Volume II

of the series on

Distortions in Indian History

Papers presented at 7th international Waves

in Orlando Florida, June 28,2009

during session on History

Session Chaired By
Kosla Vepa

1
 Volume II

A workshop on The Colonial paradigm on Indian History

Sunil Bhattacharjya
Sachi Dastidhar
Jagat Motwani
Narayan Joshi
Kosla Vepa
This is part of a series on the Distortions in Indian history

Volume I was titled “Astronomical Dating of Events & Select Vignettes from Indian history”
Edited by Kosla Vepa PhD

ISBN 978-1-4357-1120-4

http://www.lulu.com/content/2060969

INDIC STUDIES FOUNDATION

WWW.INDICSTUDIES.US

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstracts ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………04

Full length Papers .......................................................................................... 8

History of India Distorted: Who Did? Why? What should be done? ............................... 9

The Colonial Paradigm of Indian History ............................................................. 37

Mahabharata-History or Myth? .......................................................................... 54

The "Dotted Record" and its impact on ancient Indian Chronology ............................. 62

Some slides from History Tutorial ...................................................................... 75

Index

3
 Abstracts

History of India Distorted: Who Did? Why? What should be done?

BY

DR. JAGAT K. MOTWANI

IF YOU WANT TO WEAKEN A NATION, CONFUSE ITS IDENTITY, DISTORT ITS

HERITAGE, BELITTLE ITS ACHIEVEMENTS, HIGHLIGHT ITS FAILURES, DIVIDE IT
INTO AS MANY FRAGMENTS AS POSSIBLE, TARNISH ITS ANCIENT SCRIPTURES,
AND REWRITE ITS HISTORY.

This paper will discuss how the East India Company did all this with help of imported disguised
missionaries – Max Muller, Sir William Jones, Macaulay and others – to translate Vedic
scriptures with their hidden agenda to infuse ethnic inferiority complex in minds and hearts of
Indians. They confused our ethnic identity, and the antiquity and originality of the Vedas and
its language Sanskrit by introducing the two intertwined theories, 'Aryan invasion of India' and
'The Indo-European Family of Languages,' by which they created rift between the North and
the South.

4
 EMPIRE’S LAST CASUALTY:

INDIAN SUBCONTINENT’S VANISHING HINDUS AND NON-MUSLIMS

DR. SACHI G. DASTIDAR, DISTINGUISHED SERVICE PROFESSOR,

AND CHAIR,

POLITICS, ECONOMICS & LAW DEPT., STATE UNIV. OF NEW

YORK, OLD WESTBURY, NY 11426

The book/presentation is the study of effects of Islamization on a pluralistic, multi-religious

society: eastern Bengal of the Bengal Province of Colonial British India — now the third largest
Muslim-majority nation on earth. It focuses on changes brought about since the multi-religious,
progressive province was partitioned in 1947 and its effect on the non-Muslim minorities,
pluralism and tolerance, which is hardly known to the outside world. After the British-
mandated 1947 partition eastern part of Bengal became Muslim-majority East Bengal, later
called East Pakistan, a part of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. She became Bangladesh after a
bloody 1971 independence war. Western Bengal remained with pluralistic India as the West
Bengal State. That 1971 war was also an anti-Hindu genocide and killing of pro-tolerant
Muslims by Islamic Pakistan’s Army and its Bengali- and Urdu-speaking Islamist allies,
paralleling genocides in Rwanda and Nazi Germany. In Bangladesh 3 million people were killed
in 9 months. Very little literature exists on the effects of partition on East Bengal, especially
about its effects on non-Muslim (Hindu) minorities although the number of Hindus killed and
displaced from the Islamized East Pakistan/ Bangladesh is many times larger than that of the
western India/Pakistan. In both India and Bangladesh there is a taboo on discussion of the
plight of Bangladeshi Hindu (and other) minorities in Islamized Bangladesh. Strangely
communist-run Bengali-speaking Indian states of West Bengal and Tripura are run by
Bangladeshi Hindu refugee elites.
Nevertheless partition has had serious consequences, yet avoided by researchers of the Left
and Right for political reasons. I am the first scholar to break an Indian/Bengali taboo by writing
about the life of minorities in post-partition Islamized Bangladesh when my Bengali article
appeared in 1989 in Desh. Since then I have written several books and articles. By-product of
my academic work is a foundation, www.probini.org, which now helps education for the poor
and orphaned in Bangladesh, West Bengal and Assam allowing me access to marginalized
peoples.

5
Empire’s Last Casualty: Indian Subcontinent’s Vanishing Hindu and Other Minorities reveals that
49 million Bangladeshi Hindus are missing from the land (Bangladesh Census) — larger than all
but 26 of 189 nations (163) listed in World Bank’s April 2003 World Development Indicators
database — and between 1.4 and 3.1 million (larger than 75 nations in that database) have
been killed through the process of Islamization — but hardly known to the world.
(A companion book of English short stories, Living among the Believers: Stories from the Holy
Land down the Ganges, was released In India in 2006.)

The presentation wil include a slide show .

Sachi G. Dastidar, Ph.D.

718-343-0189

DastidarS@oldwestbury.edu

6
 Abstract - Colonial paradigm of Indic history
It is a tribute to the persistence and tenacity of the colonial overlords that dominated the Indian
subcontinent for a relatively short period of 200 years that the prevailing paradigm on the origins and
chronology of our civilization is largely constructed by them. Such a paradigm which we shall define as
the Colonial Paradigm, while substantially erroneous, is posited on certain assumptions. The key
assumption is that the civilization that remains extant has been brought into the area by migrating races
such as the Aryans, and in fact some would argue, that such a statement holds also for the so called
Dravidians of India. Such a paradigm which we shall define as the Colonial Paradigm, while substantially
erroneous, is posited on certain assumptions.

