History Of India

"Several cultural traits with good Vedic and Avestan parallels have been found widely distributed between the southern Urals, Central Asia and the Indo-Iranian borderlands. However, even allowing for the uncertain chronology of Central Asian sites, few of these traits show the northwest-southeast gradient in chronology predicted by our linguistic models... They originate in different places at different times and circulate widely, undoubtedly through the extensive interaction networks built up in the mid-3rd to early 2nd millennia B.C... It is impossible, thus, to regard the widespread distribution of certain beliefs and rituals, which came to be adopted by Indo-Iranian speakers, as evidence of population movements."

"The indications in the Veda on which this theory of a recent Aryan invasion is built are very scanty in quantity and uncertain in significance. There is no actual mention of any such invasion. The distinction between Aryan and un-Aryan on which so much has been built seems on the mass of evidence to indicate a cultural rather than a racial difference."

"I have always felt that the idea underlying this theory has a basis other than the purely scientific or historical one."

"The idea has recently been challenged by archaeologists, who ― along with linguists ― are best qualified to evaluate its validity. Lack of convincing material (or osteological) traces left behind by the incoming Indo-Aryan speakers, the possibility of explaining cultural change without reference to external factors and ― above all ― an altered world-view have all contributed to a questioning of assumptions long taken for granted and buttressed by the accumulated weight of two centuries of scholarship."

"At some time in the second millennium BC, probably comparatively early in the millennium, a band or bands of speakers of Indo-European language, later to be called Sanskrit, entered India over the northwest passes. This is our linguistic doctrine which has been held now for more than a century and a half."

"Though, to start with, the suggestion of separate representation came from the British, the Muslims did not fail to appreciate the social value of separate political rights; with the result that when in 1909 the Muslims came to know that the next step in the reform of the Legislative Councils was contemplated, they waited of their own accord in deputation/4/ upon the Viceroy, Lord Minto, and placed before him the following demands :— (i) Communal representation in accordance with their numerical strength, social position and local influence, on district and municipal boards. (ii) An assurance of Muhammadan representation on the governing bodies of Universities. (iii) Communal representation on provincial councils, election being by special electoral colleges composed of Muhammadan landlords, lawyers, merchants, and representatives of other important interests, University graduates of a certain standing and members of district and municipal boards. (iv) The number of Muhammadan representatives in the Imperial Legislative Council should not depend on their numerical strength, and Muhammadans should never be in an ineffective minority. They should be elected as far as possible (as opposed to being nominated), election being by special Muhammadan colleges composed of landowners, lawyers, merchants, members of provincial councils, Fellows of Universities, etc. These demands were granted and given effect to in the Act of 1909. Under this Act the Muhammadans were given (1) the right to elect their representatives, (2) the right to elect their representatives by separate electorates, (3) the right to vote in the general electorates as well, and (4) the right to weightage in representation."

"Though, to start with, the suggestion of separate representation came from the British, the Muslims did not fail to appreciate the social value of separate political rights; with the result that when in 1909 the Muslims came to know that the next step in the reform of the Legislative Councils was contemplated, they waited of their own accord in deputation upon the Viceroy, Lord Minto, and placed before him the following demands :— ... (iv) The number of Muhammadan representatives in the Imperial Legislative Council should not depend on their numerical strength, and Muhammadans should never be in an ineffective minority."

"Three things are noticeable about this political aggression of the Muslims. First is the ever-growing catalogue of the Muslim's political demands. Their origin goes back to the year 1892. In 1885 the Indian National Congress was founded. It began with a demand for good government, as distinguished from self-government. In response to this demand the British Government felt the necessity of altering the nature of the Legislative Councils, Provincial and Central, established under the Act of 1861. In that nascent stage of Congress agitation, the British Government did not feel called upon to make them fully popular. It thought it enough to give them a popular colouring. Accordingly the British Parliament passed in 1892 what is called the Indian Councils Act. This Act is memorable for two things. It was in this Act of 1892 that the British Government for the first time accepted the semblance of the principle of popular representation as the basis for the constitution of the Legislatures in India. It was not a principle of election. It was a principle of nomination, only it was qualified by the requirement that before nomination a person must be selected by important public bodies such as municipalities, district boards, universities, and the associations of merchants, etc. Secondly, it was in the legislatures that were constituted under this Act that the principle of separate representation for Musalmans was for the first time introduced in the political constitution of India."

