Motivations behind selecting the name 'India' in 1947

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by Stealth Assassin

It shows that around 327 BC, the greeks learnt about the existence of a land
beyond their current idea of India.

And before 300 BC, noone referred to the region of modern day India, as "India". India was a name given to the Indus Valley by foreigners at the tme, so when the ancient Greeks refer to "India" in their texts prior to 300 BC (eg, the Gandara civilization, the IVC, the Vedic period etc), all these referrals are to Pakistani history and not Bharati history. So why do your websites try and make out that these referrals are to Indian/Bharati history? Why in fact do your website try and refer to history that occurred within the borders of Pakistan as “Indian history”? Surely this is the history of Pakistan is it not?

Alexander himself met Chandragupta Maurya, who later ruled the Mauryan empire and overthrew the Nandas.

Right, this isn't the point. The point is that prior to Alexander, all the historical accounts of the Greeks, the Romans, or whoever, were of Pakistani history. None of it was Indian. Therefore, why refer to these as Indian? Let’s not get into the fact that later “Indian” history could also be Pakistani.

Well done!! You have made another one of you sweeping and grossly incorrect statements!!

What is incorrect about it? Prior to 300 BC, noone in the outside world knew of Bharat (modern India), the only thing they knew of India, was what happened within Pakistan's borders. How is this a "sweeping generalization that is grossly incorrect?"

Herodotus lived in 440 BC, before Greek conquests.

Yes, which is precisely why until Alexander's time, noone knew of modern day Bharat, and believed it to be a desolate land (Alexander did no step foot in India because he was nearly defeated within Pakistan).

327 BCE to be precise.

After that,

In 303 BCE, Seleucus I led an army to the Indus, where he encountered Chandragupta.
The confrontation ended with a peace treaty, and "an intermarriage agreement" , meaning either a dynastic marriage or an agreement for intermarriage between Indians and Greeks.

Accordingly, Seleucus ceded to Chandragupta his northwestern territories, possibly as far as Arachosia(Pakistan and Southern Afghanistan) and received 500 war elephants (which played a key role in the victory of Seleucus at the Battle of Ipsus):

Around that time, Megasthenes described India in 300 BCE in the quote i gave earlier.

Megasthenes also travelled all around India as far as Pataliputra (Patna) and Madurai (Pandya Kingdom), and recorded descriptions of his travels.

Here's a quote about Megasthenes by Arrian:

"Megasthenes lived with Sibyrtius, satrap of Arachosia, and often speaks of his visiting Sandracottus (Chandragupta), the king of the Indians."

Clearly, he describes Chandragupta as the king of the Indians.

By your own accounts, when Magasthenes was writing his books, he was using the term "Indian" to mean anyone from within the Indus Valley (Pakistan), as well as those from within Northern India. Now what Megasthenes writes might be part of today's India's history, but it might also be a part of today's Pakistani history. However, before this, all the history including IVC, Vedic period, Gandara that was described (the real heyday of "Indian" history), all occurred within modern day Pakistan's borders.

From the above, it is apparent that the Greeks knew of India as the land "east of the Indus" by the year 300BCE.

And Gandhara was at its peak around 500 BC. Can you count chronologically?

The verse you quoted is one one of many.

the Majority of the verses, especially the earlier ones, mention Saraswati in them and talk of it as the greatest river of all.

Later verses diminish the Saraswati and give more importance to the Indus. This is considered as an indication that the Saraswati river was drying up.

Well, that’s a theory. The identity of the Saraswati could also be the Helmand, but let’s assume it’s the one running to the East of the Indus in parallel with it. If you read the Rig Veda, how many chapters refer to Indra? I hope you, even with your views, will accept that Indra is the main God of the Rig Veda. Where do you think the name “Indra” comes from? I’ll tell you. From the “INDus”, or the Sindhu River, as referenced in the Rig Veda. If the Saraswati was so prominent as you claim, the Vedic people would not have been quoting verses referring to Indra in 50% of the chapters. There is a God, Saraswat or something, but this God receives virtually no mention in the Rig Veda (perhaps a bit, but not comparable to Indra). So, what this boils down to, is your claim that Saraswati is most important to the Vedic people, despite Indra, the God of the Indus River being the most prominent being in the Rig Veda. I suspect some Hindutva fanatic, or previous Hindu extremist has added the 2 verses in chapter 7 in the Rig Veda, because it makes no sense to have a book devoted to the Indus (Indra), and then for two anomalous verses in chapter 7, you have the contradiction that the Saraswati was the most important. It does not make sense, and the Vedic people were obviously literate enough to think.

But I should say that even the Saraswati, if indeed it is the parallel river system to the East of the Indus, runs mainly through Pakistan. If you include the whole of Punjab as part of Pakistan (which it should have been imo, then you get ZERO Indus or Saraswati running through India. Fact of the matter is without a shadow of a doubt, the Vedic people were MAINLY located in Pakistan, and the only place they might have overlapped into India would have been on the fringes of the Punjab. Even Afghanistan could claim IVC and Vedic history from Pakistan like this. Today’s borders are artificial, and each civilization overlaps to a certain extent. However, there can be little doubt that the majority of Pakistan was the home of the Vedic people, whilst only a minority of India (a fringe region) was home to the Vedic people.

The Indus is mentioned very less.

You perhaps mistake the word "saptasindhu" for Indus.

Saptasindhu refers to the Saraswati and six other rivers, with Saraswati being the most prominent.

I’m not mistaking anything. The references in the Rig Veda to “Sindhu” refer to the Indus. Here is the Rig Vedic quote on the Indus, clearly mentioning its prominence.

1. THE singer, O ye Waters in Vivasvān's place, shall tell your grandeur forth that is beyond compare.
The Rivers have come forward triply, seven and seven. Sindhu in might surpasses all the streams that flow.
2 Varuṇa cut the channels for thy forward course, O Sindhu, when thou rannest on to win the race.
Thou speedest o’er precipitous ridges of the earth, when thou art Lord and Leader of these moving floods.
3 His roar is lifted up to heaven above the earth: he puts forth endless vigour with a flash of light.
Like floods of rain that fall in thunder from the cloud, so Sindhu rushes on bellowing like a bull.
4 Like mothers to their calves, like milch kine with their milk, so, Sindhu, unto thee the roaring rivers run.
Thou leadest as a warrior king thine army's wings what time thou comest in the van of these swift streams.
5 Favour ye this my laud, O Gan!gā, Yamunā, O Sutudri, Paruṣṇī and Sarasvatī:
With Asikni, Vitasta, O Marudvrdha, O Ārjīkīya with Susoma hear my call.
6 First with Trstama thou art eager to flow forth, with Rasā, and Susartu, and with Svetya here,
With Kubha; and with these, Sindhu and Mehatnu, thou seekest in thy course Krumu and Gomati.
7 Flashing and whitely-gleaming in her mightiness, she moves along her ample volumes through the realms,
Most active of the active, Sindhu unrestrained, like to a dappled mare, beautiful, fair to see.
8 Rich in good steeds is Sindhu, rich in cars and robes, rich in gold, nobly-fashioned, rich in ample wealth.
Blest Silamavati and young Urnavati invest themselves with raiment rich in store of sweets.
9 Sindhu hath yoked her car, light-rolling, drawn by steeds, and with that car shall she win booty in this fight.
So have I praised its power, mighty and unrestrained, of independent glory, roaring as it runs.
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN LXXV. The Rivers.