The key assumption originally enunciated by Hegel and hence known as the
Hegelian Hypothesis , also known as the cul de sac theory is that the Indic
civilization that remains extant has been consistently and periodically
impregnated from other regions of the planet, and that the Aryans were
merely the quintessential example of such invasions.
The second assumption implicit in all the assertions made by Occidentals about
Indics is that no date for any significant scientific advance should be attributed
to them prior to the Golden age of Greece beginning in 600 BCE

According to such a narrative everything that was worth preserving has been handed down to us over
the centuries by migrations, into the subcontinent, from somewhere else. It is also true that the history
that is taught the children of India today is vastly at variance with the puranic accounts handed down to
us over several millennia. It is to state it without any embellishments, a revised history that is
completely at odds with the traditional history of India. Even so great an effort as the History and
Culture of the Indian people edited by RC Majumdar, the most famous of Indian historians at the time
of Independence accepts the basic framework of the History of India as revised by the British
colonialists. Fifty years after independence the narrative has not changed substantially.
Within the relatively short time span of 200 years, a mere bagatelle by Indic standards, he managed to
rewrite the penal code, altered the language of commerce and intellectual discourse, reengineered the
social structure into a far more rigid hierarchical system while convincing the Indic that it was essentially
part of their own tradition, and recast the entire History of the subcontinent into a form consistent with
his imperial role. But the most damaging consequence has been the alteration of the mindset of the
Indic,, where these views have been internalized by the Indic.

7
FULL LENGTH PAPERS

8
HISTORY OF INDIA DISTORTED: WHO DID? WHY? WHAT SHOULD BE
DONE?

by

Dr. Jagat K. Motwani

If you want to weaken a nation, confuse its identity, distort its heritage, belittle its
achievements, highlight its failures, divide it into as many fragments as possible,
tarnish its ancient scriptures, and rewrite its history.

ALL THIS THE BRTISH COLONIALISTS DID. They changed the names of our country and its people – India
and Indians. They chose the name “Indians”,to identify the native American Indians, in present times.
My kindergarten children were ridiculed by their White American classmates by vocal and physical
gestures as of the native American Indians. It is hard to understand why all post-independence
governments have been indifferent to and unconcerned about restoring the traditional name of over
country. Ceylon did, Burma did and several other countries did. Traditional name of the country opens
up various chapters of the ancient history. Bharat is given only in the constitution. It has remained as a
paper name. Only a few countries – Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, and one or two more – at the United
Nations know about Bharat. If I tell any America that I am from India, the response would be ”What?”
The government of India, itself, has been promoting its foreign-given name “India” by naming its
internationally related agencies, such as ‘Govt. of India’, ‘Air India’, ‘State Bank of India’, Embassy of
India, etc.
Colonizing governments, in order to completely erase the name of the colonized country, have changed
the names of its mountains, rivers, lakes, etc which may reflect the heritage and culture of its natives.
Ganga has been changed to Ganges, Sindhu to Indus, Lake Mansarover to Lake Mapam Yutso, Gandhar
to Kandahar, Pryag to Allahabad, etc. Pakistan changed the name of Ram Baug, in Karachi to Araam
Baug. I remember my childhood playful times in Ram Baug. A book, entitled as “Five Thousand Years of
Pakistan” was published in 1950 when Pakistan was only three year old, and Islam about 1500 years old.
Most of the book talks about Muslin dynasties, tombs, forts, Masjids, etc. Pakistan is very shrewd. It got
it authored by R. E. M. Wheeler, Archeological Advisor to the Government of Pakistan, and Sometimes
Director General of Archeology in India. It got it published by the Royal India and Pakistan Society,
London. But inside, it clearly shows its ethno-political agenda. In the Preface, Fazlur Rahman, the then
Minister of Commerce and Education, Govt. of Pakistan wrote:

“It (the book) includes one of the great civilizations of Asia – the Indus Civilization of the third and
second millennia B.C.; it shares with the borderland of Afghanistan the primarily glory of that
remarkable and individual Buddhist art which flowered there in and after the second century A.D.”

9
Rahman mentions Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan, but not with Bharat. By the way, the flowering of
the Indus Valley civilization was long (may be 3000 years or even longer) before the advent of Islam.
Rahman further writes in the Preface:
“Its achievements after the arrival of Islam, extended from the tiled mosques of Tatta to the Moghul
fortress of Lahore and the Chhota Sona Masjid of Gaur, are more vividly familiar. The story of these
things is worth telling, in every school and university of the land. The heritage of Pakistan must be kept
alive if the future is to grow strongly and healthily out of it. It will be no good to tie new leaves on to
dead tree.”
I would like the readers note the last line: “It will be no good to tie new leaves on to dead tree.” For
Rahman, Hindu (Vedic) civilization is the dead tree. Therefore, in Rahman’s opinion, the new leaves of
the present history of Pakistan should not be tied to the dead tree of the Hindu history. This is the way
the conquerors highlight their culture by erasing the culture of the conquered.
I have, in my library, three other books, published by Pakistan to show the same attitude
• Ihsan H. Nadiem, “Moenjodaro: Heritage of Mankind”, (1994).
• Jansen, Michael, Maire Mulloy & Gunter Urban (eds.). Forgotten Cities on the Indus: Early
Civilization in Pakistan from the 8th to the 2nd Millennium BC. (1991).
• Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark, Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. Oxford: American
Institute of Pakistan Studies (1998).

There may be even more such books. I have limitations to know all. Pakistan has been trying to grab
more than its legitimate heritage. Why is India not doing to preserve its own legitimate heritage? In a
way, Pakistanies may be right to claim the heritage connected with the Indus Valley civilization, because
most of them are converts.
The original names of the countries, ruled over in ancient times, have been drowned too deep into the
ocean of history where they have been disfigured or erased by colonial historians. Name a few, the
countries, just in north-west of Bharat, with their names suffixed with ‘stan’ or ‘istan’, in Central Asia –
Baluchistan, Afghanistan, Tadzhistan (Tajikistan), Turkmenistan, Turkistan or Turkestan, Kyrgyzstan,
Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan – were part of Vishaal Bharat (Greater India). Sthan is a Sanskrit word. I
have been able to secure scanty information about few countries – Kirghizistan, Tadzhikistan, and
Kazakhstan – to show distant connection of their heritage with ancient Indo-Aryan culture.
Mallory (p.53) talks about the archeological records indicate expression of Indo-Iranian ritual in
Kirghizistan and Tadzhikistan. He remarks:

“Indeed, it is in the eastern Andronovo variants such as the Bishkent culture of south Tadzhikistan that
one encounters again the probable expression of Indo-Iranian ritual in the archeological record. At the
cemetery of Tulkhar, male burials were provided with small rectangular hearths, reminiscent of the
10
typical Ahavaniya, the rectangular fire-altar of early Indic priests, while females were provided round
hearths, comparable to the Garhapatya, the female-associated hearth fire of the Indo-Aryan house.”

