Sinauli Chariot? No...Bullock-cart!

Recently at Sinauli village of Baghpat district in Uttar Pradesh Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has stumbled upon the remains of a chariot that dates back to “Bronze Age” (2000-1800 BC). In the excavation eight burial sites and several artifacts, including three coffins, antenna swords, daggers, combs, and ornaments, among others have also been unearthed. The three chariots found in burial pits indicate the possibility of “royal burials” while other findings confirm the population of a warrior class.

The attempt has been to prove that Indians knew the chariots in Bronz age. These chariot remains are of solid wheels. No existence of the horses is recorded in this region. The funeral in coffins is significant because it has not shown any affinity with Harappan civilization, though the beads, pottery, and other cultural material – were similar to those of the Harappan civilization as per the ASI team.

It has been conceived that these are elaborate royal burials and that the population might belong to the warrior class. Of course, these are assumptions. Some over-enthusiastic people have started to link this finding with the Vedic Aryans, and their being indigenous, the way Dr. Vasant Shinde recently tried to link Genetic information coming from some five-thousand-year-old three skeletons, excavated at Rakhigarhi, with the Vedic culture. First of all genetics do not tell anything on language and culture, still, an unscientific statement was made in euphoria in an attempt to stake a claim of Indus-Ghaggar culture.

As far Sanauli findings, the so-called chariot is very heavy with solid wheels, difficult for horses to even pull it. Vedic literature speaks of lightweight and spoked wheel chariots. The burial in coffins is not mentioned anywhere in Vedic literature. ASI has admitted that another cultural material is similar to the Harappan. This does mean that the coffin-burial with the cart-like vehicle was independent innovation and had nothing to do with other civilizations.

Other unearthed artifacts like antenna swords, daggers in big quantities possibly could indicate that the people who were buried belonged to the warrior class. It does not mean this class was of permanent nature, birth-based as Vedic literature classifies population in different but permanent classes (varnas). Ancient Indian tribes of Uttar Pradesh had their own independent practices, some tribes being warring and some not. The funeral practices also would be slightly or more different as has been noted in Harappan varied burial practices.

The chariot (if at all it has to be called chariot) remain does not find any similarity with the description of horse-driven chariots of the Vedic people. On coffins copper plated anthropomorphic figures – having horns and peepal-leafed crowns have been recorded. The peepal tree has been religiously revered by Indus-Ghaggar people and so the Hindus of the modern era. It only shows cultural continuity without any outside influence, not even Vedic.

Indians from ancient times were in contact with central Asia and the Middle East from 7000 years ago. The exchanges of some cultural and linguistic elements were obvious. From these two-thousand BC findings only indicate that Harappans did not move towards the east, but these parts also were flourishing independently though they had close cultural relations and trade with Indus-Ghaggar regions, though every region had their unique ways of the expressions through the material cultural artifacts were similar.

It will be a bold claim to relate these findings with Vedic Aryan civilization which was yet to emerge that too far afar in southern Afghanistan!

No similarity between Hindu and Vedic doctrine

Since I have frequently started writing about Hindu and Vedic religions being different, naturally I keep on receiving many objections, threats and questions.  Just today I received a series of the questions from Mr. Aryan Sharma and I am happy to answer them. 

Most of the times many people are under false impressions about the religion and its origin; hence the ignorant questions or objections are the inevitable outcome. I urge upon the readers to study carefully the cultural history of subcontinent Without keeping any biases or prejudices so that they also can reach the same conclusion as I have!

Q1.How Vedic tatva gyan differ from yoga darshan,Vaisheshik, Upanishads?

Ans. : As per Vedic doctrine one only can attain better life after the death if he believes in sacred Vedas, Smritis and offers respect to the abstract gods through fire sacrifices. There is no concept in Vedic doctrine like ultimate salvation. The concept or even word “Ishvar” is absent in the Vedas like sacred syllable “Om”. Yoga also does not find any place or mention in the Vedic doctrine.

Samkhya, Vaisheshika along with Nyaya and Yoga Darshana are totally contrary to the Vedic philosophy. Also, Samkhya Darshana has pre-Vedic roots those thrived in Asura clans, ancient predecessors of the Hindus. The core of Hindu philosophy is duality in the form of Shiva-Shakti which gets unified in the form of Advaita. Samkhya Darshan treats Shiva-Shakti, not as the personified gods but the fundamental principle in form of the Prakriti and Purush. Salvation is the ultimate aim which can be attained by simple puja, bhakti or practicing the Yogic ways. Hindu doctrine essentially finds unity in the self (atman) and creative source that is abstract in form of the "Parmatman".

Vedic philosophers have been against these ideas including idol worship which is prohibited by the Smritis. Later on, when the Vedics could convert many from the Hindu religion, these ideas were penetrated in the Vedic religion but they appropriated by maintaining the supremacy of the Vedas while giving the subordinate position to the Hindu scriptures.

  

Q2.If Vedas were not allowed to women then how Devi Lopamudra, wife of Sage Agastya wrote verses of Rigveda?