Why do you think that over half the Rig Veda has books on the God, Indra? A God that is named after the Indus River?

David Frawley mentions them as Sindhu, Ashikni, Parushni, Sarasvati, Yamuna, Ganga and Sarayu.

Bullshyt. The Ganga is a minor River. The 7 rivers are the Indus, its 5 tributaries, and the Saraswati most likely. Noone believes the Ganges to be one of the rivers of the Sapta Sindhu.

Saraswati, Satadru (Sutlej), Vipasa (Beas), Asikni (Chenab), Parosni (Ravi), Vitasta (Jhelum) and Sindhu (Indus).
The Saraswati:- Where lies the mystery

The Ganges receives virtually no mention in the Rig Veda. Frawley is a Hindu convert and avid Hindutva fanatic. It’s well known he has an institute on Hinduism and te main beneficiaries of such an institution would be Hindutva fanatics. He is not neutral, and noone (except Hindutva) would agree the Ganges to be a part of the 7 rivers. It’s an illogical theory.

The Vedic descriptions match the region of modern Northern Punjab.

The Vedic descriptions match the whole of Pakistan. Not a single bit of India in fact. Only a minority of India is described. The Kabul River is mentioned in there too. The main river systems however are centred on todays Pakistan.

Also, the people described are nomadic, so we can't really put a specific location to them.

Good grief, the Vedic people weren’t like gypsies living in caravans, you know!. They had a home, and whilst they did move around sometime, they were not shifting their homeland constantly. They were nomadic in the sense the Vedic people were immigrating and emigrating, North and South, into and out of the Vedic region.

That is incorrect. The Saraswati is given prime importance ,except toward later verses.

Except book 7, where else is the Saraswati given “prime importance”? Why do you think Indra is mentioned in almost every verse of the Rig Veda, and Saravaat is mentioned perhaps only once or twice?

Vedic people were nomadic. So, they can't be ascribed to any one side of the border.

They travelled as far as the Ganges.

Weak argument. One or two tribes did migrate to the Ganges and set up shop later in the Vedic period. But the Vedic homeland never went that far. The Vedic homeland is described pretty much as all of Pakistan, and up till the Yamuna as the Eastern border at the height of Vedic power. Basically the Eastern border of Punjab and all of Pakistan. This is the commonly accepted theory. Migration to the Ganges was negligible. You can see this by the way people look, and even their genetics.

Also, they seem to have regarded the Saraswati river as the most important, jjudging by the Rigveda.

The Saraswati references in the Rig Veda are most likely manipulated by later Hindus. You, and the Hindutva ned to come up with an explanation as to why Indra was the most popular God, and Sarasvaat receives only a passing mention. Why would the Vedic people name their most popular God after a weaker river?

More likely is the following map:

That map is bull. It’s made by someone off wiki. Cemetary H never went into India even.



Anyhoe Cemetary H was not culturally Vedic, and not Rig Vedic. The Gandharan grave system was in fact Vedic. Gandhara never went into today’s Bharat in the slightest, so thankfully it’s something you guys cannot leech, and it’s good proof of Rig Vedic ancestry in Pakistan. (I totally acknowledge later Vedas being composed in Bharat by Bharatis, but not the Rig Veda, which is the Veda of the Rig Vedic Aryans).

The Painted Gray Ware culture is correctly a fully Indian (Bharati) thing, but it is not a Rig Vedic culture.

I don't know what you mean by aryans. There is no civilization or people called aryans.

Gandharan is located geographically outside India. But its cultural center lay to the east.

Lol, so Gandharan culture lay in Bharat now? Joke. Gandharan culture, if anything came from the North and West. Much of the Buddhist stuff was not the same as the Buddhist stuff going on elsewhere because it was developed separately in Pakistan and led to the two schools of Buddhist though (the Pakistani developed one became the major one and travelled to China, Japan and so on) (Mahayana), the South Indian/Tamil/Sri Lankan thought travelled to Cambodia (Theravada).

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

What is incorrect about it? Prior to 300 BC, noone in the outside world knew of Bharat (modern India), the only thing they knew of India, was what happened within Pakistan's borders. How is this a "sweeping generalization that is grossly incorrect?"

So if I understand you correctly, we are referring to the history of the sub continent as reported by historians and travellers who visited "india", which at that time consisted only of the region that now makes up Pakistan, hence any reports from that era obviously describe the civilizations and culture that existed in what is know Pakistan.

Now a couple of arguments against this come to mind.

1. Just because the ancient outsiders did not travel to the remainder of India does not mean that the civilizations did not exist in India as well.

But if these civilizations did indeed stretch into India, why didn't the native people the foreign travellers interacted with communicate such a thing to them?
Instead there were hundreds of years before the maps, as RR posted, were changed to show a larger subcontinent. So even if other civilizations existed in what is now Bharat, the people of the India known at that time did not care for them much, or did not know of them, considering they didn't bother to tell the outsiders.

Does that argument make sense?

2. Even if the outsiders, and the people of "Pakistan", did not know of the existence of civilizations in "Bharat", wouldn't there still have been people living there?
Who were these people then?
Or was the rest of India mostly unpopulated, except by cultures similar to the neolithic cultures in the south?

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

So if I understand you correctly, we are referring to the history of the sub continent as reported by historians and travellers who visited "india", which at that time consisted only of the region that now makes up Pakistan, hence any reports from that era obviously describe the civilizations and culture that existed in what is know Pakistan.

Yes. India was never a country after the Vedic period. Whenever travellers referred to India before about 0 AD, they meant Pakistan. Herodotus's visits to India, Huan Tsuang, all quote Pakistan's history, not India's, though some Bharati websites call it "Indian history" in the sense that it is their history. Basically, todays India has no claim on anything before 300 BC by travellers to "India", and has no claim on Gandhara, or the Rig Vedic people (the Yajur Vedic people were completely Bharati), but the true Vedic period was the Rig Vedic period. After this, you can tell the Yajur Veda has been written by some Bharati by its content. I don't believe Bharat has a claim on the IVC. These mysterious Bharati sites have not been excavated by any non Indians. My contention I suppose is that the most of the great "Indian civilizations" were in fact Pakistani (IVC, Gandhara, Vedic). If India had any it was like the Gupta Empire. How many "Indian" websites glorify the Gupta Empire, how many go on about the Vedic and IVC as their own? They all focus on Pakistani history and call it "Indian".

Now a couple of arguments against this come to mind.

1. Just because the ancient outsiders did not travel to the remainder of India does not mean that the civilizations did not exist in India as well.

Agreed

But if these civilizations did indeed stretch into India, why didn't the native people the foreign travellers interacted with communicate such a thing to them?