"The image of the whole of Bharatavarsha being a chakravartikshetra is as old as the oldest Vedic literature. The Itihasa-Purana provide glorious accounts of many chakravartins-Ikshvaku, Puru, Prithu Vainya, Sivi Ausinara, Mandhata, Raghu and so on-who accompanied the ašvamedha horse demanding submission from all kingdoms and republics, big and small, spread all over the country. The rãjasûya yajña which was performed at the end of this campaign was more in the nature of a meeting of equals than a durbar held by a despot in order to humble or humiliate subordinate princes and patriarchs. Sri Krishna had demanded death for Jarasandha because the latter had violated this dharmic tradition of empire-building, and kept a hundred kings captive in his castle. The Nandas had won notoriety as an ignoble dynasty because they had also violated the standard code of conduct laid down by the rãjadharma for righteous emperors, destroyed many local dynasties, and reduced other princes to provincial satraps."

"The area extending from the Himalayas in the north to the sea and a thousand yojanas wide from east to west is the area of operation of the King-Emperor."

"The Mahabharata carries a complete picture of this cultural unity in its tîrtha-yãtrã-parva, which is part of the larger Vana-parva. The Pandavas accompany their Purohita, Dhaumya, on a long pilgrimage to all parts of Bharatavarsha. They pay their homage to many mountains, rivers, samgamas, lakes, tanks, forest groves and other sacred shrines which had become hallowed by association with Gods and Goddesses, rishis and munis, satees and sãdhvees, heroes and heroines. And they feel fulfilled as they never did before or after in their long lives. The same Pandavas made an imperial conquest of the whole country, not once but twice and performed a rãjasûya yajña at the end of each triumph. But the Pandava empire is a faint memory of the forgotten past. On the other hand, the sacred spots which the Pandavas visited during their one and only pilgrimage, draw millions of devotees in our own days as they did in the distant past, long before the Pandavas appeared on the scene."

"Iron Age levels have yielded dates of 2970 + 105 bp (TF-570) 1255, 1240, 1221 cal. BC and 2820 + 100 bp (TF-573) 993 cal. BC from Hallur, and 2905 + 105 bp (TF-326) 1096 cal. BC and 3130 + 105 bp (TF-324) 1420 cal. BC from Eran. They are not only earlier than any date from the Ganga valley (which dates fall between 2700-2500 bp) but are also earlier than the dates from Pirak in the northwest, with the exception of an anomalous reading of 2970 + 140 (Ly-1643) 1255, 1240, 1221 cal. BC. Since the process of diffusion from the west should produce rather the opposite pattern, a strong case can be made for an indigenous origin of ion smelting, although it could do with further support given the complexity of this industrial process which by common consent renders multiple centers of innovation unlikely."

"The alternative thesis (Chakrabarti 1977), that iron smelting was developed in the subcontinent, rests on two principal arguments. First, iron ore is found across the length and the breadth of India, outside alluvial plains, in quantities that were certainly viable for exploitation by the primitive methods observable even in this century (Ball 1881; Elwin 1942). Ample opportunities thus existed for experimentation, although given the complexity or iron smelting this is not a conclusive point. The second argument, that the earliest evidence for iron comes from the peninsula and not from the northwest, is much more persuasive, even if better examples than quoted by Chakrabarti can be adduced in support of it. Briefly, while the dating of Phase II of Nagda (the earliest iron bearing level) depends on ceramic analogies, and the stratigraphy of Ahar (another site which is claimed to have produced evidence for iron) is hopelessly muddled, the testimony of radiocarbon dates is instructive."