Ans.: Banning women from the Vedas and Sanskrit was far later development in the Vedic religion. First of all Vedas themselves had become indiscernible as its language was a mix of Old Persian and old Prakrits. Vedic language has been gone through at the least five modifications as per Witzel. What women would do even if they just recited Vedic verses without understanding them? A Vedic scholar Kautsa also had declared that the Vedas are meaningless!

Prohibiting women from Vedic rites also had another reason. Vedic religion is based on the patriarchal order where women are treated secondary, just as a mean for reproduction. They do not have equal rights, either in religion or in domestic matters. Hindu order always was egalitarian where women possessed equal rights and freedom in the society. If we go through the Prakrit literature, we find hundreds of poetess and their invaluable compositions. Many female yoginis have authored Tantra scriptures. If we look at the saints we will find many female saints emerged boldly claiming genderless equality.  Such phenomena is absent from Vedic social history.

As far as Lopamudra is concerned, verses in Rigveda have been composed by her to woo her husband to satiate her desires instead of taking the path of celibacy. The verses attributed to her do not create a picture of husband and wife being equal. In fact, her verses are an outcry of a woman who is deprived of her conjugal rights. This is why the Vedics never want to discuss her hymns those are in a way outcry of the Vedic women!

Gender-based equality is totally absent from the Vedas.

Q3.If vedas were not allowed to Shudras than how Kavash Ailush who was born to a Shudra became mantra drashta of Rigveda?

Ans.: Kavasha Ailusha was not “Shudra” though many try to conveniently misinterpret the term to show how Vedics also were egalitarian. The fact is since Vedics had not come across Shudra tribe till then, on what basis kavasha could be termed as Shudra? The only fact is though he was inferior by birth as per Vedic social norms, he very much was the product of the Vedic society. Conflating him with Shudra (a tribe, originally known as Sudda) is not only erroneous but misleading.

Q4. If Vedas brought discrimination and upper and lower caste division, Brahman supremacy etc . than How was Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati able to prove from Vedas that Vedas are for all varnas and women.

Ans: Dayanand Sarasvati was attempting to revive Vedic religion in the new order and wanted to bring non-Vedics in the ambit of Vedaism for socio-political reasons. Vedas do not speak at all about to whom the Vedas are applicable and to whom not. The Smritiers codified the Vedic religion and restricted the Vedas to only those who were adherents of the Vedic religion and social system. So-called Shudras had their own religion and hence there was no need to them to learn the Vedas. They had their own Tantra based doctrine and they have been following it since pre-Vedic era.

  

Q. 5 when did Shaiv dharam and Jainism came?

-Shaiva (Hindu) religion has remote roots. Archeological evidences prove that this religion was thriving from at the least 3500 BC. Jainism is offshoot of Shaivism that developed the doctrine of Shaivait renunciation and added non-violence element to it. However, there is little to differentiate between Hinduism and Jainism. The ascetic ways were originally developed by Hindus. Shiva is always seen in ascetic form. The founder of the Jainism is also known as Adinatha, another name of Shiva.

There also are some more questions; however, I have answered only those that have some coherent order.

In fact many do not like to digest the truth that Vedic and Hindu religions are fundamentally different and principally contrary to each other, the basic being the differences in social philosophies.

Date of Kautilya

The date of Arthashastra is a highly debated issue as it remains unsettled whether Chanakya and Kautilya alias Vishnugupta were the same personalities or not. I hold that the Chanakya and Kautilya are different personalities belonging to different times and that the author of Arthashastra, Kautilya, belongs to the period between the third to fourth century A.D. Without going into the varied opinions of the scholars, I prefer the internal proofs to determine the date that Arthashastra has left for us.

1     We have to differentiate in the purpose of writing of Manu and Kautilya. Kautilya is writing for the kings who are meant to govern all the societies situated in his kingdom while Manu is formulating the code to regulate his Vedic society. Manu’s role is far more limited than that of Kautilya. Hence both cannot be compared in the matter of laws and instructions, barring a few instances where Kautilya has directly borrowed from Manu. It is an established fact that Manusmriti’s final edition was compiled in 2^nd century A.D. though its codification continued for several centuries before that and the different layers and contradicting commands of different times are visible in the present edition. It is clear from internal evidence that Arthashastra is a work that was written/compiled after Manusmriti was finalized. 

2  For example, internal evidence from Arthashastra clearly suggests that it is certainly the work of a later date than of Manu. In chapter 1.3, Kautilya, contrary to Manu, clearly has mixed the duties of the Vaishyas and Shudras which only can be a later development in the Vedic religion. Also, contrary to Manu, he envelopes Shudras in the Aryan fold which was not the case till at the least second century A.D. Maharashtri Prakrit work  "Angavijja” belonging to that time clearly separates the religion of the Aryas and Shudras. Manu also treats both classes separately. This does mean the term Arya, used for the Vedic religion, had taken different connotations during Kautilya's times. It now had to come in use to denote the overall society. Kshatriya from the Vedic fold must have been reduced in number as Kautilya prefers Shudra or Vaishya army over the small Kshatriya army. (9.2.21-24) Also, a fact to be noted is that like Kshatriyas Vaishyas also had lost importance in the Vedic religion as the mention of Vaishya varna is rare in the Arthashastra. Maybe the Vaishya had abandoned the Vedic fold to join the religion of the Shudras. Whatever the case might be, the social structure of the Vedic religion seems drastically changing in Kautilya's time.  

