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

[Neojinnah]

India derives from and takes pride in its civilisation rooted in the Bihar province of India. The national emblem, the Ashoka Pillar, comes from Bihar; the Circle of Dharma, or Ashoka Chakra, on the Indian national flag also comes from Bihar. The motto of India, “Satyameva Jayate,” meaning “Truth Alone Triumphs,” comes from the Rig Veda.
Nalanda, regarded as the world’s earliest great centre of higher learning, is located in Bihar and remains an important part of India’s national pride and civilisational identity. The new Nalanda University, established as an international university for students from around the world, has also been built at Rajgir in Bihar, further reinforcing Nalanda’s place in India’s modern civilisational narrative.

All the ancient empires and the very concept of Akhand Bharat come from the boundaries of the Maurya Empire created by Chandragupta Maurya.

Bihar is the armpit, groin and taint of India, all combined together. I know you take great pride in ancient kingdoms from thousands of years ago, but to a non-Bihari, it's pretty ridiculous to think one of the hubs of rape, corruption, and crime in India is the civilizational continuation of the Mauryan empire.

If Pakistanis have "lost" their connection to IVC because they're not practicing the "original culture", then why isn't the same standard applied to Bihar? Surely the Mauryan empire wasn't a hotbed for heinous rape and crime. Or was it? What have Biharis contributed to South Asia in the last 1000 years to make such grandiose claims about their region? What have Bhumihars and Thakurs actually done besides serve the British, Mughals, etc and terrorize their lower-caste Hindu brothers in the state?

 

[Master Chief]

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.

I opened no doors of any sort.

I described the origin of the terminology "India" as a Persian Satrap and then I pointed out the historical delineation of the Satrap in question.

The term was bequeathed unto you, and you adopted it all and sundry. So why then pretend you can define the actual boundaries of the political/geographical region named after the original "Hindush".

Now the question is, why? Why did the Achaemenids delimit India to the region that is mostly now Pakistan, I.e. the Indus Valley, as its eastern extent?

It is precisely because a different tribe existed to the east. A savage group of elephant jockeys who were not known for building cities and advancing their people in a civic sense.

 

[Master Chief]

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.

You're polishing your own turd of a theory here. Who cares what Maurya, Ashoka and the rest of these brigands did or didn't do? They certainly overran the region of Hindush, which is only relevant here as the origin for the naming of "India" given to this precise region.

It didn't include Pataliputra and all these temple townships to the east.

Wiki:"The territory of Hindush may have corresponded to the area covering the lower and central Indus basin (present day Sindh and the southern Punjab region of Pakistan).[9][10][11] Hindush bordered Gandāra (spelt as Gaⁿdāra by the Achaememids) to the north. These areas remained under Persian control until the invasion by Alexander.[12] Alternatively, some authors consider that Hindush may have been located in the Punjab region.[10][13]"

 

[Aghor Warrior]

Bihar is the armpit, groin and taint of India, all combined together. I know you take great pride in ancient kingdoms from thousands of years ago, but to a non-Bihari, it's pretty ridiculous to think one of the hubs of rape, corruption, and crime in India is the civilizational continuation of the Mauryan empire.

If Pakistanis have "lost" their connection to IVC because they're not practicing the "original culture", then why isn't the same standard applied to Bihar? Surely the Mauryan empire wasn't a hotbed for heinous rape and crime. Or was it? What have Biharis contributed to South Asia in the last 1000 years to make such grandiose claims about their region? What have Bhumihars and Thakurs actually done besides serve the British, Mughals, etc and terrorize their lower-caste Hindu brothers in the state?

I was replying yo the poster who said India’s civilisational pride is centred around the Indus Valley Civilisation which is not true.

The national emblem, the Dharma Chakra on the Indian flag, and much of the pride in our ancient history and empires come from Bihar (Magadha).

Whether Bihar has a strong economy today or not is completely irrelevant. I’m talking about geography and historical roots, not the present economic status of the state.

BTW HDI of Bihar is 0.650 which is much higher than pakistans 0.544

Examining the roadblocks to Bihar’s development trajectory

A look at what has hindered Bihar’s socio-economic progress despite a politics centred on social justice. The gap between political empowerment and ground-level stagnation calls for changes aimed at bringing about overall development in the region

www.thehindu.com

 

[Vikramaditya1]

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.