"Iron occurs in a number of locations that could not have been influenced by one particular source. Chakrabarti (1993-94) was one of the first to reject the idea that the Iron Age represents a "major social and economic transformation" (25). Questioning the idea of its external origin, he claims that iron appears in the archaeological record without causing any significant cultural break. Here, again, he complains about "the role of the Aryans in this context which seem[s] to have forced scholars into a position where their primary concern has been to correlate the early Indian data on iron to some diffusionary impulses through the north- west" (25)."

"The scientific back-up of the subject remains marginal in the country. The government is simply not bothered about setting up a national laboratory for archaeological dating and chemical and other analyses. Even the quality of the Ajanta paintings has been allowed to be compromised."

"Very few Indian universities offer archaeology. They are also fairly unenthusiastic about their approach to archaeological research. I know one full-fledged university archaeology department which, since its establishment in 1960, has only published the result of its first year of excavations in 1962. I know another university department – a Department of Indian History, Culture and Archaeology— where the results of excavations of a major Harappan site are not merely unpublished beyond a few pages but also the entire pottery collection from the site was reputedly taken out of the pottery bags and their contents were mixed up and buried in the trenches specifically dug for the purpose."

"Archaeology in South Asia did not crystallize out of the informal archaeology of enthusiastic amateur South Asians, but was created by elite foreigners, at the capital, by an act of state."

"I would say that the present state of affairs in Indian archaeology also shows, as the present state of affairs in the study of ancient India in the Indian universities does, that ‘ancient India’ does not figure conspicuously in the Indian middle class vision."

"According to Possehl (1999b), "the iron age is more of a continuation of the past then a break with it" (165). Moreover, iron tools did not "lead to the subjugation of indigenous population by invading warriors" (164)."

"My familiarity with the various shades of political opinion among Indian archaeologists convinces me that none of our political parties and organizations has a coherent and professional attitude to the Indian past, archaeological or otherwise."

"Of greater implication is Shaffer's argument (1984a, 49) that during the late third millennium B.C.E. iron ore was recognized and utilized in southern Afghanistan and was manipulated to produce iron luxury items. The fact that there are early Harappan artifacts in the same stratigraphic proveniences as the iron artifacts suggests to him that "the 'Early Harappan' complexes had access to, or knowledge of, an iron technology." In actual fact, although there is no evidence for awareness of smelted iron technology, iron ore and iron items have been uncovered in eight bronze age Harappan sites, some going back to 2600 B.C.E. and earlier. So there was as awareness of iron, which may have been encountered accidently during the smelting of copper, and a willingness to exploit it. The Harappan awareness of iron ore cannot be considered an "iron age," which is when smelted iron items became common items of household use and occurred around 1000 B.C.E."

"Ideas of invasions, diffusions, and conquests have obscured and hindered investigation into the region's indigenous cultural processes. To fully understand and appreciate the various solutions to cultural problems recorded in the South Asian archaeological record, alternative explanatory frameworks must be considered."

"The traditional view, that iron was brought into the subcontinent by invading 'Aryans' (Banerjee 1965), is wrong on two counts: there is no evidence of any knowledge of iron in the earliest Vedic texts (Pleiner 1971), where ayas stands either for copper or for metals in general, and the idea that the aryas of the Rigveda were invaders has become just as questionable. Wheeler's assertion that iron only spread to India with the eastward extension of Achaemenid rule (Wheeler 1962) is even more untenable in the face of radiocarbon dates from early iron-bearing levels."

"The introduction of iron into the subcontinent by the Indo-Aryans is another discarded intruding-Aryan tenet that is no longer accepted by archaeologists: "Archaeologically . . . the problem of the Aryans and their association with iron remains as confusing as ever, regardless of the earlier strongly expressed theories of their apparently tautological association" (Banerjee 1981, 320)."

"It is clear...that Indian tradition, Vedic or Puranic, is not likely to help much in the interpretation of archaeological data. The theories propounded by reputed archeologists are laboured ones and based on pre-conceived notions. Most scholars have twisted the traditional accounts or invented their own legends to suit their interpretations because it is utterly difficult to apply the tradition as a whole to the field of pure archaeology involving one or more material cultures.... [The] majority of Indian traditions are unhistoric and coloured and therefore none of their archaeological interpretations would prove to be free from subjectivity.... Tradition and archaeology should not be mixed together in any form at least as far as Indian protohistory is concerned."