Pakistan was the place where Herodotus described his gold digging ants. So perhaps the resources were plentiful there. Also the irrigation of the rivers was good in ancient Pakistan. Bharat was probably pretty arid in comparison. It's a good question. why didn't they go into Bharat?

Instead there were hundreds of years before the maps, as RR posted, were changed to show a larger subcontinent. So even if other civilizations existed in what is now Bharat, the people of the India known at that time did not care for them much, or did not know of them, considering they didn't bother to tell the outsiders.

True. Pakistan was part of Persian and Northern Empires. They obviously didn't bother to tell the Greeks and others about what lay beyond Pakistan. Wonder why.

2. Even if the outsiders, and the people of "Pakistan", did not know of the existence of civilizations in "Bharat", wouldn't there still have been people living there?

Definitely

Who were these people then?

The ancestors of modern day Indians.

Or was the rest of India mostly unpopulated, except by cultures similar to the neolithic cultures in the south?

It was populated alright. Probably densely populated. But noone bothered to record the cultures.

[Flintlock]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

And before 300 BC, noone referred to the region of modern day India, as "India". India was a name given to the Indus Valley by foreigners at the tme, so when the ancient Greeks refer to "India" in their texts prior to 300 BC (eg, the Gandara civilization, the IVC, the Vedic period etc), all these referrals are to Pakistani history and not Bharati history.

You are correct about the Greek description of India before 300 BC.

However, I would remind you, once again, that the location of the IVC lies on both sides of the border.
Also, the hypothetical location of the Vedic people extends from Afghanistan to the Ganges, centering around the Punjab region.

So why do your websites try and make out that these referrals are to Indian/Bharati history? Why in fact do your website try and refer to history that occurred within the borders of Pakistan as “Indian history”? Surely this is the history of Pakistan is it not?

My websites? I don't remember hosting any website...

Yes, but since the term "Ancient India" is universally accepted to mean modern day India+Pakistan, the usage of "Ancient India" is totally acceptable.

However, to consider the history of Gandhara as the history of Modern India would be incorrect.

I don't see why you are putting this point forward since I never referred to Gandharan kingdoms as the history of Modern India.

Right, this isn't the point. The point is that prior to Alexander, all the historical accounts of the Greeks, the Romans, or whoever, were of Pakistani history. None of it was Indian. Therefore, why refer to these as Indian?

The Romans came after the Greeks.....

As far as Herodotus is concerned, as far as I know, no one can tell the exact extent of his travels.

There is no reason to believe that he didn't enter the region of modern Indian Punjab, or Haryana.

Remember, the present border was drawn by the British in a highly arbritrary manner, simply dividing on the basis Hindus/Muslims and not ethniticity.

Yes, which is precisely why until Alexander's time, noone knew of modern day Bharat, and believed it to be a desolate land (Alexander did no step foot in India because he was nearly defeated within Pakistan).

I am not sure about the defeated part, since the local king became his subordinate.

However, the currently accepted version of events is that Alexander's troops refused to march forth, deterred by the news of a powerful king to the east.

Perhaps this news was brought to him by spies, or perhaps the eastern king did a show of strength.

Due to this, Alexander limited his conquests along the Indus and conquered territory till the sea.

By your own accounts, when Magasthenes was writing his books, he was using the term "Indian" to mean anyone from within the Indus Valley (Pakistan), as well as those from within Northern India. Now what Megasthenes writes might be part of today's India's history, but it might also be a part of today's Pakistani history.

I am not sure exactly what else he wrote, but he had certainly traveled to both modern India and Pakistan.

However, before this, all the history including IVC, Vedic period, Gandara that was described (the real heyday of "Indian" history), all occurred within modern day Pakistan's borders.

Once again, IVC is on both sides of the border, and the location of the Vedic period is a vast one.

Gandhara can certainly be called Pakistani history, or Ancient Indian history, whichever term is more preferable to you.

(I"m guessing its Pakistani )

However, as far as the "heyday" of Ancient India goes, there are several other "golden ages" as you might like to call them.

Once again I'd remind you, that the British drawn border is not the exact dividing line by a long shot.

And Gandhara was at its peak around 500 BC. Can you count chronologically?

Gandhara under the Greeks was also known as Gandhara. I'm not sure which period was its peak....

Well, that’s a theory. The identity of the Saraswati could also be the Helmand, but let’s assume it’s the one running to the East of the Indus in parallel with it. If you read the Rig Veda, how many chapters refer to Indra? I hope you, even with your views, will accept that Indra is the main God of the Rig Veda. Where do you think the name “Indra” comes from? I’ll tell you. From the “INDus”, or the Sindhu River, as referenced in the Rig Veda. If the Saraswati was so prominent as you claim, the Vedic people would not have been quoting verses referring to Indra in 50% of the chapters.

Indra Means "possessing drops of rain" from Sanskrit इन्दु (indu) "a drop" and र (ra) "possessing". Indra is the name of the ancient Hindu warrior god of the sky and rain. He is the chief god in the Hindu text the Rigveda.

Let me remind you that "Indus" is the westernized version of the sanskrit name "Sindhu".

There is a God, Saraswat or something, but this God receives virtually no mention in the Rig Veda (perhaps a bit, but not comparable to Indra). So, what this boils down to, is your claim that Saraswati is most important to the Vedic people, despite Indra, the God of the Indus River being the most prominent being in the Rig Veda.

Indra is definitely the most prominent god in the Rigveda.

However, his association with the Sindhu river is not apparent.

I suspect some Hindutva fanatic, or previous Hindu extremist has added the 2 verses in chapter 7 in the Rig Veda, because it makes no sense to have a book devoted to the Indus (Indra), and then for two anomalous verses in chapter 7, you have the contradiction that the Saraswati was the most important. It does not make sense, and the Vedic people were obviously literate enough to think.

Again, Indra has no apparent association with Sindhu river.

The ganges river is mentioned in the later versus. Scholars generally hold the opinion that this indicates the eastward migration of the Vedic people due to the drying up of the Saraswati.

There is also one important evidence of this migration. As you know, in ancient India, caste played a vital role.

There is a particular caste of Saraswat Brahmins, who, have maintained their genetic "purity" if you will, since ancient times. They claim descent from the vedic people living near the Saraswati.

I am not sure whether these people exist in Pakistani anymore, since people have lost caste identity due to conversion to islam.

These brahmins are spread out in the states of Punjab, Maharashtra, UP, Kashmir etc.

Several scrolls have been found that record this migration. Also Saraswat brahmins are mentioned in the Vedas, Mahabharata and Ramayana.

(I'd like to point out that I'm not trying to promote caste system, but simply stating the facts as they are)

Saraswati is indeed the most important river in the Rigveda.

The Rigveda is unchanged since antiquity, due to a unique code of verse memorization, and later, writing. The contention that it has been modified recently is simply laughable.

But I should say that even the Saraswati, if indeed it is the parallel river system to the East of the Indus, runs mainly through Pakistan. If you include the whole of Punjab as part of Pakistan (which it should have been imo, then you get ZERO Indus or Saraswati running through India.

Exact path of Saraswati is indeed speculative.

