Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 13th, 2016, 11:28 AM   #21

mnsr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Asia
Posts: 1,136

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav
There must have been priests among the indigenous also, and people other who were engaged in other professions, warriors, traders, agriculturists. Remember, Harappans are supposed to have good trade relations with far off places. They were not all forest dwellers. But you make them forest dwellers even after 5,000 years. that does not happen in history. As I have mentioned, the indigenous were adopted in the four varnas of Aryans with their jatis. The indigenous kings became Nagavamshis warriors.
That is the most precise view that we can give regarding the connection between IVC and caste system in India. I just like to add few points to this. As per DD Kosambi, the merchant community from the Harappan cities passed into the Indian society as banias. In the ancient recorded history we still saw the traces of their polity in the States like the Republic (Ganarajya) of Agrashrenayas or Agreyas. The Gupta Empire might be the later rise of these merchant people.

Also, the agricultural community from Harappans very like ended up getting the prestigious title of Yadava (originally Ahir) in the Indian society. Now the Dalits, very likely comes from the lowest strata of the Harappan society and many of these Dalits and Adivasis were even more indigenous than Harappans. And when we talk about the current political tensions between Dalits and Yadavas, IMO it can be viewed as Harappans vs Harappans
mnsr is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 13th, 2016, 12:06 PM   #22
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: USA
Posts: 1,843

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnsr View Post
That is the most precise view that we can give regarding the connection between IVC and caste system in India. I just like to add few points to this. As per DD Kosambi, the merchant community from the Harappan cities passed into the Indian society as banias. In the ancient recorded history we still saw the traces of their polity in the States like the Republic (Ganarajya) of Agrashrenayas or Agreyas. The Gupta Empire might be the later rise of these merchant people.

Also, the agricultural community from Harappans very like ended up getting the prestigious title of Yadava (originally Ahir) in the Indian society. Now the Dalits, very likely comes from the lowest strata of the Harappan society and many of these Dalits and Adivasis were even more indigenous than Harappans. And when we talk about the current political tensions between Dalits and Yadavas, IMO it can be viewed as Harappans vs Harappans
There is zero evidence of communities or caste system of the Harappans, let alone the fact that we have an evidence for a merchant community passing into the Indian society as Banias.

Was this concluded based on the material evidences we have from Harappan sites? Details would be great.

For now, we only know that the Harappans had trade contacts with few different peoples. How would that help us decide on the organization of their society?
Aatreya is offline  
Old December 13th, 2016, 12:14 PM   #23

mnsr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Asia
Posts: 1,136

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aatreya
There is zero evidence of communities or caste system of the Harappans
Well I never said there was any "caste system" in IVC. I particularly used the word "communities". Obviously there were agricultural communities and trade communities. Or are you sure we got Zero clue about the Harappan society from all the excavation done so far ?
mnsr is offline  
Old December 13th, 2016, 12:21 PM   #24

NIROSHAN's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: UK/SRILANKA
Posts: 249
Tribal people in india--apex court historical verdict


Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav View Post
Thanks, nice compliment.
Why do not you say the indigenous people of India? We have no information about the people you are referring to. There are thousands of tribes in India. Each region is inhabited by its own tribal people who have various beliefs and traditions. Your are making all of them as Tamil or Santhal without any historical proof. Further, you are taking the view that the indigenous inhabitants would never have progressed. There must have been priests among the indigenous also, and people other who were engaged in other professions, warriors, traders, agriculturists. Remember, Harappans are supposed to have good trade relations with far off places. They were not all forest dwellers. But you make them forest dwellers even after 5,000 years. that does not happen in history. As I have mentioned, the indigenous were adopted in the four varnas of Aryans with their jatis. The indigenous kings became Nagavamshis warriors. Vyasas, Vaidyas and Ojhas were included among brahmins. Now, I may be wrong with details but I do not think what broadly happened was other than this.