"In my assessment, the administrative regime that takes care of monuments has failed. My friends in ASI tell me that the agency has been tasked to do too many different things, with the result it doesn’t do any of those tasks well. Perhaps what we need is a separate agency to manage monuments."

"The Mysore Archeological Department…came under the Mysore University… [But then] the department began to rust. A few years later, the [ancient] gold coins in the Museum were stolen under the watch of its Director… The Archeology Department has not published a single annual report in the last sixteen years… now the Department does not have a full-time Director…no new epigraphical research has been done in Karnataka over the last several years… from the past thirty-two years, Archeology Research was a compulsory subject in Kannada and History Honours… now, the Honours degree itself has been dropped."

"The tragedy is that, by and large, the Indian historians have very little understanding of field-archaeology and they just make a mess when they use archaeological evidence."

"According to the most popular later tradition the Mahabharata War took place in 3102 BCE, which in the light of all evidence, is quite impossible. More reasonable is another tradition, placing it in the 15th century BCE, but this is also several centuries too early in the light of our archaeological knowledge. Probably the war took place around the beginning of the 9th century BCE; such a date seems to fit well with the scanty archaeological remains of the period, and there is some evidence in the Brahmana literature itself to show that it cannot have been much earlier."

"More recently, Archar (2003) has argued for a date of 3067 B.C. for the war described in the Mahābhārata. He argues that the various astronomical events he has relied on to arrive at such a date must have been observed and could not have been back calculated by a clever astronomer to be interpolated into the text. And, indeed, the different points that are brought together to indicate a date of 3067 B.C. for the Mahābhārata war are too scattered and partial to indicate just a remembered tradition, as Witzel has argued for Achar’s Śatapathabrāhmaṇa date. His argument is indeed forceful, and I do not quite know what to make of it because it seems way too early."

"But that has never kept [these scholars] from treating the Vedas as the only source of ancient Indian history, to the neglect of the legitimate history books, the Itihasa-Purana literature, i.e. the Epics and the Puranas. It is like ignoring the historical Bible books (Exodus, Joshua, Chronicles, Kings) to draw ancient Israelite history exclusively from the Psalms, or like ignoring the historians Livius, Tacitus and Suetonius to do Roman history on the basis of the poet Virgil. What would be dismissed as “utterly ridiculous” in Western history is standard practice in Indian history."

"If the Puranic genealogies from the time of the Buddha onward are almost faultless, the presumption naturally is that the earlier genealogies too are not mere figments of the imagination."

"True, the tradition, which is found in Epics, Puránas and astronomers, which knows nothing of an invasion but, on the contrary, has the IAs spreading out with their culture in all directions, and which places the R V (its arrangement) just before 3102, appears to be late, within, say, 1st-6th centuries CE. But we must not ignore the weighty evidence of the classical sources (the Megasthenes report c 312- 280 BC) giving related chronologies. Arrian (Indika 1, 9), Pliny (VI, 21, 4) and Solinus (52, 5)—all give dates of 6000+ for Indian royal genealogies: so this aspect of the tradition is at the very latest of the 4th century BC. I am not claiming here that the tradition is necessarily correct in all (though it could be in most of) its aspects but only that it is not as late as it seems at first sight."

"The Puranic records are far more trustworthy than has hitherto been assumed. They are the distillate of countless generations of remembered knowledge, especially knowledge concerning the vicissitudes of royal houses."