3.     Kautilya describes the temples of the family deity of the king along with City-guardian deities. (2.4.17) He also describes the temples of different deities spread over the city (2.4.18). As we know, the temples or idolatry were not part of the Vedic religion.  The concept of family deity is clearly a Hindu (or Shudra) custom. The beginning chapters of the Arthashastra make it clear that besides Anvikshiki, he holds three Vedas with high esteem declaring his mixed belief. Anvikshiki does not belong to the Vedic tradition. Until the first century A.D., there is no proof to show that the Vedics had accepted idolatry. Then how Vedics could possibly have accepted the worship of Hindu deities as early as in the 4^th century B.C., if Chanakya and Kautilya were the same personalities? It is not a fact. Making idols of Vedic deities too is a far later incidence that did not survive for a long time. Arthashastra mentions temples of Hindu and Vedic deities that clearly reject the assumption that Chanakya and Kautilya are the same person. However, In the Gupta era, as Ghurye has produced evidence, it seems the inflow of converts in the Vedic religion was quite high which corrupted the Vedic religion itself by bringing in idolatry and tantras. Manu does not acknowledge idolatry at all and condemns the tantras. This development in the Vedic religion places Kautilya in far later times.

4.     Also, temples seem to be very rich in the time of the Kautilya. He undermines guilds and proposes state-owned enterprises. There are temples of the goddesses as well. (4.13.41) There also are temples of Srotriya Brahmins, which also is strange as especially Srotriya Brahmins were prohibited from any kind of idol worship. They were considered to be experts in Vedas and in conducting fire sacrifices. Kautilya differentiates Sraut and other Brahmins while positioning the Sraut Brahmins on the top. The period of this division in the Vedic religion also indicates the late origin of Arthashastra. 

5.     In Buddhist and Jainist literature also we find a major mention of Indra along with other Vedic deities. Later on, Indra was degraded and Vishnu was elevated to the position of a chief deity in Vedicism. The process of degradation was complete when he was finally made the guardian deity of a direction. This development could have gradually begun only after the second century B.C. and by the time of Kautilya, it must have become a practice to have his temples built as a guardian deity. Indra, Brahma, Yama, and Senapati (Kumar Kartikeya) had become just guardians of four quarters. According to Arthashastra, the chief deities worshipped were Shiva, Vaishravana (Kuber), Madira (Durga), all non-Vedic gods, along with Vedic gods like Aparajita, Sri, Ashvins, etc. (2.4.17) Temples of the Vedic gods could have been an imitation of the Hindu temples which could have taken place only after first century A.D. as Angavijja mentions these Vedic deities but not their temples.
 
 Because the concept of public temples emerged in Hindus only after the fourth century B.C. and spread in the later course of time. The first example of the temple we find on an Oudumbara coin belonging to the first century B.C. 



The image of Shiva temple, having simple architecture is inscribed on the coin. 

Laxmi (Sri) worship came to prominence only in the Gupta era. In earlier inscriptions or scriptures we do not find mention of her worship in idol form. Only on the Gupta coins, we do find the prominent depiction of the Laxmi image. (Bharatiya Sanskriti Kosh, ed. Pt. Mahadev Shastri Joshi, Bharatiya sanskritiKosh Mandal, 2000, Vol. 8, p. 332)

6.     Kautilya is referring to Kumar Kartikeya as Senapati, which also indicates towards the late date of Arthashastra as from Satvahanas (Naneghat inscription, 1st century B.C.) to Kaniska  (Rabtak inscription, 1st century A.D.) has saluted Kumar Kartikeya along with Shiva and Uma as a chief deity. Angavijja of the first century A.D. also considers Kumara to be a major deity and not as a minor guardian deity as Arthashastra depicts and hence this also appears to be a late development. Arthashasta cannot be placed earlier than the third century A.D. because of these reasons.

7.     The imagery on the coins of all the Janpadas, dating from the sixth century B.C. till the second century A.D. exhibits tantric symbolism and Shiva/Uma images prominently. There also are Buddhist and Jain iconology inscribed on the coins but there is no presence of Vedic symbolism on any coin, suggesting low profile or insignificant existence of the Vedic religion. Also, we do not find even a specimen of the existence of the Vedic or Sanskrit language in any legend inscribed on the coins or inscriptions. The descriptions of the Sraut fire sacrifices, which were conducted by Satvahana and the Shungas, also are clearly in Prakrit. We easily can track how from the Prakrit the Sanskrit language gradually evolved from the second century B.C. till the second century A.D. Sanskrit language only reached perfection only in the middle of the third century A.D. which is the most probable date of Panini. (Bhacheche Mul, Sanjay Sonawani, Chaprak Prakashan, 2016) 

8.     Kautilya provides some information on various kingdoms like Kamboj, Sindhu etc., and republics like Vajji, Kuru-Panchal, etc. Chandragupta Maurya had subjugated these kingdoms and Republics of the northwest and the east was under his control. On the contrary, Kautilya mentions these republics and kingdoms as having an independent existence, which does also not make him contemporary to Mauryas. Had he been contemporary to Chandragupta Maurya, he wouldn't have made this grave mistake. This only does mean Chanakya and Kautilya are distinct personalities.