However, current research by satellite mapping, groundwater analysis, analysis of present rivers etc. indicates that it originated somewhere in the Garhwal region of the Himalayas.

Scientific analysis also suggests that it is likely to have shifted westwards as the tectonic plates shifted, sea levels changed, and the region became hotter and dryer.

Here is a detailed article about recent studies done on the course of the Saraswati river:

Saraswati – the ancient river lost in the desert

Indian Punjab is part of India, and speculating it as part of Pakistan doesn't strenghten your arguments.

Fact of the matter is without a shadow of a doubt, the Vedic people were MAINLY located in Pakistan, and the only place they might have overlapped into India would have been on the fringes of the Punjab.

I would have to disagree with that. With Sarswati as the most important river, the exact location of these people cannot be ascertained.

They might have roamed the plains of Punjab, Haryana, as well as the area of the Indus.
There is absolutely no way of pinpointing where, especially not on the basis of a 20th century border.

Even Afghanistan could claim IVC and Vedic history from Pakistan like this. Today’s borders are artificial, and each civilization overlaps to a certain extent. However, there can be little doubt that the majority of Pakistan was the home of the Vedic people, whilst only a minority of India (a fringe region) was home to the Vedic people.

The Afghanistan theory is a fringe one, and little support exists for it.

Again, your contention is highly debatable with the present evidence.

I’m not mistaking anything. The references in the Rig Veda to “Sindhu” refer to the Indus. Here is the Rig Vedic quote on the Indus, clearly mentioning its prominence.

If you carefully study the Rigveda, the Saraswati is the chief river, mother of floods, the best goddess, etc.

Below is a nice quote to sum it up:

"Sanskrit sindhu generically means "river, stream", probably from a root sidh "to keep off"; sindhu is attested 176 times in the Rigveda, 95 times in the plural, more often used in the generic meaning. Already in the Rigveda, notably in the later hymns, the meaning of the word is narrowed to refer to the Indus river in particular, for example in the list of rivers of the Nadistuti sukta. "

As you can see, Sindhu in the Rigveda is a generic word for river or stream, but in later verses, is narrowed down to mean the Indus river itself.

The quote that you gave was infact from the Nadistuti sukta, which is one of the later hymns.
Verses 1,2,7,8,9 praise the Indus
Verse 5 lists the rivers from west to east, starting with Ganga, Yamuna and ending with Susoma.
Verse 6 lists the tributaries of the Indus right up to Afghanistan.

The Chronology of the Rigveda

Why do you think that over half the Rig Veda has books on the God, Indra? A God that is named after the Indus River?

Again, Indra doesn't appear to have a connection with Sindhu.

Bullshyt. The Ganga is a minor River. The 7 rivers are the Indus, its 5 tributaries, and the Saraswati most likely. Noone believes the Ganges to be one of the rivers of the Sapta Sindhu.

Saraswati, Satadru (Sutlej), Vipasa (Beas), Asikni (Chenab), Parosni (Ravi), Vitasta (Jhelum) and Sindhu (Indus).


The Saraswati:- Where lies the mystery

This is also one of the arrangements, however, there is little support for or against either theory.

I would like to argue that the rivers in the saptasindhu, are said to be fluctuating, so the importance is given to the number 7, in relation to the saptarishi constellation.

Also, it is likely that the bigger rivers would be given more importance, as compared to minor ones, so the contention that Ganges and Yamuna are part of saptasindhu is not untenable.

Additionally, the Saptasindhu reference is very common in the rigveda. This indicates that it has been present throughout its evolution.
Now, the Saraswati too is given prominence throughout the Rigveda, and its origin is mentioned in one of the earliest books (book 7) as "the mountains".

This would indicate that the early vedic people knew about the origin of the saraswati, which is today considered to be in the Garhwal region of the Himalayas (Uttaranchal).

Because of this, these early vedic people can be considered to have lived closer to the Indian Punjab and Haryana region than the region to the east of the thar desert.

The Ganges receives virtually no mention in the Rig Veda. Frawley is a Hindu convert and avid Hindutva fanatic. It’s well known he has an institute on Hinduism and te main beneficiaries of such an institution would be Hindutva fanatics. He is not neutral, and noone (except Hindutva) would agree the Ganges to be a part of the 7 rivers. It’s an illogical theory.

I am not to sure about that. Just because he is hindu, you cannot discount his theories.

Perhaps you should read what he has to say and make up your own mind rather than dismiss him.

Infact, his books about the Vedic civilization and IVC have sparked a revolution of sorts in historical circles.

The Vedic descriptions match the whole of Pakistan. Not a single bit of India in fact. Only a minority of India is described. The Kabul River is mentioned in there too. The main river systems however are centred on todays Pakistan.

I am not sure about that. Most, if not all of the rivers in the Saptasindhu that
you describe, originate in India and flow through Punjab and haryana, himachal pradesh.

So even if the ganges and yamuna are excluded, the region Punjab+Haryana
is the likely region for the composition of the earlier hymns, considering the arguments that I made earlier.

Whether "more" of it lay in Indian Punjab, or Pakistani Punjab, is debatable, but I would favour Indian Punjab considering that the earliest verses describe the source of the Saraswati.

Good grief, the Vedic people weren’t like gypsies living in caravans, you know!. They had a home, and whilst they did move around sometime, they were not shifting their homeland constantly. They were nomadic in the sense the Vedic people were immigrating and emigrating, North and South, into and out of the Vedic region.

They didn't have caravans I'm sure.

However, they didn't cultivate land and perhaps moved frequently in search of wild plants and animals.

So it is entirely possible that they shifted their bases quite frequently, and over a period of a thousand years, this accounts to a lot of migration.

Except book 7, where else is the Saraswati given “prime importance”? Why do you think Indra is mentioned in almost every verse of the Rig Veda, and Saravaat is mentioned perhaps only once or twice?

Saraswati is mentioned quite promently as the greatest of the seven rivers.
In addition, most of the Sindhu references are generic rather than specifically the Indus river.

Your Indra theory is bunk.

Weak argument. One or two tribes did migrate to the Ganges and set up shop later in the Vedic period.

Lol...one or two of the tribes?? How do you know so much about how many tribes were there and how many moved?

But the Vedic homeland never went that far. The Vedic homeland is described pretty much as all of Pakistan, and up till the Yamuna as the Eastern border at the height of Vedic power.

I doubt there is anything called "vedic power" but still....

The "vedic homeland" is described on the basis of the rivers, and the region is Punjab and perhaps parts of Haryana.

Basically the Eastern border of Punjab and all of Pakistan. This is the commonly accepted theory. Migration to the Ganges was negligible. You can see this by the way people look, and even their genetics.

Er....I doubt that.

I don't see what genetics has to do with all of this. We don't know what the vedic people looked like or whether they were fair or dark.

Incidentally, herodotus's description of Indians describes them as "dark as ethiopians".

The Saraswati references in the Rig Veda are most likely manipulated by later Hindus.

Lol...thats a fantastic theory. How do you think? The Rigveda remains unchanged since it was transmitted by oral word-by-word memorization by making word poems.