Most of its elements, as described by Dr. Alma Kunanbay, an anthropologist and ethnographer in ‘The
Soul of Kazakhstan (2001)1, seem to be similar to those of Hinduism. On page 60, Dr. Alma Kunanbay
talks about Kazakhs’ close relationship with nature and their response to nature’s influences. She also
discusses their veneration of mountains, caves, rivers, and lakes. She mentions that the Kazakhs
worshipped deities of fire, sky, earth, water, and fertility. It is surprising to see that the name of the
“protectress of fertility”, as noted by Kunanbay, is ‘Umay’ – very close to ‘Uma’, wife of Shiva, the god of
fertility (Shiva Lingam). Dr. Kunanbay describes the burning incense at a sacred place (p.72), solar deities
(Surya Devta), and “Mother Earth” (p.53), and describes Kazakhstan, as “the spiritual cradle”. Spirituality
and knowledge (gyan) have been significant ingredients of the Kazakhstan’s philosophy – similar to
those of Vedic philosophy. Their reverence of fire is incorporated into many rites and rituals. All these
seem similar to Hindu religious rituals and philosophy.
Dr. P. Poonai , in Origin of Civilization and Language (p.66), writes that excavations at the site of Anou
on the plains of Turkmenistan have revealed that early emigrants from the Indus valley had settled there
We know ancient Vedic connection of Pakistan, Baluchistan, and Afghanistan. All this evidences the
presence of Vedic Indo-Aryans in Central Asian countries.
Iran was the land of Aryans. Its name Persia was after the name Parsooram, warrior with axe of the
Mahabharata. For other countries, India culturally and some administratively colonized, read my paper,
“Vishaal Bharat: Borderless World of Vedic Culture” in “Astronomical Dating of Events & Select Vignettes
from Indian History” (vol. 1, 2008), edited by Dr. Kosla Vepa.
I don’t blame others. They should be commended for their patriotism. Pakistan has been doing lot of
writing about the glory of the Indus Valley civilization – Mohenjodaro and Harappa – to connect it with
the heritage of Pakistan.
Max Muller, Sir William Jones, Macaulay, etc., missionaries in disguise, were deputed to India by the
East India Company as Sanskrit scholars. They translated our ancient scriptures – Vedas, Upanishads,
Epics, and other literature like Shakuntala. In fact, they themselves didn’t, rather they couldn’t. They
hired poor English-knowing Brahmins. They financially lured them to interpret the Vedas the way they
wanted.
They didn’t respect the historic facts given in the Vedas, saying they were myths and product of the
sentiments and subjectivity of Hindus. I will try to show contradictions implicit in what different
historians have said. According to them the Vedas were composed by invading Aryans, not by the
natives of ancient India. Then, where is the question of the sentiments and subjectivity of Hindus?

Colonial ink: Global and too hard to get erased

1
The essays in “The Soul of Kazakhstan” are written by Dr. Kunanbay, photographs by Wayne Eastep, and edited
by Gareth L. Steen. It is published by Easten Press, New York.
11
Histories have been written by victors, the colonialists. Their pen had colonial power to write what they
wanted to, with the purpose to infuse in the Indian psyche ethnic inferiority complex, so that their
culture is superior. They succeeded. Impressions, implanted by first histories, become too deep and hard
to get erased. Post-independence sixty years seem to be not enough for the nation – particularly India
had been under bondage for over a millennium – to wake up from colonial soothing anesthesia.
This has happened not only with the history of India, but with the histories of several countries,
colonized by the West, particularly by the Britain. Peter B. Clarke (ed.), in The World’s Religions (p. 123)
writes:

“In the area of doctrine, problem arose in the 19th century, when European scholars began to translate
and interpret Zoroastrian texts, challenging the traditional view of them. As a result, various reform
movements were founded in Bombay, and still remain at variance with one another.”

Zoroastrians (Parsees) as well as Indians couldn’t raise their voice against the mighty colonialists. As the
time passed, most of the new generation got too brainwashed to be able to see any wrongs in the
history.
Zoroastrians, known as Parsees in India, immigrated into India in about 7th century A.D. to escape
religious persecution in their native country Iran. They feel pain remembering what has happened to
their society. Bharat has given a heart-felt-welcome-home to all who needed, Jews, Parsees (Persians),
Buddhists from Tibet, and others. India has not coerced them to change their religion. Some, not many
Jews have migrated to Israel, after it got securely established as the Jewish nation.

Vedas, Shastras, Epics: Mythology?

Western scholars view our Vedas, Shastras, and Epics as mythology. Even worse, that one Indian
politician recently said that the Ramayana is a fiction. Such people, like him, pride in posing themselves
as liberal, and superior to the common lot. They don’t understand how they are confusing our national
ethos even more, by endorsing what biased European historians have written about our sacred Vedas.
Fortunately now, since wide spread of democracies, some European historians have come out to cry
about the abuse, histories of the European colonies have suffered.. Historian Herbert Butterfield has
said about the condition of the history:

“Wrong history is being taught in all countries, all the time, unavoidably; while we have great need of
history, our first need is to unlearn most of what we have been taught.”

12
 Herbert J. Muller, in ‘The Loom of History’ (1958: 28), writes that on a national scale, history becomes
the kind of prejudice and conceit. Paul Valery called history the most dangerous product ever concocted
by the chemistry of the brain.
European historians have shortened the ages of the Vedas, particularly of the Rig Veda and the epics.
They write that the Vedas were composed in about 1000 B.C. by the alleged invading Aryans, not by the
then native Hindus, though they knew that they were composed at least a couple of thousands of years
before the alleged Aryan invasion of India. They have also written that Sanskrit was brought in India by
the invading Aryans. From where, they are unable to tell. They have done all this only to validate their
ill-based theory of Aryan invasion of India.
In order to validate what they have said about Sanskrit, they created another ill-based theory of ‘Indo-
European Family of languages’, according to which, some time in the very remote past, the speakers of
Sanskrit, Latin and Greek lived under the same roof, mothered by some language, they have not been
able to find the name of. How can they find the name of the language which was never spoken? They
call it Proto-Indo-European (PIE). They write that later, the speakers of the three languages dispersed
and took three different routes – Sanskrit speakers went to India, Latin speakers to Italy, and Greeks
marched to Greece. The historians have not explained why they had to disperse and how they thought
of the three different destinations for themselves. Some historians say they dispersed around 3000 B.C.,
some others 6,000 B.C. This should be noted that the scholars do not have consensus on:

1. The name of their mother. They called it PIE.

2. The name of their original abode .
3. The time when they left their original abode, and.

How can they have consensus on the matters related to the PIE which did not exist? They have not told
what were the native languages of India, Italy, and Greece before they got Sanskrit, Latin and Greek
respectively and what happened to them.