Above are a few observations that indicate Kautilya and Chanakya are different personalities belonging to different times. The socio-religious conditions appearing in the Arthashastra also are far different than those of the Mauryan period. Kautilya gives equal importance to the study of the Vedas and Anvikshiki (Sankhya, Yoga, and Lokayata), the latter is clearly a non-Vedic tradition, which was appropriated by the Vedics during the Gupta era.

However, from Arthashastra also is clear that Kautilya is hypothesizing an ideal State while using all the possible existing material available to him from the past and his observations of his contemporary society to set a theoretical manual. It doesn’t appear that the author of the Arthashastra was practically experienced in the administrative affairs of any state.

Was he part of the Gupta Empire? This also is unlikely as the concept of the empire does not appear in Arthashastra. Kautilya’s date possibly could be between the third and fourth century when Srigupta (founder of the Gupta dynasty) had established his small independent kingdom, succeeded by Ghatotkacha (Traditional Asura name) and before the rise of Chandragupta (1^st) who expanded the borders of a tiny kingdom. Arthashastra could have been somewhat partially useful to Chandragupta (1), but there is no direct evidence.

Kautilya was writing about a hypothetical state where people were expected to live harmoniously despite their religious differences. The practical implementation of his treaty could have been in parts or none. He seems to have been aware of the surrounding social realities where idolatrous Hindus were a dominant society and the fact that the Vedic religion was completely penetrated by the non-Vedic converted people. The Vedic religion got corrupted because of the converts to Hindu practices such as Idol worship that divided Vedic society into Smart and Sraut sects. The division that he makes of the Brahmins in Srotriya and the other Brahmins (those were termed as Smarta Brahmins in Adi Shankaracharya’s time.) category also suggests this development took place because of the converts. 

As scholars are aware, Chandragupta Maurya had a humble origin. If “Mudrarakshasa” is to be believed, Chandragupta had “Vrushala” (Non-Aryan) origin. The other myths that are associated with the origin of Chandragupta confuse the issue more. In any case, he was not Vedic, or else those who could preserve the memory of Chanakya being a deemed Brahmin, couldn’t possibly have forgotten the origin of mighty Chandragupta Maurya. And Shudra (Hindu) Chandragupta accepting Vedic Guru is most unlikely. The origins of Chanakya also are wrapped in obscurity and the probability is he also was Hindu and not Vedic Brahmin as the masses believe today.

Gupta's origin also has been wrapped in obscurity. They could not be the Vaishyas as some scholars like A. S. Altekar believe. If the name ending with Gupta is prescribed for the Vaishya varna, then the name Vishnugupta (another name of Kautilya) should also belong to the Vaishya community and not Brahmin. Interestingly Kautilya treats Vaishya and Shudra equivalents and prefers the army of these people.  Hence in all probabilities, the origin of the Guptas could have been Hindu and not Vedic. Let us look at the fact that the Satvahanas also belonged to the Shudra, non-Vedic, community. However, this is against the teaching and discriminatory ideas of Manusmriti. Like a secular scholar, Kautilya has given equal importance to Vedic and Hindu doctrine.

Indigenous Aryans? A new myth in making!

There is a serious problem with the migration theorists, no matter whether they are Indigenous Aryan or Aryan Migration Theorists. Both use the same data drawing convenient inferences from literary, archeological or genetical proofs. After the publication of an article in Hindu, indigenous Aryan theorists have come forward to refute Tony Joseph’s claim that the Indo-Aryans entered India from the West. Both, A.L. Chavda¹ and Anil Kumar Suri have tried to disprove Tony Joseph while pushing forth Indigenous Aryan Theory. They not only use genetic pieces of evidence in their favor by sheer misinterpretation or even lies but drag literary evidence to prove that the Vedas were authored by the indigenous Aryans and were composed on the banks of the now defunct Ghaggar River to which they identify with Vedic Sarasvati.

Before getting into their concocted and misinterpreted genetic evidence, let us first take stock of Chavda’s other arguments that he has forwarded in favor of the Indigenous Aryan Theory.

Chavda boldly claims that the family that conquered the world…originated in India. He also carelessly claims that a remote ancestor of the R1a family lived in India 15,450 years ago. He does not forget to inform the caste of the origin…and yes, it is Brahmin. He goes further to use the mythical mother of demons, Danu, and her children, the Danava clan, to tell us how the Danavas were defeated and banished by Devas and that they ended up in Ireland!  

He, to prove his theory, tells us the various river names that are closely related to the Mother River Goddess Danu, such as the Danube, Don, the Dnieper, and a few others. These river names are derived from the Rig Vedic Sanskrit root Danu. Danu, in Sanskrit, meant fluid or drop. In Old Persian, Danu meant river.  Hence, the river names could have been derived from the Persian Danu or Vedic Danu, because, anyway, both religions flourished in close vicinity and in the same linguistic atmosphere. 

In the Rig Veda, Danu was the mother of Vritra, an Asura, and not the Danavas. Danu is also another name of Soma in the Rig Veda. (Rig. 10.43.7) It is used in many senses like cloud, rain, drops, giver, etc., and she is not evil but is praised in many places. 