You, and the Hindutva need to come up with an explanation as to why Indra was the most popular God, and Sarasvaat receives only a passing mention. Why would the Vedic people name their most popular God after a weaker river?

Again, Indra has nothing to do with Sindhu.

I don't know much about the Saraswaat you mention, but the vedic people definitely revered the Saraswati as a goddess.

That map is bull. It’s made by someone off wiki. Cemetary H never went into India even.

Oh yes it did. Please check your sources and get the correct info.

Anyhoe Cemetary H was not culturally Vedic, and not Rig Vedic. The Gandharan grave system was in fact Vedic. Gandhara never went into today’s Bharat in the slightest, so thankfully it’s something you guys cannot leech, and it’s good proof of Rig Vedic ancestry in Pakistan. (I totally acknowledge later Vedas being composed in Bharat by Bharatis, but not the Rig Veda, which is the Veda of the Rig Vedic Aryans).

Yes, the Gandharan civilization is one we can proudly claim to be an Ancient Indian civilization or Ancient Pakistani, whichever you prefer.

( For you, it will probably be ancient Pakistani, and you are free to use that term if you wish. I would however prefer the term Ancient Indian, like the rest of the world).

Lol, so Gandharan culture lay in Bharat now? Joke. Gandharan culture, if anything came from the North and West. Much of the Buddhist stuff was not the same as the Buddhist stuff going on elsewhere because it was developed separately in Pakistan and led to the two schools of Buddhist though (the Pakistani developed one became the major one and travelled to China, Japan and so on) (Mahayana), the South Indian/Tamil/Sri Lankan thought travelled to Cambodia (Theravada).

I wasn't referring to its culture, but to its cultural centre.

I don't know about Gandharan buddhism So I'll reply to all that later.

[roadrunner]

Will write a fuller response later..But I'm not letting you get away with this nonsense for now.

Originally Posted by Stealth Assassin

Indra Means "possessing drops of rain" from Sanskrit इन्दु (indu) "a drop" and र (ra) "possessing". Indra is the name of the ancient Hindu warrior god of the sky and rain. He is the chief god in the Hindu text the Rigveda.

Let me remind you that "Indus" is the westernized version of the sanskrit name "Sindhu".

Point 1
Sanskrit for Indra sounds like this (you will need some media software to listen to it)

Arya Sanghata Sutra - How to Pronounce the Sanskrit Names in the Sanghata

Clearly, it's just like the English spelling - Ind-ra.

Indus is referred to as "S-Ind-hu" in Sanskrit (you can look this up yourself).

You seem to be of the belief that the Sanskrit words, "Indra" and "Sindhu" are not related to one another, which is just nonsense. The commonly accepted derivation of Indus is from Sindhu (Indus is derived from Sanskrit), and to not see that Indra is also a derivation of Sindhu (and relates to the Indus is just denial). All you've mentioned is that Indra does not stem from "Indus", but you havent said why you believe this. I've given you the Sanskrit for both Indra and Indus. They're both remarkably similar. You seem to believe the similarity is coincidence. Why? Are you trying to deny the obvious name connection? So far you havent answered the very important question, "Why would the Rig Vedic people call their main God after a smaller river?"

Point 2

Originally Posted by Stealth Assasin

In addition, most of the Sindhu references are generic rather than specifically the Indus river.

Sindhu references are NOT generic. This is Hindutva proaganda. The Rig Veda is very clear the Sindhu was an single river. Refer to the verse given above

1. THE singer, O ye Waters in Vivasvān's place, shall tell your grandeur forth that is beyond compare.
The Rivers have come forward triply, seven and seven. Sindhu in might surpasses all the streams that flow.
2 Varuṇa cut the channels for thy forward course, O Sindhu, when thou rannest on to win the race.
Thou speedest o’er precipitous ridges of the earth, when thou art Lord and Leader of these moving floods.
3 His roar is lifted up to heaven above the earth: he puts forth endless vigour with a flash of light.
Like floods of rain that fall in thunder from the cloud, so Sindhu rushes on bellowing like a bull.
4 Like mothers to their calves, like milch kine with their milk, so, Sindhu, unto thee the roaring rivers run.
Thou leadest as a warrior king thine army's wings what time thou comest in the van of these swift streams.
5 Favour ye this my laud, O Gan!gā, Yamunā, O Sutudri, Paruṣṇī and Sarasvatī:
With Asikni, Vitasta, O Marudvrdha, O Ārjīkīya with Susoma hear my call.
6 First with Trstama thou art eager to flow forth, with Rasā, and Susartu, and with Svetya here,
With Kubha; and with these, Sindhu and Mehatnu, thou seekest in thy course Krumu and Gomati.
7 Flashing and whitely-gleaming in her mightiness, she moves along her ample volumes through the realms,
Most active of the active, Sindhu unrestrained, like to a dappled mare, beautiful, fair to see.
8 Rich in good steeds is Sindhu, rich in cars and robes, rich in gold, nobly-fashioned, rich in ample wealth.
Blest Silamavati and young Urnavati invest themselves with raiment rich in store of sweets.
9 Sindhu hath yoked her car, light-rolling, drawn by steeds, and with that car shall she win booty in this fight.
So have I praised its power, mighty and unrestrained, of independent glory, roaring as it runs.
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN LXXV. The Rivers.

Why would this verse mention Sindhu, and also Yamuna, Ganga, Kabul etc etc if Sindhu was generic for river? This verse clearly suggests Sindhu was one river, and then the Yamuna, the Sarasvati were smaller, and different, rivers.This phrase gives it away "and with these, Sindhu and Mehatnu, thou seekest in thy course Krumu and Gomati". So with all these rivers (Yamuna, Saravasti etc), Sindhu seeks in its course Krumu (Kurram) and Gomati (Gomal..joins the Indus at the Frontier). It is clear if you take off your Hindutva-tinted spectacles.

Point 3
The Rig Veda is the complete opposite of Hinduism. Indra even ate cows and beef (legend-wise of course).


I will reply in full when I get the time of course.

[Flintlock]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Will write a fuller response later..But I'm not letting you get away with this nonsense for now.

Its been a pleasure to debate with you too!!

Point 1
Sanskrit for Indra sounds like this (you will need some media software to listen to it)

Arya Sanghata Sutra - How to Pronounce the Sanskrit Names in the Sanghata

Clearly, it's just like the English spelling - Ind-ra.

Indus is referred to as "S-Ind-hu" in Sanskrit (you can look this up yourself).

You seem to be of the belief that the Sanskrit words, "Indra" and "Sindhu" are not related to one another, which is just nonsense. The commonly accepted derivation of Indus is from Sindhu (Indus is derived from Sanskrit), and to not see that Indra is also a derivation of Sindhu (and relates to the Indus is just denial). All you've mentioned is that Indra does not stem from "Indus", but you havent said why you believe this. I've given you the Sanskrit for both Indra and Indus. They're both remarkably similar. You seem to believe the similarity is coincidence. Why? Are you trying to deny the obvious name connection? So far you havent answered the very important question, "Why would the Rig Vedic people call their main God after a smaller river?"

