Swaraj Prakash Gupta

"Generally speaking, a temple is a 'Place of Worship'. It is also called the 'House of God'. However, for a Hindu, it is both and yet still more. It is the whole cosmos in the miniature form."

"Indian art has been the product of Indian culture as the Greek art has been the product of Greek culture or the Roman art has been the product of Roman culture. Indian culture, however, has been the product of two streams of thoughts and practices, one, the Folk, belonging to the oral traditions operating at the folk level, in the villages, and, the other, classical, belonging to the sophisticated literary traditions, the former is sometimes called 'Lower Tradition' and the latter 'Higher Tradition'."

"With regard to the problem of communalism whether it be Hindu- Muslim, Vaishnava-Saiva or Shia-Sunni it may be assumed that the people of India have come of age. If that is so the historians of India should neither look for forces of communal synthesis nor for those of conflict; they should just look for facts as they unfold themselves in the historical process. If they only look for facts supporting synthesis they may be good nationalists but they would at the same time be inverted communalists. Let history be our psychoanalyst. Once we are able to accept ourselves for what we are we will be able to give the right direction to our present and future. … A historian’s commitment to history must remain untouched by his loyalties, political, religious or others."

"The Indus-Sarasvati Civilization is found extending for more than 1600 km from north to south and equally from east to west, covering an area of about 2.5 million sq. km and more. The northernmost site known to us so far is Manda, located on the River Beas near Jammu; the southernmost site is Bhagatrav on the RiverTapti in Gujarat; the easternmost site is Bhorgarh in east Delhi and Alamgirpur in district Meerut; and the westernmost site is Sutkagendor, located on the ancient shore of the Arabian Sea, near the eastern border of Iran. The Indus-Sarasvati Civilization was, therefore, around four times more in area coverage than any contemporary civilization, including the Egyptian and the Mesopotamian."

"All this clearly shows that, in the process of the formation of the Indus-Sarasvati Civilization, which was typically a lowland cultural phenomenon, not one but several regions were directly or indirectly involved, as has been pointed out by Mughal. The usual American perception (of scholars like Possehl) that the highland Baluchi cultures, such as the Quetta culture with roots in Iranian Neolithic cultures of the Zagros mountains, and the Iranian Bronze Age cultures were primarily responsible for the birth and early growth of the Indus- Sarasvati Civilization, therefore, requires serious reconsideration since the pre-4000 BC cultures leading to the 4000 BC settlements are now locally available in Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat, particularly at Harappa, where a four-metre deposit of handmade black painted red ware with mud-brick houses was found in early 1996."

"This led to a serious debate amongst all the archaeologists, of the world who were dealing with the Indus-Sarasvatj Civilization, directly or indirectly, What one group called ‘Pre-Harappan’, the other group called ‘Early Harappan’. Why this controversy cropped up? It is all a question of ‘approaches’ in archaeological Studies which are primarily two—the ‘culture-historical’ and “culture- processual’."

"It would therefore, indicate quite clearly that there were at least two phases in the Kot Diji ot the Early Indus-Sarasvati culture : Old (3500-3000 b.c.) and New (3000-2700 B.c.) The period between 3500 B.c. and 3000 B.C. was very crucial— the Early Indus- Civilization was spreading far and wide, informing us that it Was the proto-urban phase in which new townships were getting established in and also beyond the Indus and Sarasvati basins; the large cities of Harappa, Mohenjodaro, etc. were the culmination of the long process of urbanisation and not its beginning."

"What is, however, much more significant to note is that here we have the longest sequence of cultures, without any break whatsoever, upto the Early Indus-Sarasvati. In other words, this sequence does not allow any outside agency to come and effect changes in the step-by-step growth of culture. If this is realised clearly, it will not leave any scope for doubt in the indigenous of the origin and growth of the Indus-Sarasvati Civilization; at Mehrgarh from around 4000 B.c. we start getting all those characistic features which went directly into the make-up of the Early Indus sarasvati Civilization."

"The balance of trade appears to have been in favor of India; more items were exported from India than imported from the Gulf and Mesopotamia.”"

"S.P. Gupta offered a sensible reply to the further objection that horse remains, if at all they are accepted, rarely account for more than 2% of the total animal remains at any site. Pointing out that the same holds true of the camel and elephant (animals undeniably present in Harappan sites), he explained that this low proportion is 'simply because these animals are not likely to have been as regularly eaten as cattle, sheep and goats as well as fish whose bones are abundantly found at all Indus-Saraswati settlements' (Gupta 1996: 162)."

"Unfortunately, the horse has become a bone of contention between two groups of historians dealing with the 'Aryan Problem' in India, the so-called Nationalists and the so-called Marxists. The former, basing their views on the archaeological findings, maintain that the people of the Indus-Sarasvati Civilization may have been the Vedic Aryans who are known in history for their chariots driven by horses, while the latter hold that the archaeological findings are 'minor', ' limited', and 'marginal', and hold onto the age-old view that the people of the Indus-Sarasvati Civilization were not horse- users, hence could not be the Vedic Aryans. To say the least, this is a strange logic. For the scientists, Indus-Sarasvati people were definitely horse-users, whether they were Vedic Aryans or not hardly concerns them. But Marshall certainly erred gro.55ly when he observed that the Indus people could not be Vedic Aryan because they were not familiar with the horse, let alone its users. Incidentally, in the Vedas the people are never called a.Warohis, that is, horsemen, they are credited only with chariots driven by horses. They ate sheep, etc. but not horse meat or camel meat. Hence, it is not surprising that the horse and camel bones are only rarely found in excavations."

"The fact that the Vedic people imported the 'horse' from Kacch is supported by Vedic literature which is full of references to the a5va owing its birth to water or sea. Uccaihfrava, the a.Sva emerging from the churning of the sea of milk or k#rasllgara, is the ass found as a wild animal in Kacch. It may be pointed out that Khirsar was a port in Kacch and it has a mound of Harappan times. It is all the more important for us that another name of Khirsar is 'Ghodewali wadi', the town (marketing centre) of horses."

"Habitational areas yield bones mostly of those animals which were killed and eaten—the horse, the camel, the elephant are only rarely represented in actual bones, very few indeed at every site, simply because these animals are not likely to have been as regularly eaten as sheep and goats as well as fish whose bones are abundantly found at all Indus-Sarasvati settlements. Wheeler seems to accept this position and never uses the absence of horse in Indus-Sarasvati art to prove that the civilization was non-Aryan or Dravidian."