Birth of Linguistics

In order to prove – that the three languages had common parentage. and grew up together for long
prior to their dispersion – they have created Linguistics, science of language. To me, it can’t be a
science. Linguistics, like a genuine science, is not based on appropriately and adequately proven facts. It
is based on hypothetical and vague assumptions. For example, a few selected (not randomly) words
have been picked up from the three languages Sanskrit, Latin and Greek, and they have been stretched
too far to show philological resemblance among them, on the basis of ‘comparative historical
linguistics’. For example:

13
Word for hundred compared2
Latin centum
Greek hekaton
Germanic hundred
Sanskrit cata

I am not, you may be able to make sense from what Malmakjaer has written to prove philological
resemblance of the word ”hundred” between languages:

“The discovery that [k] remains in some Indo-European languages but became [s] in Sanskrit ended the
belief that Sanskrit was the oldest and closest language to the proto-form or parent language. Further
investigation would reveal that this change [k > s] occurred before a front vowel, in this case [e] which
later merged with [a] in Sanskrit.”

Malmakjaer (p.198) shows interchangeable letters between Latin and Spanish, for example, Latin ‘p’
becomes ‘b’ in Spanish, ‘t’ becomes ‘d’ and ‘k’ becomes ‘g’:

Latin Spanish
cupa cuba [p] > [b]
vita vida [t] > [d]
amica amiga [k] > [g]

Such kind of interchange of letters happens only between the languages of the same family, not
between a European language and an Indic language. I know that as per the Linguistics, there are some
inter-changeable letters in Hindi itself, such as, ‘b’ becomes ‘v’, for example ‘veer’ and ‘beer’, and ‘s’
becomes ‘h’, for example Sindu/Hindu, Sindhi/Hindi, soma/homa, etc. But such letter inter-change
happens in the same language or between two very close languages of the same Indic family. It doesn’t
happen between an Indic language and a European language.

Malmakjaer (p.195) compares a few Latin, Italian and English words:

Latin Italian English

2
Kirsten Malmakjaer, The Linguistics Encyclopedia (1991, pp. 193-4).
14
noctem notte night
octor otto eight
lactem latte milk
factum fatto fact
lectum letto bed

How can one claim philological correspondence between Latin and Sanskrit when the correspondence
between Latin/Italian words and English is so far, though Italy is geographically much closer to England
than to India? And culturally too. But Latin is philologically closer to its daughter French3, than to
English:

Latin French
marem mer
fabam feve
patrem pere
labram levre
manum main
panem pain
planum plain
famen faim
partem part

Malmakjaer (p.207) compares the word ‘bear’ in various IE languages:

English bear
German Bar
Latin ursus
Greek arktos
Sanskrit rksah

3
Ibid (p.197).
15
If such is philological correspondence even between European languages – English, German, Latin and
Greek – then how can one claim Sanskrit has philological correspondence with the European languages
which are thousands miles apart and culturally different? There may be significant philological
correspondence of insignificant number of words between Sanskrit and some European language. That
would be because of borrowing or accidental.
Fortunately, some scholars have been able to view holes in the theory of IE. P. H. Matthews, in
Linguistics: A Very Short Introduction (2003, p.49), responding to the question, “What is the evidence?”,
replies:

“The answer lies in the ‘comparative’ method. This involves a step-by-step comparison of different
languages, in which we look for detailed correspondences that can not reasonably be explained unless
a common ancestor existed. The great problem is: what sorts of details are convincing?”

Matthews (p.53), talking about Greek and Sanskrit, writes:

“Why should there be correspondences? These languages were spoken thousands of miles apart, in
societies historically separate.” He also raises the question: “Could correspondences like these be due
instead to pure chances?”

To be honest, I fail to understand a bit of linguistic maneuvers to prove philological resemblances

between two genealogically different languages. I may have to have another Ph.D., perhaps in
Linguistics, to be able to understand such sort of tricky philological correspondences. The linguistic and
comparative maneuvers, thus developed, would one day prove that almost all human languages have a
common parentage.
Despite their hard research work for about two centuries, linguists have not been able to find the
name of the mother of IE languages, nor have they reached their consensus on her original abode. They
have given her hypothetical name as “the Proto-Indo-European” (PIE).. If they are not able to find her, at
least they should find the grave, with her name on it.
Seeing the historical confusion – the colonial historians have created about the authorship of the
Vedas, and the origins of Aryans, Sanskrit, and Swastika – it becomes apparent that these historians
have defined history completely opposite to what it should be. History is supposed to be a story of well-
proven facts. They have been successful in crafting confusion by distorting the dates of significant events
related to the ancient history of Bharat, the west envied the glory of. It seems, European scholars have
knowingly ignored what is written in the Vedic scriptures, saying that they are mythological and not
historically worth believing. They claim they know better than India’s native scholars and the Vedic
scriptures. The East India Company brought in missionaries, and introduced them as Sanskrit scholars to

16
translate Vedic scriptures who, with the help of bribed poor Pundits, translated our scriptures to fit in
their hidden ethno-political agenda.
V. Gordon Childe, What Happened in History (1942, p.13), expressed his concern against the western
historians, in the section, ‘Archaeology and History’:

“WRITTEN history contains a very patchy and incomplete record of what mankind has accomplished in
parts of the world during last five thousand years. The period surveyed is at best about one hundredth
part of the time during which men have been active on our planet The picture presented is frankly
chaotic; it is hard to recognize in it any unifying pattern, any directional trends. Archaeology surveys a
period a hundred times as long .”

Prof. Graham Clark, in the Foreword to this book, praises Childe:

“More perhaps than any other man, he showed how by using the data won by archaeologists and
natural scientists it was possible to gain a new view of what constituted human history.”

Clark complains:

“The scope even of a work as comprehensive as What Happened in History is bound up with and limited
by this concern: the New World, like Australasia, is omitted and only glancing references are made to
the great focus of civilization in the Far East.”