Your only explanation for the derivation is that "they sound remarkably similar", which is a poor one.

Even this isn't true since only the first syllable in is common.

Not to mention that the word Indus itself is a corruption by westerners.

Sindhu (original)>>>>Hindu (arabs)>>>>Indos(Greek)>>>Indus (latin) is the transition.

The word 'Indra' is not derived from 'Indus'. Kindly get that straight.

Point 2
Sindhu references are NOT generic. Refer to the verse given above

1. THE singer, O ye Waters in Vivasvān's place, shall tell your grandeur forth that is beyond compare.
The Rivers have come forward triply, seven and seven. Sindhu in might surpasses all the streams that flow.
2 Varuṇa cut the channels for thy forward course, O Sindhu, when thou rannest on to win the race.
Thou speedest o’er precipitous ridges of the earth, when thou art Lord and Leader of these moving floods.
3 His roar is lifted up to heaven above the earth: he puts forth endless vigour with a flash of light.
Like floods of rain that fall in thunder from the cloud, so Sindhu rushes on bellowing like a bull.
4 Like mothers to their calves, like milch kine with their milk, so, Sindhu, unto thee the roaring rivers run.
Thou leadest as a warrior king thine army's wings what time thou comest in the van of these swift streams.
5 Favour ye this my laud, O Gan!gā, Yamunā, O Sutudri, Paruṣṇī and Sarasvatī:
With Asikni, Vitasta, O Marudvrdha, O Ārjīkīya with Susoma hear my call.
6 First with Trstama thou art eager to flow forth, with Rasā, and Susartu, and with Svetya here,
With Kubha; and with these, Sindhu and Mehatnu, thou seekest in thy course Krumu and Gomati.
7 Flashing and whitely-gleaming in her mightiness, she moves along her ample volumes through the realms,
Most active of the active, Sindhu unrestrained, like to a dappled mare, beautiful, fair to see.
8 Rich in good steeds is Sindhu, rich in cars and robes, rich in gold, nobly-fashioned, rich in ample wealth.
Blest Silamavati and young Urnavati invest themselves with raiment rich in store of sweets.
9 Sindhu hath yoked her car, light-rolling, drawn by steeds, and with that car shall she win booty in this fight.
So have I praised its power, mighty and unrestrained, of independent glory, roaring as it runs.
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN LXXV. The Rivers.


Why would this verse mention Sindhu, and also Yamuna, Ganga, Kabul etc etc if Sindhu was generic for river? This verse clearly suggests Sindhu was one river, and then the Yamuna, the Sarasvati were smaller, and different, rivers. It is clear if you take off your Hindutva-tinted spectacles.

You haven't bothered to read my post carefully.

Most verses use the word "sindhu" as a generic term, except the latter ones.
The above verse is one of those exceptions.

This verse belongs to one of the newest sections of the rigveda ( usage of newest is kinda weird because the rigveda is so damn old) which describes all the rivers from afghanistan to ganges.

I have explained all this clearly in my earlier post. Kindly read it carefully.

Point 3
The Rig Veda is the complete opposite of Hinduism. Indra even ate cows and beef (legend-wise of course).

What does that have to do with anything? Kindly elaborate.

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by Stealth Assassin

Your only explanation for the derivation is that "they sound remarkably similar", which is a poor one.

Even this isn't true since only the first syllable in is common.

Why is it a poor one? You think it's just coincidence that Indra happened to be named the same as the Indus - yes it might be the first syllable, but the "Ind" part is from where even the word "India" is derived. All these "-Ind-" words come from the Sanskrit for the Rig Vedic homeland, "Sindhu".

Not to mention that the word Indus itself is a corruption by westerners.

Whether it's corrupt or not is irrelevant. I derived it from the Sanskrit. Both Indra and Indus are derived from the Sanskrit.

Sindhu (original)>>>>Hindu (arabs)>>>>Indos(Greek)>>>Indus (latin) is the transition.

The word 'Indra' is not derived from 'Indus'. Kindly get that straight.

The word "Indra" sounds remarkbly like Indus. I'm sure if we had a poll something along the lines of "do you think it's possible Indra comes from the same origins as Indus", most neutral voters would pick "yes"!

You haven't bothered to read my post carefully.

Most verses use the word "sindhu" as a generic term, except the latter ones.
The above verse is one of those exceptions.

This verse belongs to one of the newest sections of the rigveda ( usage of newest is kinda weird because the rigveda is so damn old) which describes all the rivers from afghanistan to ganges.

The Rig Veda is one book. The Vedic people wrote everything contextually. In the case I pointed out above, it's clear the Sindhu refers to the Indus. But there are plenty of other instances where the Sindhu is mentioned as the Indus. Most neutral authors translate it without bias. Of course it doesn't fit the Hindutva agenda so they translate it differently, but it makes no sense then. Much like what your saying, "Sindhu means one thing in this part of the Rig Veda, but in another part of the Rig Veda it means another thing". Nonsense. Indra's connections with the Indus are well documented. Here is one example.

"Indra is the only God in India to have special connections with the Indus. It is often told how he crossed the river e.g in the company of Yadu and Turvasa (Rig Veda 7, 33. 3), how he caused the waters of the Indus to flow northwards (Rig Veda 2, 15. 6). - Megasthenes and Indian Religion: A Study in Motives and Types, page 128.
Megasthenes and Indian Religion: A ... - Google Book Search

Even by logic, you can see that if "Sindhu", which is a name for the Indus as I've shown and you've agreed above, means "the river", then the Indus is THE river of the Rig Veda, suggesting it is the main one. If it is the main one, then the Indus is the Rig Vedic homeland. This is more proof that the Rig Vedic homeland was Pakistan (in addition to the fact that the systems of burial from Rig Vedic times were similar to the grave cultures found in Pakistan- though I've no doubt some Indian archaeologist will make a stunning find soon suggesting the Vedic grave culture exists within Bharat! ). This is all proof that the main river of the Rig Veda is the Indus. Your proof goes against logic, even the denial that Indra, India, Indus have the same origin. I doubt you'll find many neutral people agreeing with this logicless piece of fundamental propaganda.

[Flintlock]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Why is it a poor one? You think it's just coincidence that Indra happened to be named the same as the Indus - yes it might be the first syllable, but the "Ind" part is from where even the word "India" is derived. All these "-Ind-" words come from the Sanskrit for the Rig Vedic homeland, "Sindhu".


Whether it's corrupt or not is irrelevant. I derived it from the Sanskrit. Both Indra and Indus are derived from the Sanskrit.



The word "Indra" sounds remarkbly like Indus. I'm sure if we had a poll something along the lines of "do you think it's possible Indra comes from the same origins as Indus", most neutral voters would pick "yes"!

man how hard is this to understand!! Let me try to explain in simpler words:

For one word to be derived from the other, the original word has to be older than the derived word!

Because the word "Indra" is much older than the word "Indus", It could have not beed derived from "Indus". Get it?

Indus is a latin term that is introduced a long long time after the vedas are written down even.