"We have three versions of a statement by Megasthenes... Pliny (VI. xxl.4-5) reports about the Indians: "From the days of Father Bacchus to Alexander the Great, their kings are reckoned at 154, whose reigns extend over 6451 years and 3 months." Solinus (52.5) says: "Father Bacchus was the first who invaded India, and was the first of all who triumphed over the vanquished Indians. From him to Alexander the Great 6451 years are reckoned with 3 months additional, the calculation being made by counting the kings, who reigned in the intermediate period, to the number of 153." Arrian (Indica, I. ix.) observes: "From the time of Dionysus to Sandrocottus the Indians counted 153 kings and a period of 6042 years, but among these a republic was thrice established... and another to 300 years, and another to 120 years. The Indians also tell us that Dionysus was earlier than Heracles by fifteen generations, and that except him no one made a hostile invasion of India but that Alexander indeed came and overthrew in war all whom he attacked...""

"There is nothing in them, as far as I am aware, really inconsistent with the most ancient book we possess, namely, the Rigveda, and they throw much light thereon, and on all problems concerning ancient India."

"It is absurd to suppose that the elaborate royal genealogies were all merely figments of imagination or a tissue of falsehoods."

"From the foregoing analysis of the data from Mohenjo-daro, Jukar, Amri and Chanhudaro it would be seen that the Harappan Civilization was not found dead one fine morning but that in the Sindh region it devolved gradually and got transformed into what is known as the Jhukar Culture."

"Jarrige (1973) complains of the tendency of lumping everything not typically Harappan under the rubric of the Jhukar culture, "a problem which is further complicated when, by attempting to harmonize the archaeological data with philological arguments, people have developed the habit of attributing to the Jhukar culture all discoveries amenable of offering some correlation with the Iranian world and Central Asia" (263). Jarrige goes on to consider whether there was a disruption of sedentary urban life in the Indus Valley and a sudden drop in agricultural productivity of that area accompanied by a shift to seminomadic pastoralism with evidence of warfare—in short, all of the features that would ideally accompany an intrusion of Indo-Aryan nomads. As the excavator of Pirak, the only well-preserved second millennium B.C.E. site from the area (which he dates from 1700 to 700 B.C.E.), Jarrige (1985) finds a "town" of some size with "elaborate architecture" and evidence of a more intense level of irrigation and cultivation than occurred in the third millennium B.C.E.: "Just the opposite of that which has been presumed on the basis of negative evidence" (46)."

"Jarrige (1983), in contrast, had long since pointed out that there were chronological problems with correlating the seals and other artifacts with the Indo-Aryans: "The mi- gration of these [seminomadic] groups [coming from central Asia] would sometimes be traced on maps based on the accidental discovery of certain types of artifacts5—princi- pally metal objects and seals—which could be stylistically associated with the Hissar III C complex." He points out, however, that this complex is now dated to the end of the third millennium B.C. making it contemporary with the Mature Harappan and not later, as was previously thought: "Thus most of these finds must be interpreted in the context of international exchange covering the whole of the Middle East and cannot be interpreted as reflecting the invasion of pastoralists in the mid-2nd millennium BC" (42)."

"Even the supposedly alien cultures like those labelled as Jhukar and Cemetery H are regional transformations... from the Harappan civilization itself."

"[Mackay and Piggott] overemphasized this single culture-constituent and treated the Jhukar pottery as signifying an altogether different culture, called Jhukar Culture, with a break between it and the Harappan. That this indeed may not have been the case was often mooted, but has now been categorically established by fresh excavations at Jhukar itself."

"Tusa (1977) believes that "the so-called 'grave culture' is not in fact due to a sudden interruption in the life of the valley but to an appreciable, substantial change perhaps due to new contributions that are nevertheless in line with the cultural traditions of the previous period." He echoes objections that have been raised so many times by South Asian archaeologists: "The existence of contributions from the outside, for too long used to justify cultural change in the sub-Himalayan area, has in my opinion been exaggerated even though it could conceivably have been a factor in cultural change without being the only one" (690). As far as he is concerned, "to attribute a historical value to . . . the slender links with northwestern Iran and northern Afghanistan . . . is a mistake "because . . ." it could well be the spread of particular objects and, as such, objects that could circulate more easily quite apart from any real contacts" (691-692)."

"It is thus absolutely clear that: (i) there was an occupational and cultural continuity from the Mature Harappan times to those when the Jhukar-style pottery came into being; and (ii) there is hardly any justifiable case for treating the so-called 'Jhukar Culture’ as an entity quite separate from and having nothing to do with the Mature Harappan."