The relationship between Danu and Danavas is not clear in the Rig Veda. It is far later literature that she has been shown as the consort of Kashyapa and the mother of Danavas. There is no relationship between her name and her being as a River Goddess. In India, there is no river named after Danu. The rivers we have been associated with her name are all, in fact, flow from Central Asia and Europe.

Had Aryans originated in India and Danavas being a clan of Indo-Aryans, as claimed by Chavda, why is there not a single river named after the mythical Danu, though her name survived in the literature, adorning different characters? How large was the population of the Danavas to spread and settle over a large part of Eurasia? And why, except for river names and Irish mythological stories, is there no trace of the Danavas in any literature, except for a mention of Danu in the Avesta?

This is the contrast that tells us that the mythological Vedic stories flowed in India from the West, i.e., Iran, with a handful of migrants and did not originate in India. The Danu-Danava relationship was developed in a far later course of time. The original enmity was between Devas and Asuras, people of opposing faiths, and we get a series of stories of the wars fought between Devas and Asuras, i.e., Vedic Aryans and Zoroastrians, which took place in ancient Iran and not in India.

Chavda has forwarded this myth to prove that the migration of the Indo-Aryan clan named Danava from India is completely flawed, and so is his other so-called genetic evidence.

He has cited report ² to make out his claim that the oldest example of the haplogroup R1a is found in India, and it is 15,450 years old! First of all, the author of the paper informs that the sub-group Z93 of R1a is ancient, not R1a. We have proof that the R1a-M417 subclade diversified into Z282 and Z93 about circa 5,800 years ago.³ R1a is as old as 22,000 or 25,000 years.

Now, when Z93 has not evolved at all during the time claimed, how can it be claimed that Z93 existed 15,450 years ago? Isn't it a blatant lie and misrepresentation of the research to prove the baseless theory?

This makes Chavda’s story a most concocted lie to mislead the people into the Indigenous Aryan Theory! Aryans, if they existed, cannot be proved indigenous using genetics or any other source, whether it be archeology or literature!

Why do they blatantly lie or misinterpret the proof? The only reason is that they want to claim authorship of the Indus-Ghaggar civilization and prove the Vedics, and that Brahmins among them were superior to all those who even reached Europe to spread their language and culture! This is, albeit supremacist, the racial approach that is dangerous to good science.

(In the next article we will discuss the article of Anil Kumar Suri and another article by Mr. A. L. Chavda.)

Ref: 

1.    Mr. A. L. Chavda’s article - http://indiafacts.org/aryan-invasion-myth-21st-century-science-debunks-19th-century-indology/

And

http://indiafacts.org/aryan-invasion-myth-21st-century-science-debunks-19th-century-indology/

2. https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-major-ychromosome-haplotype-xi--haplogroup-r1a-in-eurasia-2161-1041-1000150.pdf

3.    Peter A. Underhill,  (2014), "The phylogenetic and geographic structure of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a" (PDF), European Journal of Human Genetics. 

Contaminating the history?

I came across news about the excavation of a Sangam era site, about 12 KM away from Madurai which shows the urban culture had flourished during that era. However, since the excavation began, the features of the civilization started surfacing, the transfers of the key archaeological officers and deliberate shortage of the funds the excavation could not progress as expected. The matter was raised in the parliament. Archaeological Survey of India has no convincing answer for the abrupt transfers of the 27 officers in middle of the crucial excavation.

 “….The criticism was also echoed by Kanimozhi, Rajya Sabha member of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. She said that evidence of an independent Tamil civilisation was getting systematically subverted.”, says the news report. 

Though I am no fan of DMK or Kanimojhi, what she says indicates to the indecent practices that ASI has adopted since the BJP government came into the power. We have seen that the December 2014 report of ASI that mentions the River Ghaggar as Sarasvati when it hasn’t been proven beyond doubt that the River Sarasvati ever flowed through India. The geological survey that has been conducted on the river bed of the Ghaggar has shown that it couldn’t have been Sarasvati that has been abundantly praised in the Rig Veda. Still, ASI blatantly renamed Ghaggar as Sarasvati, just to please the BJP government which has hell bent on rewriting Vedic History of India.

Recently, another controversy had popped up when the VC of Deccan College, Dr. Vasant Shinde, who is leading the excavation of the Rakhigadhi, had said that he wants to prove that the Rakhigadhi site is anterior to the oldest sites that are now situated in Pakistan and the people moved from India to Sind to build other Harappan cities. No excavation can be done with predetermined objective because the results then cannot be authentic and unbiased. However, a VC of an eminent archaeological college forgot that. How Indian academicians can become pawns of the dirty sectarian politics and shamelessly trample the basic principles of the business they are in! Whether oldest or not, the pre-determined speculation about Rakhigarhi came as a surprise in the world of archeologists. This creates a suspicion on the findings and meaning derived from them.

It has been old practice of the Indian archeologists that many turn to Vedicist (or saffron) camps when retired and rewrite the history that suits their sectarian approach. They even write contrary to what they had written in their papers while in the service. Dr. Madhukar Dhavalikar, BB Lal etc are also a fine example of this reckless practice. In all, they are determined to prove Ghaggar was ancient Sarasvati and that the earliest Indus site was in India and people moved westwards to build settlements. Also the claim includes that the westward movement of the Vedic Aryans spread Indo-European languages and culture till Europe. This is, no doubt, fantastic theory but with no supportive proofs. 