Most of the present conflict among castes in India is because of the attempt by the 'Other Backwad Classes' (OBC, read comparatively rich villagers) and the 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes' (SC/ST) for political domination, very well exemplified by Samajwadi Party of Mulayam Singh and Bahujan Samaj Party of Mayavati in Uttar Pradesh. The OBC generally dominate because of their larger population (27% as compared to 16% of the others). Brahmins are just not involved, actually they have lost the most. But if you go by BBC, reports in European media or missionary propaganda and have no grass-root information, then naturally, you will have this type of views.

Then in places where naxalism is continuing and security forces are killed, I do not deny that there will be cases of revenge also. But as you have yourself mentioned the cases are going to the courts. If the naxalites think that they can provide better facilities to people, they should join the democratic political process that exists in India. We have opposition parties ruling in many states and two of them have communist rule. If anybody thinks that they can bring Indian government to knees by violent means then they are under serious misunderstanding and will only face sorrows.
Thanks Aupmanyav !

EXTRACT FROM THE ORIGINAL VERDICT
NB---I don't know the Indian legal system ---In the UK the appeal at the apex court decision is the Final [ Forget EU Court now]--if you want to challenge the decision you could only ask for only a Judicial review --Only if there are overwhelming evidences and if the apex court approves it-Because it be in the kept as the historical document in Government Public Archives as a Legal precedents for future Legal case !
If any anyone who are not happy about the verdict could challenge it to overturn it by appropriate legal means rather than wasting time on this subject on this forum --
It appears to me the all Tribals tribes were decendents from Austric Family --who were the Indigenous people of India only in habitable regions they got fused with Dravidians long before Indo-- Aryan broke into NW India where Dravidian Language was Flourish--Case Closed --Niroshan

ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF INDIA
Who were the original inhabitants of India ? At one time it was believed that the Dravidians were the original inhabitants. However, this view has been considerably modified subsequently, and now the generally accepted belief is that the original inhabitants of India were the Pre- Dravidian aborigines i.e. the ancestors of the present Tribals or Advasis (Scheduled Tribes). In this connection it is stated in The Cambridge History of India
Ancient India as follows:
"It must be remembered, however, that, when the term `Dravidian' is thus used Ethnographically, it is Nothing more than a Convenient Label. It must not be assumed that the speakers of the Dravidian languages are Aborigines. In Southern India, as in the North, the same general distinction exists between the more primitive Tribes of the Hills and jungles and the Civilized inhabitants of the fertile tracts; and some Ethnologists hold that the difference is racial and not merely the result of culture.

Mr. Thurston, for instance, says: "It is the Pre-Dravidian Aborigines, and Not the Later and more Cultured Dravidians, who must be regarded as the Primitive Existing race. These Pre-Dravidians are differentiated from the Dravidian Classes by their Short stature and Broad (platyrhine) noses. There is strong ground for the belief that the Pre-Dravidians are Ethnically related to the Veddas of Ceylon, the Talas of the Celebes, the Batin of Sumatra, and possibly the Australians."
It would seem probable, then, that the Original speakers of the Dravidian languages were outsiders, and that the Ethnographical Dravidians are a mixed race. In the more Habitable Regions the Two Elements have Fused, while representatives of the Aborigines are still in the fastnesses (in hills and forests) to which they retired before the encroachments of the newcomers. If this view be correct, we must suppose that these Aborigines have, in the course of long ages, lost their ancient languages and adopted those of their conquerors. The process of linguistic transformation, which may still be observed in other parts of India, would seem to have been carried out more completely in the South than elsewhere.
The Theory that the Dravidian Element is the most ancient which we can discover in the population of Northern India, must also be modified by what we now know of the Munda Languages, the Indian representatives of the Austric family of speech, and the mixed languages in which their influence has been traced (p.43).
Here, according to the evidence now available, it would seem that the Austric Element is the Oldest, and that it has been overlaid in different regions by successive waves of Dravidian and Indo-European on the one hand, and by Tibeto-Chinese on the other. Most Ethnologists hold that there is no difference in Physical type between the present speakers of Munda and Dravidian languages. This statement has been called in question; but, if it is true, it shows that racial conditions have become so complicated that it is no longer possible to analyse their constituents. Language alone has preserved a record which would otherwise have been lost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
****At the same time, there can be Little doubt that Dravidian languages were actually Flourishing in the Western Regions of Northern India at the period when languages of the Indo- European type were introduced by the Aryan Invasions from the North-West.********