Also, I doubt that etymology is decided by a vote of so called "neutral" people. (Also, your estimation of what constitutes neutral is highly suspect)

The Rig Veda is one book. The Vedic people wrote everything contextually. In the case I pointed out above, it's clear the Sindhu refers to the Indus. But there are plenty of other instances where the Sindhu is mentioned as the Indus. Most neutral authors translate it without bias. Of course it doesn't fit the Hindutva agenda so they translate it differently, but it makes no sense then. Much like what your saying, "Sindhu means one thing in this part of the Rig Veda, but in another part of the Rig Veda it means another thing". Nonsense. Indra's connections with the Indus are well documented. Here is one example.

Its not nonsense. The Vedas have been passed on for the last 3000 years fairly unchanged, and so has their interpretation.

The standard interpretation of the vedas has been used by me. I hope you can understand that the interpretation done by hindus carries the most weight, since its they who have been passing it on for the last 3000 years.

Try replacing the word "Vedas" with "Quran" and "Hindus" with "Muslims" and you will understand what I am saying.

"Indra is the only God in India to have special connections with the Indus. It is often told how he crossed the river e.g in the company of Yadu and Turvasa (Rig Veda 7, 33. 3), how he caused the waters of the Indus to flow northwards (Rig Veda 2, 15. 6). - Megasthenes and Indian Religion: A Study in Motives and Types, page 128.
Megasthenes and Indian Religion: A ... - Google Book Search

It mentions the special connection of Indra with the Indus, apparently in the sense that Indra had some effects upon it.

It doesn't say anything about the origin of the word. Also, refer to the timeline of the word "Indra" and "Indus", as I explained earlier.

Even by logic, you can see that if "Sindhu", which is a name for the Indus as I've shown and you've agreed above, means "the river", then the Indus is THE river of the Rig Veda, suggesting it is the main one. If it is the main one, then the Indus is the Rig Vedic homeland. This is more proof that the Rig Vedic homeland was Pakistan (in addition to the fact that the systems of burial from Rig Vedic times were similar to the grave cultures found in Pakistan- though I've no doubt some Indian archaeologist will make a stunning find soon suggesting the Vedic grave culture exists within Bharat! ). This is all proof that the main river of the Rig Veda is the Indus.

Ah, once again, you astound me!!

the word Sindhu is used as a generic term for anything from "a body of water" to "a river" to even "the ocean" in the Rigveda, if you care to inspect it carefully.

Also, any Vedic scholar, as I pointed out earlier, agrees that the Saraswati is the more revered, feared, worshipped and largest river in the Rigveda.

In addition, historians confirm the above.

You are simply trying to force the issue by making Indus the most important.

Here is a nice map showing the spread of cemetary-H culture:


Cultures that arose after the decline of the Indus civilization

Your proof goes against logic, even the denial that Indra, India, Indus have the same origin. I doubt you'll find many neutral people agreeing with this logicless piece of fundamental propaganda.

Simply terming everything you disagree with as "propaganda" ain't gonna help you!!

I have explained my case quite clearly I think, and unless you can come up with a more credible theory, I consider this debate as closed.


Thanks!!

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

^^ Stealth, try and make sure you use the quote feature, or quotation marks, when pasting arguments from other sites, along with references to those sites.


Also, with reference to your argument that the word Sindhu is used "generically" in the earlier chapters of the Rig Veda, can you post the verses please, so the context of the usage can be looked at to determine if that is the case.

[bhangra12345]

By the way, was nt the sakuni mamasri in mahabharata, was a gandhara prince right. And his sister the wife of the blind king Dhritarashtra was known as "gandhari", i.e. the princess from gandhar.

Shakuni - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

anybody interested in watching the whole of 90s mahabharat? it is available at
Rajshri.com. India's #1 Broadband Entertainment Destination.
its a 94 episodes of approx 45-50 min each and though to properly understand it, you need to have a good command of hindi, there are english subtitles available.

P.S.: The other place where you will here "bharat" more than roadrunner is here.

[bhangra12345]

I tried searching for that, but my searching skills do not seem to be sufficient. However, I found out another "hindu" scripture, whose translation of sindhu was water/ocean.
The Devi Bhagavatam: The First Book: Chapter 5

Or is it, O Bhagavatî! that Thou wert very eagerly interested to see Visnu's headless body and therefore Thou hast seen thus! O Prime Force! Is it that Thou art angry on the daughter of the Sindhu (ocean); Laksmî Devî! Else, why hast Thou deprived Her of Her husband? Laksmî is born as a part of Thine; So Thou oughtest to forgive Her offence.

lakshmi is the daughter of the ocean/waters, here it is interpreted as oceans though even water wouldnt be wrong.

Even now, "ganga" i.e. ganges is used as a synonym for water in temples and speaking in older type languages

[Flintlock]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

^^ Stealth, try and make sure you use the quote feature, or quotation marks, when pasting arguments from other sites, along with references to those sites.


Also, with reference to your argument that the word Sindhu is used "generically" in the earlier chapters of the Rig Veda, can you post the verses please, so the context of the usage can be looked at to determine if that is the case.

Sorry about that.....it took a long time to reply and I didn't bother adding too many sources or making it easier to read.

Here is my source for the geography and chronology of the Vedic people. I encourage you to read it with a neutral mind and ascertain the facts for yourself, rather than being presumptuous.

The Chronology of the Rigveda

The Geography of the Rigveda

I don't claim that all this is as the certain truth, just worth considering.

There are other scholars who contend that the Vedas were infact composed in 3000 BC, but since this is a relatively new development, I shall disregard it for now.

The Aryan invasion theory itself is under serious challenge, and most historians have changed their minds about the fair aryans conquering the dark dravidians.

In addition, after so much reading, one does realize the futility of trying to divide history between India and Pakistan into watertight compartments.
There is so much speculation and so much "crossing of the border" as I like to call it, that it is laughable to even try.

These people had no concept of the modern nation state, so it would be rather unfair to chop up our history just because of the current political scenario.

[Flintlock]

Originally Posted by bhangra12345

By the way, was nt the sakuni mamasri in mahabharata, was a gandhara prince right. And his sister the wife of the blind king Dhritarashtra was known as "gandhari", i.e. the princess from gandhar.

Shakuni - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah....the Mahabharat's earliest parts are believed to have been composed in the 9th or 8th century BC.
The story is centered around the Gangetic plain, but the references of kingdoms go as far as Afghanistan.

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by Stealth Assassin

man how hard is this to understand!! Let me try to explain in simpler words:

Putting this in bold isn't going to change the truth..so why do so?

For one word to be derived from the other, the original word has to be older than the derived word!

Because the word "Indra" is much older than the word "Indus", It could have not beed derived from "Indus". Get it?

Indus is a latin term that is introduced a long long time after the vedas are written down even.