Vedic claim on Dravidian culture is not new. The Sangam literature proves that there was no entry of Vedic Aryans in the South till second century AD. Naturally, then it was impossible for Vedic scholars to stake claim on the Dravidian culture as its progenitors. Still, many have tried to credit Vedic Sanskrit as a basis of Dravidian languages. Many have tried to find Vedic elements in the burial practices of the Kings as mentioned in the Sangam literature. Up to what the Vedic stream is that they want to prove they fathered every culture that flourished in ancient India, thus denying past of the rest of the people, same way they have been constantly doing this by distorting the history in name of the history re-writing!

The 200 BC Sangam era site possibly has exposed material evidence that go contrary to the Vedic supremacist theory. They may impact significantly the known history of the Dravids. Uncomfortable with the findings, most possibly they are putting obstacles in the continuance of the excavation till they find a dishonest archeologist who can come forth with planted Vedic elements at the Keejhadi site, thus contaminating the history of the Dravids. This is not a good science. Let the proofs naturally surface and let the archaeologists derive the independent meaning out of them without any external influence or else people will start distrusting the archeological evidences as well.  

The government, no matter what ideology it belongs to, sould not interfere in the matter of science of the history and should be ready to accept whatever are the material evidences. Thus the fear of Kanimojhi is justified and the scholars of all branches should oppose in unison the attempts of the government (and ASI) to distort the history which never existed!

(Link to the original news item - https://scroll.in/article/833255/transfer-of-archaeologist-from-history-defining-sangam-era-site-leads-to-uproar-in-tamil-nadu

Solving the Vedic riddle!

To solve the riddle of Sarasvati River and original geography of the Vedic people we have to pay sufficient attention towards Zoroaster and Avesta. As Vedic period is based on many hypotheses ranging from 6000 BC to 1500 BC, the same has happened with Zoroaster and Avesta. There is no certainty of the period of composition of both the religious scripts. We too will skip for a while the issue of the period and try to look into the matter of similarities and dissimilarities in both the religions and the reasons thereof.

Zoroastrian religion is centered on “Ahur Mazda” concept, a supreme power that governs the universe with its moral code.   Ahur is equivalent to Vedic “Asura” as “S” turns to “H” in Avestan language. When Ahur is the supreme power in Avestan religion, Daeva (Div or Deva) represents an evil power or vices.

Let us focus first on these concepts around which two religions are centered. Ahur (Asura) is a praiseworthy concept to the Avesta whereas Vedic people seem to have given it an opposite meaning. Asura’s are evil, vicious and greedy element for the Vedic people. Indra, for example, a God to the Vedic’s whereas his equivalent counterpart of Avesta is “Angra Mainyu” who represents destructive or evil mind. Angra Mainyu is an enemy of Zoroaster himself. Angra here means destructive whereas Mainue represents mind, i.e. destructive mind.

From above brief it seems that both the religions had similar deities with opposite attributes.  Daeva’s are bad in Avestan terminology whereas they are praised in Vedic texts. Ahura is a supreme power to the Zoroaster whereas Asuras are bad, evil and destructive elements to the Vedic people.

It may appear from the above that both the religions held tremendous enmity, taking an opposite path of each other, though the basics didn't change.  Considering the similarity in religious rituals, such as “Yadnya” and “Yasna”, threading ceremony etc., we also cannot be in the position to state that both the religions evolved independently in different regions.

Were they really sworn enemies from very beginning?  It doesn’t seem so from the available proofs.  At the least in the beginning of Vedic religion, both the societies seem to follow almost the same idea about Ahur (Asura) concept.  It appears that there must be the close affinity between both the religions and its adherers because of the following:

1.     The word “Asur” appears in Rig Veda for 105 times. 90 times it has been used as synonym of Gods. Most of the time it is main epithet of Vedic God Varuna, Indra, Agni and even Mitra’s.

2.     Both the religions worship their divinities through fire sacrifice, though the nature of the both is slightly different.

3.     It is claimed in the Vedic literature that Asuras were elder brothers of Devas and that Devas stole fire sacrifice from Asuras.

4.     We find mention of many Avestan personalities and tribes in Rig Veda, including Zoroaster.

5.     Linguistic affinity is so much so that both languages are almost twin languages. Vedic language was modified in the later course of the time, but it safely can be stated that the original language of Rig Veda was as similar as of Avesta.

And example can be cited here how the language of the Avesta can easily be rendered in to Sanskrit-

tem amavantem yazatem
surem damohu seviytem
mithrem yazai zaothrabyo

'Mithra that strong mighty angel, most beneficent to all creatures, I will worship with libations'.

Becomes when rendered word for word in Sanskrit:

tam amavantam yajatam
yuram dhamasu yavistham
mitram yajai hotrabhyah

6.     The geography mentioned in the Avesta too is similar with the geography of Rig Veda, including river names like Rasa (Raha), Sarasvati (Harahvati) etc. and their descriptions.