Dravidian characteristics have been traced alike in Vedic and Classical Sanskrit, in the Prakrits, or Early popular dialects, and in the Modern vernaculars derived from them. The linguistic strata would thus appear to be arranged in the order- Austric,-- Dravidian,-- Indo-European.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is good ground, then, for supposing that, before the coming of the Indo-Aryans speakers the Dravidian languages predominated both in Northern and in Southern India; But, as we have seen, older elements are discoverable in the populations of both regions, and therefore the assumption that the Dravidians are aboriginal is no longer tenable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW WHENCE THEY CAME INTO INDIA?
No theory of their origin can be maintained which does not account for the existence of Brahui, the large island of Dravidian speech in the mountainous regions of Distant Baluchistan which lie near the western routes into India. Is Brahui a surviving trace of the immigration of Dravidian speaking peoples into India from the west? Or does it mark the limits of an overflow form India into Baluchistan? Both theories have been held; but as All the great Movements of Peoples have been Into India and NOT out of India, and as a remote mountainous district may be expected to retain the survivals of Ancient races while it is not likely to have been colonized, the former view would a priori seem to be by far the more probable."
`The original inhabitants of India', it is mentioned :
"A number of earlier Anthropologists held the view that the Dravidian peoples together were a Distinct race. However, comprehensive Genetic studies have proven that this is not the case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original inhabitants of India may be identified with the speakers of the Munda languages, which are unrelated to Either Indo-Aryan or Dravidian languages"
It is not necessary for us to go into further details into this issue, but the facts mentioned above certainly lends support to the view that about 92% people living in India are descendants of immigrants (though more research is required).
It is for this reason that there is such tremendous diversity in India. This diversity is a significant feature of our country, and the only way to explain it is to accept that India is largely a country of immigrants.
There are a large number of Religions, Castes, languages, Ethnic groups, Cultures etc. in our country, which is due to the fact that India is a country of immigrants. Somebody is tall, somebody is short, some are dark, some are fair complexioned, with all kinds of shades in between, someone has Caucasian features, someone has Mongoloid features, someone has Negroid features, etc. There are differences in dress, food habits and various other matters.
On the other hand, as stated above, India has tremendous diversity and this is due to the large scale migrations and invasions into India over thousands of years. The various immigrants/invaders who came into India brought with them their different Cultures,Languages, Religions, etc. which accounts for the tremendous Diversity in India.


(Markandey Katju) ...............................J.
(Gyan Sudha Misra) New Delhi;
5th January, 2011
NIROSHAN is offline  
Old December 13th, 2016, 12:40 PM   #25
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: USA
Posts: 1,843

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnsr View Post
Well I never said there was any "caste system" in IVC. I particularly used the word "communities". Obviously there were agricultural communities and trade communities. Or are you sure we got Zero clue about the Harappan society from all the excavation done so far ?
Well I already mentioned that Harappans were trading with other civilizations, so there must have been trading communities. But the question is whether we have evidence for one of their trading communities passing into Indian society as Banias.
Aatreya is offline  
Old December 13th, 2016, 01:19 PM   #26

mnsr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Asia
Posts: 1,136

Quote:
Originally Posted by NIROSHAN
(1.)The Theory that the Dravidian Element is the most ancient which we can discover in the population of Northern India, must also be modified by what we now know of the Munda Languages, the Indian representatives of the Austric family of speech, and the mixed languages in which their influence has been traced (p.43).

(2.)Here, according to the evidence now available, it would seem that the Austric Element is the Oldest, and that it has been overlaid in different regions by successive waves of Dravidian and Indo-European on the one hand, and by Tibeto-Chinese on the other.
...The linguistic strata would thus appear to be arranged in the order- Austric,-- Dravidian,-- Indo-European.
(1.) Well, the origins of Austro-Asiatic (Munda) people is proposed to be Mainland Southeast Asia (ref. Sidwell) and origin of Dravidians is proposed to be Western India (ref. Krishnamurti). Now East India is the place where they interacted with each other.