"(March 17th, 1527) On Saturday the 13th day of the second Jumāda of the date 933, a day blessed by the words, God hath blessed your Saturday, the army of Islām was encamped near the village of Kānwa, a dependency of Bīāna, hard by a hill which was four miles from the enemies of the Faith. When those accursed infidel foes of Muḥammad’s religion heard the reverberation of the armies of Islām, they arrayed their ill-starred forces and moved forward with one heart, relying on their mountain-like, demon-shaped elephants, as had relied the Lords of the Elephant1 who went to overthrow the sanctuary (ka‘ba) of Islām. Having these elephants, the wretched Hindus Became proud, like the Lords of the Elephant; Yet were they odious and vile as is the evening of death, Blacker than night, outnumbering the stars, All such as fire is but their heads upraised In hate, as rises its smoke in the azure sky, Ant-like they come from right and from left, Thousands and thousands of horse and foot. They advanced towards the victorious encampment, intending to give battle. The holy warriors of Islām, trees in the garden of valor, moved forward in ranks straight as serried pines and, like pines uplift their crests to heaven, uplifting their helmet-crests which shone even as shine the hearts of those that strive in the way of the Lord; their array was like Alexander’s iron-wall, and, as is the way of the Prophet’s Law, straight and firm and strong, as though they were a well-compacted building; and they became fortunate and successful in accordance with the saying, They are directed by their Lord, and they shall prosper. In that array no rent was frayed by timid souls; Firm was it as the Shāhanshāh’s resolve, strong as the Faith; Their standards brushed against the sky; Verily we have granted thee certain victory. Obeying the cautions of prudence, we imitated the ghāzīs of Rūm by posting matchlockmen (tufanchīān) and cannoneers (ra‘d-andāzān) along the line of carts which were chained to one another in front of us; in fact, Islām’s army was so arrayed and so steadfast that primal Intelligence and the firmament (‘aql-i-pīr u charkh-i-aīr) applauded the marshalling thereof. To affect this arrangement and organization, Niāmu’d-dīn ‘Alī Khalīfa, the pillar of the Imperial fortune, exerted himself strenuously; his efforts were in accord with Destiny, and were approved by his sovereign’s luminous judgment."

"Wootz was the first high-quality steel made anywhere in the world. According to reports of travelers to the East, the Damascus swords were made by forging small cakes of steel that were manufactured in Southern India. This steel was called wootz steel. It was more than a thousand years before steel as good was made in the West."

"Damascus steel actually consists of an extremely high-carbon cast steel, the best swords being forged in Iran from cakes of steel made in India and known as wootz."

"The Mosque at Jaunpur : This was built by Sultan Ibrahim Sharqi with chiselled stones. Originally it was a Hindu temple after demolishing which he constructed the mosque. It is known as the Atala Masjid. The Sultan used to offer his Friday and Id prayers in it, and Qazi Shihabud-Din gave lessons in it… Jami (Masjid) at Etawah : This mosque stands on the bank of the Jamuna at Etawah. There was a Hindu temple at this place, on the site of which this mosque was constructed. It is also patterned after the mosque at Qanauj. Probably it is one of the monuments of the Sharqi Sultans. The Mosque at Qanauj : This mosque stands on an elevated ground inside the Fort of Qanauj. It is well-known that it was built on the foundations of some Hindu temple (that stood) here. It is a beautiful mosque. They say that it was built by Ibrahim Sharqi in H. 809 as is (recorded) in ‘Gharabat Nigar’."

"…Mahmood Shah Shurky, having recruited his army, took the field again for the purpose of reducing some refractory zemindars in the district of Chunar, which place he sacked, and from thence proceeded into the province of Orissa, which he also reduced; and having destroyed the temples and collected large sums of money, returned to Joonpoor."

"After some time he proceeded to Orissa with the intention of jihãd. He attacked places in the neighbourhood of that province and laid them waste, and destroyed the temples after demolishing them…"