He also showed (p.8) concern: “the urban civilizations of Egypt, Sumer, and the Indus Valley were no
more immune from the effects of inborn contradictions than the Neolithic peasantries had been. ”
It is shocking to know that even in present times of openness and transparency, historians don’t
seem to be as honest as they are expected to be. NY Times (April 30, 2008, Arts Section, p.1) writes:

“Tony Horwitz’s new book, “A Voyage Long and Strange,” is about the American history most American
never learned, including the story of the short-lived, early-17th-century colony established on this
windswept island eight miles west of Martha’s Vineyard.”

History, some times, is written in vague and broad terms rather than specifics, to let the reader
helplessly wonder what people and what language the author is referring to. The following quote from
The Science Times Book of Archaeology (1999, p. 45), ed. by Nicholas Wade, will explain what I am
talking about:

17
“Among the charioteers of the steppes, the pattern was much the same. Aryan-speaking charioteers,
sweeping in from the north in about 1500 B.C., probably dealt the death blow to the ancient Indus
Valley civilization. But a few centuries later, by the time the Aryans compiled the Rig Veda their
collection of hymns and religious texts, the chariot had been transformed to a vehicle of ancient gods
and heroes.
Chariot technology, Dr. Muhly noted, seems to have left an imprint on Indo-European languages and
could help solve the enduring puzzle of where they originated. All of the technical terms connected with
wheels, spokes, chariots and horses are represented in the early Indo-European vocabulary, the
common root of nearly all modern European languages as well as those of Iran and India.”

If the name of the specific language – (perhaps may be Sanskrit), instead of ‘Indo-European’ or ‘Aryan’
language was given, and if the names of ancient gods who used the chariots were specifically given –
the puzzle of ‘where they originated’ would have ceased to be as a puzzle. It is the responsibility of the
scholars to use the language which can be understood by masses, even less educated. But, the way the
above text has been worded, it is difficult to understand even by educated elite. I feel, I wish I am
wrong, that scholars feel shy of giving credit, even legitimate, to the people of India, particularly Hindus.
Aryans are Hindus, but the word ‘Aryan’ has been too vague and confused.
As I and every one else would expect that history should give exact facts – not vague guesses,
qualified by ‘perhaps’, ‘probably’, ‘may be’, ‘seem to have been’ etc. – about some significant past
events pertaining to a particular people, country, period, or person. Historian is supposed to find facts
before he/she writes. Historian should not write any thing which suggests multiple inferences. The
following piece of a narrative from ‘The Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hindus’ (vol. I, p. 70)
about Aryans, would tell what I am talking about:

“In fact, it is not certain whether any of the seven principal rivers referred to in the Rig-Veda were in
India at all. The Rig-Veda is as much a product of Persia as of India.”

It would have not been difficult for the Encyclopedia to find out the facts related to the seven rivers and
the Rig Veda. Could not the historian find out where those seven rivers were? Does not the historian
know that the Vedas including the Rig-Veda were composed by Hindu Brahmins of India? I believe most
people know this. The same historian writes on the same page:

“Coming to their respective pantheons , we find that most of the major Hindu deities, where they have
not been taken over from the aborigines, are ultimately Iranian or Middle Eastern. Professor Apte has
pointed out that ‘among the Aryans, Varuna, Mitra and Aryaman are Indo-Aryan in origin’ (X, p.368).”

18
How could Hindu deities, some or all, be Iranian or Middle Eastern? Historians are supposed to be
particular and specific, saying ‘Indian’ (better Hindus) or ‘Iranian’, not to be vague by using the vague
term ‘Indo-Iranian’, when talking particularly about Hindu deities, who can not be Iranian. History tells
that Hindus had gone to Middle Eastern countries including Asia Minor, where they had established
their kingdoms. If those Hindus, while in the Middle East, recited Vedic hymns, their deities should not
be considered Iranian or Middle Eastern. They (Varuna, Mitra, and Aryaman) are of ‘Indian’ origin, not
vaguely of ‘Indo-Iranian’ origin.
Moreover, contradictions – as shown in this book, not only among various western scholars, but
ironically, even within one-and-the-same author, some times on the same page – confuse the readers.
Historians with their great scholarship can not do it unless they have some political East-West ethno-
cultural agenda. Contradictions are cleverly interwoven in the text with vague assertions, some times
qualified by the terms: ‘probably’, ‘perhaps’, ‘mostly’, ‘about’, etc. For example, almost all scholars know
or should know that ‘Arya’ is a Sanskrit word, and that Sanskrit is the language of the ancient Aryans
(Hindus) of Aryavarta (India), in which their Vedas were composed in remote ancient times. Until now,
no scholar has been able to identify any people, other than Hindus, outside India who spoke Sanskrit
and believed in the Vedas. Yet they, endorse the inter-twined theories of “Aryan invasion of India’ and
‘Indo-European family of language’, according to which the Aryans and Sanskrit came into India from
outside. From exactly where, no scholar knows. Such maneuvers are professionally inexcusable. I am
trying to emphasize that history should be clear, honest, true, and specific, not vague and tricky.

Several other races came and got absorbed

According to Jawaharlal Nehru,4 several other races – Iranians, Parthians, Greeks, Bactrians, Scythians,
Huns, Turks – came to India before Islam and got absorbed. Nehru cites Dodwell who remarked that
India was “infinitely absorbent like the ocean”. I think that they got ethno-culturally and lingually
absorbed, because they were few in number. Nehru was surprised to see how these races were
culturally absorbed in a caste-ridden society:

“It is odd to think of India, with her caste system and exclusiveness, having this astonishing inclusive
capacity to absorb foreign races and cultures. Perhaps it was due to this that she retained her vitality
and rejuvenated herself from time to time. The Moslems, when they came, were also powerfully
affected by her.”

Nehru (p. 74) cites Vincent Smith: “The foreigners (Muslim Turks), like their forerunners the Sakas and
the Yueh-chi, universally yielded to the wonderful assimilative power of Hinduism, and rapidly became
Hinduised.” I think if Vincent meant that they became Hindus by religion, he was wrong. Culturally yes.
Or one can say that they got assimilated or they culturally mainstreamed. Hinduism doesn’t believe in

4
Discovery of India (1946, pp. 73,74)
19
conversion. Hence, Parsees, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians have been able to preserve their
respective religions. Early Iranians, Parthians, Greeks, Bactrians, Scythians, Huns, Turks might have been
religiously absorbed, as explained earlier, that they might have been immigrants in insignificant
numbers. Even in present times Hinduism does not believe in conversion. Hindutva, in my opinion, is
being politically misinterpreted as Hinduism. Hindutva is national ethos of Hindustan, equivalent to
Bharatiyata of Bharat.