(2.) Now regarding the substrata, in Southern Madhya Pradesh, Korku, a Munda language is overlaid on Nihali, an isolated language. The social position of Nihali speakers is also inferior as compare to Korkus
In North East Jharkhand, Santali, a Munda language is overlaid on Malto, a Dravidian language. Now I am not saying that Munda people conquered Dravidians here, they just interacted in this way due to the prominence of Santali speakers.
mnsr is offline  
Old December 13th, 2016, 01:20 PM   #27

mnsr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Asia
Posts: 1,136

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aatreya
whether we have evidence for one of their trading communities passing into Indian society as Banias.
Banias we no doubt the most prominent trading community. Now do they came from Harappans ? Very likely. We cannot deny the legacy of Indus Valley Civilization in trading and commerce. I have already provided the clue about the Bania Republic (Agreyas) in North West India from the pre-Magadhan times. D.D.Kosambi has equated them with Vedic Panis (IMO maybe, maybe not).
mnsr is offline  
Old December 13th, 2016, 01:50 PM   #28
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: USA
Posts: 1,843

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnsr View Post
That is the most precise view that we can give regarding the connection between IVC and caste system in India. I just like to add few points to this. As per DD Kosambi, the merchant community from the Harappan cities passed into the Indian society as banias. In the ancient recorded history we still saw the traces of their polity in the States like the Republic (Ganarajya) of Agrashrenayas or Agreyas. The Gupta Empire might be the later rise of these merchant people.

Also, the agricultural community from Harappans very like ended up getting the prestigious title of Yadava (originally Ahir) in the Indian society. Now the Dalits, very likely comes from the lowest strata of the Harappan society and many of these Dalits and Adivasis were even more indigenous than Harappans. And when we talk about the current political tensions between Dalits and Yadavas, IMO it can be viewed as Harappans vs Harappans
Varna system is the creation of Vedic society, and I have very little doubt that Harappan society was Vedic.

I did not understand your perspective on Ahir being original and Yadava being later. Can you please explain.
Aatreya is offline  
Old December 13th, 2016, 02:11 PM   #29

mnsr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Asia
Posts: 1,136

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aatreya
(1.) Varna system is the creation of Vedic society, and I have very little doubt that Harappan society was Vedic.

(2.) I did not understand your perspective on Ahir being original and Yadava being later. Can you please explain.
(1.) Varna system was definitely Vedic as you said we Zero clue about the existence of caste system in IVC and Varna system can't be complete without Kshatriya and we hardly get any clue of warrior culture from Harappan ruins. Rather some archaeologists regard them as a civilization without army !

(2.) Ahir is just one name, many other common names for this community also donates the meaning of pastorals or cow-herders. "Yadava" seems euphemism, same as "Jatav". Well these are just speculations. Nothing concrete. You can ignore if you are too serious about these thought processing.
mnsr is offline  
Old December 13th, 2016, 03:51 PM   #30
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: USA
Posts: 1,843

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnsr View Post
(1.) Varna system was definitely Vedic as you said we Zero clue about the existence of caste system in IVC and Varna system can't be complete without Kshatriya and we hardly get any clue of warrior culture from Harappan ruins. Rather some archaeologists regard them as a civilization without army !

(2.) Ahir is just one name, many other common names for this community also donates the meaning of pastorals or cow-herders. "Yadava" seems euphemism, same as "Jatav". Well these are just speculations. Nothing concrete. You can ignore if you are too serious about these thought processing.
@msnr - give this a thought:

1. Arrowheads, mace heads, spears, axe heads, pellets - are these examples of a "no warrior" society? What is the earliest evidence of a warrior culture in India?

2. Ahir may be the same as the Abhiras mentioned in the Puranas.
Aatreya is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
arachaeology, arachal, distorted, hide, plot



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
History distorted for the purpose of justifying current and future wars Black Dog Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 227 November 14th, 2014 02:07 PM
How to hide the country from my profile details greatstreetwarrior New Users 10 January 25th, 2013 08:36 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.