None of this would've been an issue if these UC Hindu Brahmins were truly subservient to British in 1857. As the British remarked, " These high caste natives and more specifically Brahmins entry should be limited in the Army". "Brahmins and Rajpoots are like a box of Lucifer matches."

The point is don't open doors you can't close. Taking list of freedom fighters and who served prison sentences in various prisons in India (political prisoners) would give you a rough idea about these UC Hindu you constantly seem to talk down on.

 

[Master Chief]

I was replying yo the poster who said India’s civilisational pride is centred around the Indus Valley Civilisation which is not true.

The national emblem, the Dharma Chakra on the Indian flag, and much of the pride in our ancient history and empires come from Bihar (Magadha).

Whether Bihar has a strong economy today or not is completely irrelevant. I’m talking about geography and historical roots, not the present economic status of the state.

BTW HDI of Bihar is 0.650 which is much higher than pakistans 0.544

Examining the roadblocks to Bihar’s development trajectory

A look at what has hindered Bihar’s socio-economic progress despite a politics centred on social justice. The gap between political empowerment and ground-level stagnation calls for changes aimed at bringing about overall development in the region

www.thehindu.com

Just when one of your kind is about to start talking sense, you go and blow it completely.

You literally admonish one member for overlaying modern economic status onto a conversation about civilisational antiquity and hardly a sentence later it's back to form with economy comparison saar!

You've contributed nothing of substance beyond this subtle hint that gangetic and indus derived cultures are and always were substantially different - you will find plenty of agreement for this position here. So why not focus on that?

Why name your country "India" if you have little civilisational derivation from the Indus Valley Civilisation?

Do you fundamentally agree with the Nehruvian position or are you one of those sensible types who feels "Bharat" is more appropriate?

 

[Vikramaditya1]

I opened no doors of any sort.

I described the origin of the terminology "India" as a Persian Satrap and then I pointed out the historical delineation of the Satrap in question.

The term was bequeathed unto you, and you adopted it all and sundry. So why then pretend you can define the actual boundaries of the political/geographical region named after the original "Hindush".

Now the question is, why? Why did the Achaemenids delimit India to the region that is mostly now Pakistan, I.e. the Indus Valley, as its eastern extent?

It is precisely because a different tribe existed to the east. A savage group of elephant jockeys who were not known for building cities and advancing their people in a civic sense.

The term originated from where? A river mentioned in Vedas. Great.

You went from "India was “VERY PRECISELY defined saaar" to asking me why I should define boundaries. What happened? Wasn't India specifically defined?

Why Archemenids delimit India to a specifc region?
Quite simple, it was territory they conquered and administered. That doesn't mean everyone beyond that are some different civilization. Archemenids is like what, in 400BCE? Pfft!!

Savage group of elephant Jokey sounds like what Alexander describe some people due to rage of not being able to properly defeat them or move foreward.

 

[peagle]

ancient Abrahamic beef eaters from Canaan.

Could you expand please. I did not understand.

 

[Vikramaditya1]

You're polishing your own turd of a theory here. Who cares what Maurya, Ashoka and the rest of these brigands did or didn't do? They certainly overran the region of Hindush, which is only relevant here as the origin for the naming of "India" given to this precise region.

It didn't include Pataliputra and all these temple townships to the east.

Wiki:"The territory of Hindush may have corresponded to the area covering the lower and central Indus basin (present day Sindh and the southern Punjab region of Pakistan).[9][10][11] Hindush bordered Gandāra (spelt as Gaⁿdāra by the Achaememids) to the north. These areas remained under Persian control until the invasion by Alexander.[12] Alternatively, some authors consider that Hindush may have been located in the Punjab region.[10][13]"

View attachment 212978

Don't like it eh? Let's use your favourite Herodotus again, his own quote says "These Indians dwell far away from the Persians southwards, and were not subjects of King Darius." Hmm interesting which Indians he must be talking about? Care to weigh in?

The fact is did “India” remain synonymous with the administrative territory Hindus? The answer is no.

You conveniently chose a part of History when Persiana ruled over some Hindus and choose to believe only they are Hindus. Your argument falls apart precisely because your own sources don't back you up however less reliable they are.

 

[peagle]

It would actually be nice to have this discourse with such more educated Indians.

They do not exist.
You have people considered as extremely intelligent, able to convey their thoughts in a beautiful manner. Issue of India arises and you can see sense flying out of their brain.

It's shocking how much they lie, because i refuse to believe they do not know they are lying.