Christian Missionaries and History

In India too, in 19th century Christian missionaries, particularly Max Muller, Sir William Jones and Lord
Macaulay were brought in India by The East India Company to distort history by misinterpreting Vedic
scriptures. Lot of damage was already done to the history in different ways – by changing the names of
the cities (for example Karnavati was changed to Ahmedabad, etc), rivers, mountains, etc., restricting
teaching of Sanskrit and its scriptures in schools and colleges, and empting library shelves of the books
related to Vedic religion and culture – by most Muslim rulers.
Thus history, particularly of ancient Bharat, has been obscured and confused. This has been more
adversely affected because of the attitude of indifference towards history on the part of sleeping Hindu
historians. Lieut. Col. F. Wilford, in the Asiatic Society of Bengal’s Research series, led by William Jones
(1746-94), section: “On the Ancient Geography of India” (Vol. XIV, pp.374-376), says that some Puranas
have information about the names of some mansions, geographical tracts, mountains, rivers, etc., but
without any explanations about them. Wilford also describes his difficulties and frustrations in collecting
relevant data, mainly because of lack of adequate cooperation from Pundits and Hindu historians.
If Wilford had received full cooperation and if historians, over the years, referred to the ancient names
of the rivers and towns in addition to their respective modern names, we would have been able to get
clearer picture of ancient India’s geographical spread. The history of ancient Bharat, therefore, has been
erroneous and infected with several gaps.
Unfortunately, still there are many who believe that it is because of Britain India has a long network of
railways, universities, drainage system, etc. They think India would have not uplifted herself if Britain
were not there. They, being great angrez-raj-bhagta, refuse to realize what India – who has
technologically achieved so much during sixty years of her independence – would have achieved if she
had independence of more than a millennium. Bharat would have soared through the roof to touch the
sky. We should know that the Britain did not allow India have industries except textile. Raw material was
exported to Britain for importing back the products manufactured thereof.
In order to know what India would have been if she had independence long back, they should read
books on the five thousand year old Indus Valley civilization to know that its two main cities,
Mohenjodaro in Sindh and Harrapa in the Punjab, had parallel broad avenues, great drainage system,
public swimming pool, brick houses with a well inside, etc. The people were literate and had know how
about architecture, city planning, and drainage. They knew technology of ship building and navigation
because of which they had maritime links with Egypt, Mesopotamia (present Iraq), Asia Minor, Bahrain,

20
etc. Bharat had Nalanda Vishwa Vidalaya in her ancient times. Sanskrit dictionary had “Vishwa Vidalaya”
word for university. Much of this is included in Five Thousand Years of Sindhis: Heritage, Religion,
Entrepreneurship, Sindhyat, & Language (2006) by Dr. Jagat K. Motwani.
Temple of History has been maligned
E. Pococke, in his “India In Greece” or “Truth in Mythology” (preface, p. vii), seems helplessly rebuking
the European scholarship for destroying the temple of history:
“A gigantic mass of absurdities now lies exposed, for a sifting examination. It remains for the patient
sagacity of European scholarship, working upon both Occidental and Oriental materials, to re-build, I
trust, upon no unstable foundation, that Temple of History which national vanity has destroyed, and
whose ruins national Bud’hism has obscured.”
Pococke further writes (p. ix): “Our ignorance it is which has made a myth of history; and our ignorance
is an Hellenic inheritance, much of it the result of Hellenic vanity.” Why Pococke, it seems, has titled this
book also as, “ Truth in Mythology”.
History and Identity
Wrong and misinterpreted history has confused Hindus about their identity, and about the antiquity of
their scriptures, and their heritage. They have questions about the origin of Aryans and about Aryan
invasion. If you want to weaken a nation, distort its history. If you want to destroy a community, confuse
its ethno-cultural identity and heritage. Western colonials have done this to the ancient Hindu nation in
general, and to the history of Sind, in particular. Sind is the region of the Indus (Sindhu) Valley
civilization, which is the core civilization of Hind (Hindustan), the Hindu Samaj. The word “Hind” has
been derived from the word “Sind”, “Hindi” from “Sindhi”, and “Hindu” from “Sindhu”. History of Sind
reflects lot about history of India. Henry Cousens, in his “The Antiquities of Sind” (1929, p. 13), describes
the history of Sind as full of contradictions and confusion:
“Materials for the history of Sind, previous to the time of the Arab conquest in A.D. 711, are meager
indeed, and what exist are contained almost solely in the accounts of a few Arab writers. The most lucid
account, though very short, of the country immediately preceding the establishment of Arab rule in the
province, is to be found in the Chach Namah which is a Persian translation of a work written by Ali, son
of Muhammad Kufi, in A.D. 1216. Two later works on the history of Sind – the Tarrikh-i-Masumi or
Tarikh-i-Sindh and Tuhfatu-l-Kiram – were to a great extent based upon the Chach Namah in their
accounts of the earlier periods.5 The history of Sind, as told by its own historians, with contradictions
and various spellings of names, is very confusing; but this is as nothing to the hopeless tangle caused by
the contradictory translations and commentaries of modern writers, each of whom is perfectly
convinced in his own mind that he alone is right. … Nor do Hiuen Tsiang’s brief and perplexing
references help us much more. A long dark period of a thousand years in which we catch glimmers of
the White Huns and other invaders, is as yet untraversed by any but the faintest rays of light.”