Also, I doubt that etymology is decided by a vote of so called "neutral" people. (Also, your estimation of what constitutes neutral is highly suspect)

You clearly haven't followed my explanation. "Indra" and "Indus" are both derivations from "Sindhu". Yes, Indus is a corruption, and probably occurred after Indra, but why does this matter if they are both derived from the root word, "Sindhu"? It's perfectly easy to understand. Yes, it is only one syllable, "-Ind-", but this syllable appears to be the most important syllable (for whatever reason), that forms a part of India, Indus, Indra. There's no question of the similarity between these three words, unless you choose to be in denial of them. Ask a statistician professor (non Indian), about the likelihood of obtaining three syllabalic similarities between INDia, INDus, INDra, sINDhu, and you will find there's virtually nill probability these names are not all related to each other from the same origin.

Its not nonsense. The Vedas have been passed on for the last 3000 years fairly unchanged, and so has their interpretation.

I disagree it has been unchanged. Bits of it don't make sense.

The standard interpretation of the vedas has been used by me. I hope you can understand that the interpretation done by hindus carries the most weight, since its they who have been passing it on for the last 3000 years.

Hinduism is a relatively new religion. In fact, the word "Hindu" was given to describe the people of a geographic region, rather than a religion at first. When Hindu started being using as a religion, it was only recently, perhaps in the last 400 years. That is when the religion changed into what it is today. Vedic religion had ritualistic slaughter of the cow, no cow urine drinking or worshipping of minor rodents. Compare Vedism to Hinduism today, and they are completely seperate religions.

Try replacing the word "Vedas" with "Quran" and "Hindus" with "Muslims" and you will understand what I am saying.

You're welcome to point out what does not make sense to you Qu'ranically. I find it all makes perfect sense when you look at the context. Your basic argument is that Sindhu means one thing in one area of the Vedas, it has another meaning in another area of the Vedas. Nonsense. This is wishful thinking. The Vedic people were not so illiterate they didn't know how to express themselves clearly in their historical accounts.

It mentions the special connection of Indra with the Indus, apparently in the sense that Indra had some effects upon it.

It doesn't say anything about the origin of the word. Also, refer to the timeline of the word "Indra" and "Indus", as I explained earlier.

Your "Timeline" argument has nothing to do with countering my argument. My argument is something which you have failed to understand. My argument is that INDia, INDus, INDra, sINDhu all are derived from a common origin (Sapta INDhu). This being the case, why would the Vedic people then name their major God, Indra, after a minor river (Indus). They would, if anything name their God after the biggest river..Indus, Sindhu - lit. trans. "THE River".

Ah, once again, you astound me!!

the word Sindhu is used as a generic term for anything from "a body of water" to "a river" to even "the ocean" in the Rigveda, if you care to inspect it carefully.

I've already shown you the verse that demonstrates quite clearly, that "Sindhu" is the name of the river Indus in chapter 10 of the Rig Veda. You now have to show me why, in your own words, you have reason to believe that earlier chapters refer to the Sindhu generically. You haven't so far (i'm not asking for opinions of HIndutva fanatics here, I want plain fact. I have given you a plain fact and proved in chapter 10 of the Rig Veda, that "Sindhu" refers to the Indus). You now prove to me it also refers to rivers generically

Also, any Vedic scholar, as I pointed out earlier, agrees that the Saraswati is the more revered, feared, worshipped and largest river in the Rigveda.

Vedic scholars that are Indian agree with this. There is an agenda to it. Most independent researchers don't agree. I quoted Alan Dilqvist before from his book. He translates Sindhu as Indus throughout.

In addition, historians confirm the above.

You are simply trying to force the issue by making Indus the most important.

Here is a nice map showing the spread of cemetary-H culture:


Cultures that arose after the decline of the Indus civilization

Cemetary H did not spread into India. What do you think the "H" in Cemetary H stands for? HARRAPA. It was centred around Harrappa which is well within Pakistan. For its exact dimensions, see here

The Late Harappan Cemetery H is located between Cemetery R37 and Mound AB on a slightly raised plain at Harappa (Rao, 1973). It covered more than 3000sqm with two distinct layers (Rao, 1973).
The Harappan Tradition

3000 sq miles is roughly 55 * 55 miles around Harappa. In no way would this even reach into India, even if Harappa were at the extreme fringe of Cemetary H. Besides this, Cemetary H has nothing to do with the Rig Vedic Period!.

Simply terming everything you disagree with as "propaganda" ain't gonna help you!!

Quoting only Indian researchers on this is essentially just being non objective. Almost every non Indian researcher does their research in Pakistan, unless they're an avid Hindu fanatic like Frawley. I'm looking for objectivity, not propaganda. Also logic and reason will do for me, all of which you have not offered up. I will show you what neutral research is in my next post.

I have explained my case quite clearly I think, and unless you can come up with a more credible theory, I consider this debate as closed.

Thanks!!

Let's hope so. You obviously are clutching at straws when you dont present any fact as to why you think what you think, except that a Hindutva website says it.

[roadrunner]

Here is a Russian guy offering up proof Cemetary H was not Vedic.


The Vedic Aryans' burial rites and their archaeological parallels
E. Kuzmina: Institute for Cultural Research, Russian Academy of Sciences

These burial rites have nothing in common with the burial rites in Baluchistan and in the Harappan civilization (Marshall 1931; Wheeler 1947; 1953; 1968; Singh 1970; Possehl 2002) and postHarappan cemeteries H, R3, Jhukar and Chanhudaro in India and RanaGhundai, ShahiTump, Khurab in neighbouring lands. The total combination of all specific burial rites characterizes only the Vedic tradition and the Andronovo culture, especiallyin North Bactria. There are a lot of cenotaphs in Bactria (Vinogradova 2004). They may belong to Aryans who migrated to India. (Read Pakistan).




Even Asko Perpola (Finnish), thinks Gandhara was the Rig Vedic homeland initially

The face urns of Gandhâra and the cult of the Nâsatyas
Prof. Asko Parpola: Department of Asian & African Studies University of Helsinki

The Gandhâra Graves represent the first archaeological culture in the Swât Valley region to have the domesticated horse. The two successive cultural phases beginning about 1600 BC and 1300 BC, respectively, probably reflect the arrival of the earlier and later wave of the IndoAryan speakers associated with the Rigveda. On the basis of river names and other indications, the Kânvas of the earlier wave and the Atris of the later wave mainly resided in the Swât area. These singer families are preeminent in praising the Nâsatyas or Ashvins, the divine horseman twins who drive a heavenly chariot, and in offering them gharma, a drink of heated milk. I suggest that the ‘face urn’ characteristic of the Gandhâra Graves is related to the gharma vessel of the Ashvin cult. According to Vedic texts, the gharma pot represents the severed head (which flew off to become the sun) of a heroic deity, and thus it is not unlikely that the pot was fashioned to resemble human head. The ShatapathaBrâhmana (14,1,2,17) in fact specifies that this clay vessel was to have a nose (nâsikâ). Several things including their name associate the Nâsatyas with the nose in the Veda. If accepted, the proposed link between the Vedic religion and archaeological evidence would have important implications. However, it poses some further questions. In particular, did the Nâsatyas and the gharma vessel have a funerary function? Can other traces of the Nâsatya cult be found in the Gandhâra Grave culture?

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/southasianarchaeology/Aryans.pdf