is meaningless because they do not identify as hindus and never will. Feel free to bring one here to ask him directly. Until such a day, your inability to recognise that Ashoka chacha was AT LEAST as dangerous to "peace loving" humans as the Mughals were is simple RSS brainwashing of your entire nation.

Dharmics were NOT a peaceable nation before abrahamics arrived and to try to convince us otherwise makes you look silly and agenda driven, rather than rational and objective.

We know the Mughals were brutal. One has to be to control so many unwashed hordes in the medieval world. The point is, why do you heap praise on one tyrant while condemning another for practically the same supposed "crimes"? (N.B. I don't regard either Ashoka or Aurangzeb to be objectively evil, simply that they were products of their time and should be regarded contextually, just like the Romans or the Vikings).

I have explained Bhiranna's dilemma to you ad nauseam - there is NO PROTO-SCRIPT identified there, so this claim that it is "oldest IVC settlement saar!" is a claim based on partial evidence. You can do carbon dating or isotope dating or tinder dating, it makes no difference - until you have confirmed some progenitor cultural trait of significance (e.g. linguistic evolution), it cannot be claimed that Bhiranna is the originator of the IVC. Contrarily, the evidence available hitherto suggests an EASTWARD flow of haplotypes, IVC script, city design, and social ideas (e.g. farming techniques). At present, this cannot be refuted by looking at a 500 year isotope date gap in isolation - in fact, it is downright amateurish to assume the conclusion you have made on the basis of this solitary data point in the context of so much other evidence.

 

[Vikramaditya1]

Oh fraudu from the distant gangetic hinterland! Amidst your effusive diatribe for Ashoka uncle and his love for buddhists, you forget that even today there are SO FEW buddhists in mighty India, that Pakistan has a HIGHER percentage population of hindus than India has buddhists. Could Abrahamics possibly have harmed Buddhism more than Dharma did already, before muslims even arrived in the subcontinent? Yes, you have co-opted Buddhists under the dharma umbrella, but this is meaningless because they do not identify as hindus and never will. Feel free to bring one here to ask him directly. Until such a day, your inability to recognise that Ashoka chacha was AT LEAST as dangerous to "peace loving" humans as the Mughals were is simple RSS brainwashing of your entire nation.

Nice coolaid you got there. Muh percentage. Hindus in Pakistan live in a hellscape but sure compare them to Buddhists in India. Lol! You use percentage and absolute numbers interchangably when it suits you. Why don't you give the same rights to your minorities as India give to it's. But then it's evident we are polar opposites.

As for Buddhism in India, we didn't co-opt anything. Buddhism was rather a dharmic belief. Even Buddhist themselves says it. It's cute to see a Pakistani of all people trying to pretend to know anything. It's not as easy as cosplaying Indian culture with Kathak dance then saying "it's muh culture." Don't make such embarassing mistakes next time.

Dharmics were NOT a peaceable nation before abrahamics arrived and to try to convince us otherwise makes you look silly and agenda driven, rather than rational and objective.

Blabber.

We know the Mughals were brutal. One has to be to control so many unwashed hordes in the medieval world. The point is, why do you heap praise on one tyrant while condemning another for practically the same supposed "crimes"? (N.B. I don't regard either Ashoka or Aurangzeb to be objectively evil, simply that they were products of their time and should be regarded contextually, just like the Romans or the Vikings).

Yeah that's why we had to make a point about the Mughals. Defeated them, made them a b***, once disposed their descendants were living as nobodies. Such humiliation is only left for Mughals, rest of the Indian prince and princesses live in a life of richness. Be it Rajputs, Peshwas, Maratha descendants scinthias all of them are influential families, politicians, academics, businessmen, but not Mughals, their descendants well given the number of concubines, marrying ones own sister in laws it's all complicated. Mughal descendants are dime a dozen and we don't know which one is truly a descendant it's funny and sad at the same time.

have explained Bhiranna's dilemma to you ad nauseam - there is NO PROTO-SCRIPT identified there, so this claim that it is "oldest IVC settlement saar!" is a claim based on partial evidence. You can do carbon dating or isotope dating or tinder dating, it makes no difference - until you have confirmed some progenitor cultural trait of significance (e.g. linguistic evolution), it cannot be claimed that Bhiranna is the originator of the IVC. Contrarily, the evidence available hitherto suggests an EASTWARD flow of haplotypes, IVC script, city design, and social ideas (e.g. farming techniques). At present, this cannot be refuted by looking at a 500 year isotope date gap in isolation - in fact, it is downright amateurish to assume the conclusion you have made on the basis of this solitary data point in the context of so much other evidence.

This is where you lost the plot, you see Bhiranna is not just 7500BCE spot, it was populated from 7500BCE and hence there is evidence of continuous IVC. Mehrgarh is like a bunch of people lived there, great. Proto IVC? could be, or not. You say it is Proto IVC, and you think the 500 year gap is the problem? No, archeologists don't consider it as an IVC site and theorised it could be a precursor. You brought it up as a cope when I mentioned Bhiranna as the oldest site. On top of that India also has the most IVC sites and thus obviously most area of IVC sites. Tell me I'm making this up.