5
In this account, I have chiefly followed the translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg of Sind Civil Service. The
Chach Namah, also as the Tarikh-i-Hind wa Sindh, was originally written in Arabic.
21
Cousens writes that Chach Namah, also known as the Tarikh-i-Hind wa Sind, was originally written in
Arabic. He further writes that the history of Sind, as written by its own historians, is full of contradictions
and confusion.
As a matter of fact, the history of Sind, as suggested by Cousens, was not written by Sind’s natives,
Sindhi Hindus. Rather, it was written by Arabs in Arabic followed by faulty translations. This history –
Tarikh-i-Hind wa Sind – does not illustrate what had happened to, or in Sind before the Arab invasions.
The pre-711 AD history of Sind would have helped Sindhis to know their 5000 year long heritage.
Herbert J. Muller6 tells that Herbert Butterfield, himself a historian, feels that the national history
taught in schools has encouraged the most general and terrifying of existing evils, human presumptions
and intellectual arrogance. He concludes:
”While we have great need of history, our first need is to unlearn most of what has been taught. A
superficial, confused and distorted notion of history is far more dangerous than ignorance of it.”
Indians (Indo-Aryans) seem to have blindly endorsed most of the ethno-socio-cultural theories,
particularly – “Aryan Invasion of India”, “Aryans and Dravidians”, and “Indo-European Family of
Languages” – which have been expounded by western scholars with their missionary agenda to confuse
our heritage. Indian politicians, I believe, have remained apathetic, silent, indifferent, and unconcerned
about the wrong history being taught in schools and colleges. It seems, they have been resisting getting
history of ancient India corrected, apparently because of political reasons, may be fear of losing minority
votes.
The historian Graham Hancock, in ‘Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilization’ (2002, p.116),
remarks: “Almost every thing that was ever written about this (Indus) civilization before five years ago is
wrong.” Mr. Hancock concludes that during most of the twentieth century, the archaeological record
refused to reveal evidence of the Indus civilization’s long period of development. This created a vacuum,
a dark hole in history, European scholars took advantage of. Hancock remarks: “European scholars felt
free to conclude that the Indus Valley civilization might, in its origin, have been alien to India.” We know
that the socio-cultural and religious landscape, before the advent of Muslims in the region, was very
much similar, if not identical, to that in the rest of Bharat.
Hancock (2002:169) explains how the culture of the ancient India has been misinterpreted:

“The Indus-Sarasvati civilization was a literate culture, but the archaeological interpretation of it has
been strictly limited to excavated material remains and has never been able to draw upon the
civilization’s own texts. This is because all attempts to decipher the enigmatic ‘Harappan’ script have
failed, and because (at least until very recently) the Sanskrit Vedas were regarded as the work of
another, later culture and were assumed to have had nothing to do with the Indus-Sarasvati civilization.
Well into the twentieth century, this approach simply meant that there was no Indus-Sarasvati
civilization. It was not part of the archaeological picture of India’s past and was never even
contemplated. It was, in other words, as ‘lost’ as Plato’s Atlantis until the material evidence that proved
its existence began to surface when excavations were started at Harappa and Mohenjo-daro in 1920s.”

6
Herbert J. Muller, op. cit. p.28.
22
 Even now, for some or even larger section of the world society – the Eastern (particularly Indian) as well
as the Western – the Sindhu (Indus) Valley civilization has remained lost as Plato’s Atlantis, because of
the reasons:

• The first-written-history has strong impact, because it gets implanted in the reader’s mind too
deep and too hard to disbelieve it. Old is considered wisdom and truth. Wrong history has gone down
to so many generations.
• All do not read new developments.
• There are few Donald Fosters who have scholarly grace and integrity to admit their wrongs.
Most of the post-1920s scholars do not admit that whatever was written earlier was not right. Some
even twist things around to reinterpret them as facts.
• Some Indian scholars have attempted to modify the history by reinterpreting the events in light
of new historic developments. The general tendency is to discard them as sentimental and communal.
Unfortunately, nationalism is being politically branded as communalism and fundamentalism. Such sort
of contra-nationalistic thinking is being considered as a progressive fad, and nationalistic persons are
criticized as conservative and backward. Previously, colonial ethnic politics was out to distort the ancient
history of India, now our own domestic politics has been a strong obstacle against correction of the
historic distortions.

The illiteracy among the massive rural segment of the society has prevented many from reading such a
wrong and ethnically injurious history.
Cousens (p.1) has cited Elliot’s7 description of the squandering of public funds by Talpurs:

“It notoriously swarms with sanctified beggars and imposters, and contains, according to the current
saying, no less than 100,000 tombs of saints and martyrs, besides ecclesiastical establishments, which,
under the Talpurs, absorbed one-third of the entire revenue of the state.”

I recall that in my boyhood days in Sindh, a person, who squandered his money, was taunted as a Talpur.
But, I think Talpurs knew that swarm of tombs would give Sind new reIigio-cultural face (Muslim) to
Sind.

Traditional name of a country reflects its identity

7
Elliot’s Appendix to the Arabs in Sind, p.63.
23
The name, especially of a nation, speaks immeasurably of its history and culture. The name of a nation is
a stepping-stone to define the identity of its original people and the antiquity of their society. India –
because of its politics and the traditional indifference of its people to its history and national identity8 –
has been sleeping over the issue. Its metropolis cities, Bombay, Madras and Calcutta, have regained
their respective traditional names – Mumbai, Chennai, and Kolkata.

Original name of a country reflects the history and heritage

Distortion or mutilation of history is done by burring the original name of a country too deep to see the
sunshine. Victors, invaders, colonialists, or illegitimate occupiers did not want the world, particularly the
people of India, know the history of the glories of India. Read the Chapter: Vishaal Bharat (Greater
India):Borderless World of Vedic Culture to know the achievements of ancient Bharat. The colonialists
change the names of the countries they occupy, and also the names of its towns, rivers, mountains,
streets, gardens, etc. to insure that its future generations would not know who were its original natives.
This has happened to so many countries in the Middle East comprising of Asia Minor, Iran, Egypt,
Mesopotamia, Bahrain, etc.; and also several countries in Central Asia including Balochistan,
Afghanistan, Tadzhistan (Tajikistan), Turkmenistan, Turkistan or Turkestan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and
Kazakhstan. Countries with their names suffixing with ‘istan’ or ‘stan’. could be part of Greater India in
its ancient times. ‘Sthan/stan’ is a Sanskrit word, meaning ‘place’. According to The Practical Sanskrit-
English Dictionary, by Vaman Shivram Apte (1992:1007), ‘sthanam’ means “A state, place, spot, site,
locality, station, position, etc.” Some say that “istan” is a Persian/Iranian word. It is possible. Both
Sanskrit and Avestan have the same or similar word for land. It is known that ancient Sanskrit and
ancient Avestan languages were linguistically very close to each other. History of a country should be its
true story right from its birth to the present time.
Pococke (p.1) has observed:
“An illustrious geographer has well observed that the names which geography, particularly physical
geography, has consecrated, may be considered the most important documents of primitive history, or
of history anterior to chronology. … Had that geographical nomenclature been preserved pure and
entire, a map of the world might have been obtained, more valuable by far than the Universal
Histories.”
Pococke (pp.6,7) seems to lament that Greeks have inherited a mass of disfigured documents. This has
been made more difficult by the superscriptions of new tales over the old parchment. He seems to
believe that fortunately, since no erasures have been made, the text of the old history needs to be
restored:
“Our way seems effectually barred by the dictum of those theorist who virtually define ‘ancient history’
as ‘invention’. I deeply regret this spirit of theorisng; it has been gaining ground of late years in