There are many similarities that indicate the Vedic religion was originally the offshoot of Asura (Ahura) centered religion that gradually formed the sense of enmity against Zoroastrians that resulted in distorting the characters of enemy deities. In the beginning saga we find the both regions fighting together with common enemies, however, the battle of ten kings indicate that the cordial relations had come to an end.

It clearly seems that the enmity in both the groups grew over religious or political supremacy. It went to such an extent that the Vedic religion finally was routed out of the land of its origin. Under the leadership of Videgh Mathava (see Shatpath Brahman) handful of the Vedics had to find refuge in the Indus valley and then spread their religion elsewhere by missionary practice. The later Vedic mythologies do clearly indicate the long lasted struggle between Devas and Asuras. It is clear that the Asuras (Zoroastrians) subjugated the Vedics and forced the staunch adherents out, while forcibly converting the rest. In the later course of the time, Zoroastrians too had to meet with same fate. They too had to desert their land of origin.

It would appear from above that trying to find the River Sarasvati in Indian lands will be like trying to find Volga in India. May it be that the Vedics had tremendous affection towards that river and that in an attempt to prove Vedics being indigenous they are trying hard to twist the proofs to declare Ghaggar River as Sarasvati.

It may satiate the false egos of the few but the facts cannot change. The idea of being indigenous or outsider in itself is bad. Buddhas religion spread in the world only by missionary practice whereas it had become extinct in its land of the origin. Zoroastrians and Vedics met with the same fate in the remote times.

Hence, we can conclude that the time of the Rig Veda and the Avesta is same, whatever it may be. Both were rival religions though both had same root. Linguistically also we find close affinity in both the religious script. Geography of the Avesta and Rig Veda cannot be distant and hence finding river Sarasvati elsewhere is of no use. 

Identity Crisis of the Vedics!

Updated on September 21, 2014

People those adhered to Vedic faith in India, before British empire had tightened its final rule, were living a kind of normal life. They did not have to encounter any psychological dilemmas as to who were they. They never needed to find their own roots. Over the millennium they had established themselves as chief priests of not only Vedic but non-Vedic societies (Shudras and Ati-Shudras to them) as well. 

They even could deny coronation of King Shivaji until he proved his royal (Kshatriya) bloodline. The fact was Kshatria varna never had any Vedic sanctions except for the later Smrities.  However, unless one would prove to be Vedic, he couldnt have any Vedic ritualistic rights. They had enforced ideas of Varna system upon non-Vedic society and would decide the non-Vedic religious matters on Vedic principles in British era. Prior to that the Smritis remained limited to only the Vedic society. However, the Vedics enjoyed high status and would forever as was written in Smritis and Puranas. They needn’t think of their origin as Vedas had declared them to be born of Lord’s head. The meaning of the Vedic verses was as if the propriety of the Vedic priests. However, they always were aware of the fact that their religion is distinct and it has no relation with the Hindu religion, whatsoever. But so far there was no racial tint to their supremacist schemes. 

However, first, it was Bopp followed by Max Muller to propose Aryan Invasion theory in the middle of the nineteenth century. The theory made havoc in Indian society, especially Vedic Brahmin. They thought they were part of an ancient race named Aryan which was mighty, brilliant, progenitors of Sanskrit language which later became the mother of all Indo-European languages and conquerors of Indian aboriginals. Those were victorious Aryans those enslaved and enforced caste system upon the aboriginals. Unfortunately, they fall for the prey without understanding the conspiracy. Rather overjoyed by the invention (?) they could not foresee the trap. They suddenly started to find their roots in Eurasia and looked down at the local populace as enslaved ones in newborn enthusiasm. The religious divide thus became racial divide. It was a dangerous situation they were entering into, but the scholars like Lok. B. G. Tilak rather contributed to the theory boosting egotism of the Brahmanical (Vedic) society of India.

The theory naturally had fitting reaction from non-Vedic Shaivait society. Jotirao Phule declared Brahmins as outsiders, vicious and savage people those cunningly won indigenous Asura society putting them in lowest social order so that they could rule them unobtrusively. There was nothing wrong in Mahatma Phule’s argument. He ruthlessly lashed Vedics for their principles of inequality and religious supremacy. Non-Vedics too started to find their own roots independently as they found Vedic scriptures were of no help to them to find their own past. The original Asura cultural theory rose up naturally to encounter Vedic Aryan Theory. In a way, Aryan Invasion theory became the main cause of the racial divide in the Indian subcontinent.

Vedics could see the trap of the European scholars not until the middle of the twentieth century. They were actually fascinated with the term “Aryan.” The term itself made them racially superior and a born to rule elite class. And yet approving to the foreign origin too was becoming dangerous as Dravidians and other Shudra (originally a name of a tribe, forced later on the Non-Vedics) thinkers and political leaders were constantly agitating against them.

Without abandoning the term “Aryan” they suddenly took U-turn and started stating that the Aryans were indigenous. RSS chief blatantly declared that the North Pole was situated at Varanasi in ancient times so Aryans too were originated in the vicinity of holy Varanasi. This argument was unscientific hence it received scathing attacks and forced RSS to abandon this theory. Still, they wanted to prove anyhow indigenous Aryan theory at any cost.

Self-declared scholars like Shrikant Talageri, Michael Danino, and Stephen Knap etc. recently came to their rescue. Talageri painstakingly, sometimes breaking the basic rules of history writing, misinterpreting the Rig Vedic history, tried to prove that the Vedic Aryans moved from East Punjab to Afghanistan and then onward some branches spread Indo-Aryan languages in Europe. Danino and others tried to link the Ghaggar River to the Vedic Sarasvati River thus not only try to prove Vedic Aryans were indigenous but progenitors of Indus culture. The vague proofs misinterpreted and misrepresented though became popular in the Vedic society of India and abroad, but the claim never did prove on scientific grounds.

What is their problem? Why they still are searching their roots? Why they also use the genetics to conveniently prove their Eurasian or indigenous bloodline? 

The problem is with their superiority complex nourished by a grand falsehood. The problem is with their desire to maintain dominance of so-called Vedic culture. The problem is with their own misunderstanding of their own self. They do not want to see clearly what they are, though the abundant proofs show they too are ordinary people, converts and if something special has happened in the cultural history of the country the major contributors are non-Vedic society in various forms…right from architecture to various branches of art and science. They had minor or no participation in it except reciting Vedas and other scriptures, adding to it, corrupting it generations after generations. Whatever discoveries can be attributed to them was always part of their religious requirements. Lack of prominent heroes in Vedic society they compensated by thieving non-Vedic heroes with garnering Vedic elements to their characters. Rama, Krishna and even Parshurama were never part of Vedic society or religion. The deliberately added Vedic elements to their characters are so obvious that they can be very easily detected! What made them do this?

Still, they want the credit of everything that is excavated from the remote past! Isn’t it insanity? Craziness?

The identity crisis of Vedics is self-inflicted. It is just an outcome of their superiority complex nourished from centuries. And as yet they cannot tell for sure to which land they belonged. What is their real contribution to the Indian society and culture? What was their race? How old really are their scriptures like Rig Vedas? Why and under what circumstances they abandoned their own Gods and worshipping non-Vedic gods? What proves their victory over aboriginals and their enslavement and forcing castes (professions) on them?

They do not have answers to these questions. If at all they want to answer these questions they twist and distort the things and somehow manage to escape without giving convincing answers with the proofs to the satisfaction of other people. They do otherwise. They misrepresent the facts. This way they not only deceive others but themselves. And this is more dangerous!

Who are Vedics? Vedicism just is another religion amongst others. It has been proved on all grounds that the Shaivait tradition has been anterior to all other religious traditions of India which still remains practically dominant in the country. The Vedicism, based on four Vedas and various Smritis, having its own ritualistic structure is an independent religion. There is no common factor including philosophy that anyway can even remotely connect both the religions.

Then why they shy away from calling them Vedics as a separate independent religion? Why they want to hide their self in disguise of Hinduism? Why they get terrified or agonized when told that you have the different and distinct religion and do not commit blasphemy by calling yourself Hindu?

They do not know for sure from where they have come. They are not sure exactly what religion they have today. They want to play in both the religions and that too as a leader. They want to keep their own religion and its practices to themselves and yet want to grab whatever benefits them from other distinct religion.

Let us not forget here that India had been the secular country from ancient times. This is why many religions took birth and could spread their messages unobstructed in the country. The Kings and magnates have patronized all the existing faiths. Not that there hadn’t been any religious skirmishes, but still they are not as violent as we find in western history. People too have seen revering other faiths as well while practicing their own. There have been religions those had many factors common and yet they maintained their independent existence, such as Jainism and Buddhism. Actually, there was nothing common between Vedicism and Shaivism. It is Vedicism which always had been unsympathetic towards Buddhism and Jainism. Ardent opponents of Lord Shiva and his religion, its idolatry, from the Rig Vedic times, it is a massive shift of Vedics by entering the Shaivait religion as priests. Historically speaking, the need of the time, survival, forced them to change their own religious stance. The secularity of the people didn’t mind but they did not know they are inviting an evil inside their home.

The society experienced it. They were degraded from their own position of the social equality and an eternal curse of the inferiority shrouded them forever.

Still…Vedics do not admit that they are bi-religious people. They still want to hold their positions as religious and cultural leaders forcing Vedic culture on Non-Vedic people creating fraudulent stories of Vedic origin of everything! Then why they do not admit they are Vedic?

This is because they have the psychological disorder. Just to maintain their hegemony they keep on harping the greatness of the Vedas and when questioned they try to impress that the reading of the Vedas is incorrect! However, their own readings vary with the changing scenarios and they don't mind to it for it suits their purpose! This just is a mockery of the scientific methods. Who will safeguard their interests? They shy away from admitting that they are Vedics when among Hindus but keep on harping on the Vedic superiority to maintain their hegemony. They always are on a quest of finding their original habitat which has been changing constantly from one place to another!  

Vedic people need to come out of this identity crisis and look at the things with naked eyes without nourishing any Vedic prejudices. The ordinary Vedics are getting confused day after day and they do not know what kind of relationship they want to maintain with the Hindu, i.e. Non-Vedic people. Some time they go offensive...some time defensive...but this is not going to help them to avoid scathing attacks from non-Vedics. How to solve the problem is up to them...