8
Malte Brun, Geog. Univ.
24
Germany; and, but recently, its most able exponent in this country has carried this principle into the
regions of hypercriticism.”9
Pococke (pp.6-7) talks about an “able writer” in the Edinburgh Review, stresses upon the necessity of
historical naked truths about the actual events, not eclipsed by poetic jewelry: :
“The real question at issue is not so much whether there was a basis of his historical truth for the
poetical legend; whether any such events as the siege of Thebes, or the expedition against Troy, actually
occurred; as whether we are now able to extricate this kernel of truth from the mass of fable with which
it is overgrown, and to exhibit the naked skeleton of historical fact, stripped of all its coverings of
poetical embellishment.”
Pococke stresses that Indians (Vedic Aryans), who colonized Greece, not only composed history, but
also theorized mathematics in poetic form. To me, it looks that the ancient Vedic tradition of poetic
mode of expression has been effectively inherited by present generation, as evidenced by its generous
use, as musical poetic expression of love, sentiments and philosophy in Indian movies. Pococke (pp.7-8)
remarks:
“When we find the same nation (reference seems to be to India) who were the colonists of Greece,
composing not only history but also mathematical treatises in a poetic form, this poetical form will
produce, in our minds, no solid objection against the statements contained therein. … What we read as
poetry, and legend, was once accredited history, and the only genuine history which the first Greeks
could conceive or relish of their past time. Curtain conceals nothing behind, and cannot by any ingenuity
be withdrawn.10

Pococke (p.8) explains that “the curtain is the picture”, the picture is Indian and the curtain is now
withdrawn. It needs to be noted here that almost all Hindu (Vedic) scriptures are composed in poetry
form.

British East India Company & Distortion of History

Dr. K. M. Munshi, the founder of the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, in his foreword to Majumdar’s "History
and Culture of the Indian People" (1988:8-9), points out to the damage, several British scholars have
intentionally inflicted on the history of the Indian culture:

"The attempts of British scholars, with the exception of Tod, wherever they have taken these ‘histories’
as reliable source-books, have hindered rather than helped the study of Indian history. Unfortunately for
us, during the last two hundred years, we have not only to study such histories but unconsciously to
mould our whole outlook on life upon them."

9
See “The History of Greece,” by G. Grote, Esq., London, 1849.
10
History of Greece, vol. I, Preface, p. xiii.
25
 The British East India Company employed a well planned three-pronged – missionary, history and
education – assault on Hindu culture. Friedrich Max Muller (Bharti, 1992:64-71), basically a missionary,
was presented to India as a Sanskrit scholar. He was hired at the age of 25 years in 1847 to translate the
Vedas into English. If they were really interested in translations, they would have hired an indigenous
scholar with proficiency in Sanskrit and English, authentic historic perspectives on the Vedas, and with a
genuine feel of the Vedic religion. Max Muller had none of the three. Neither English nor Sanskrit was
his mother tongue. From the British point of view, his qualification was his firm commitment to his
Christian mission. He very tactfully, as said by Bharti11, hired a couple of impoverished Sanskrit Pundits
(who could have been easily bribed), got Vedas misinterpreted to humiliate and discredit the Hindu
religion and culture. For example, the mantras praising the Indo-Aryan (Hindu) heroes were attributed
to the invading Aryans.
I would have owed deep sense of gratitude to Max Muller and Sir William Jones for their hard research-
oriented deep dig in the history and genuine tribute to the Vedic philosophy,

1. if they had not robbed Hindus of their legitimate authorship of the Vedas and their age,
2. if they had not confused the identity of the Aryans and their original home, and
3. if they had not obscured the antiquity and the original abode of Sanskrit.

The ages of the four Vedas and the two epics (the Ramayana and the Mahabharta) have been
shortened, so as to validate the ill-founded theory of ‘Aryan invasion of India’. The native Aryans were
deprived of the credit for having such a great culture and composing the Vedas. Many exponents of the
theory wrote that prior to the advent of the light-skinned Aryans from Central Asia and the Asia Minor
region, the natives of India were dark-skinned uncivilized Dravidians who were allegedly pushed down
to the South by the invading Aryans. This sowed the seeds of difference and division between the North
and the South. The world is aware of the age-old British doctrine, ‘Divide and rule’.
Adam Hochschild, reviewing (NY Times, July 24, 2005) the book “Dancing with Strangers: Europeans
and Australians at First Contact” by historian Inga Clendinnen, writes that the author Inga Clendinnen
feels that because of their ‘Divide and rule’ tactics, the British colonizers did not meet heroic resistance
in much of Africa, India and Latin America. They succeeded because they could make indigenous groups
fight with each other, not against the strangers. She also addresses the issue of the history. She
remarks:

11
Bharti, Brahm Dat. Max Muller:A Lifelong Masquerade. New Delhi: Era Books, 1992.

26
“History is always written by the victors – at least at first. … Since then, of course, the end of colonialism
in Africa and Asia and the civil rights movement in the United States have forced us to start writing
history differently. … Yet history remains a messy and complicated business.”

History: Legends & Mythology

:
Herbert J. Muller, in The Loom Of History (1958, p.3) has said about the legends and myths:

“More important, the myths and legends are true history as the records of the mind of ancient peoples.
They yield insights into prehistoric custom and belief, the growth of more civilized aspirations, and
finally the realization of conscious ideals.”

Muller has correctly described legends and myths. How could Jones objectively and accurately write
about Hindus by discarding their ancient scriptures? They tell lot about the history of the ancient India.
Hindu legends, like those of the Greeks and of the Romans, are not completely mythological. They
contain lot of historical facts. In ancient times, peoples didn’t have the concept of history as
distinguished from myths. In fact, most of the content of most religious scriptures contained historical
facts. It is possible, there may be more sugar in praise of the main actors, by way of some exaggeration
in describing their acts, achievements, and philosophy. One should not blame the feelings and the
sentiments, writers and poets had for their heroes. They should be thanked for the facts they have given
for historians to reconstruct an objective and reliable history for generations to come.

Childes: Vedas, source of historical data

V. Gordon Childes, in The Aryans: A Study of Indo-European Origins (1987, p.30), considers the Rig Veda,
as a great history book. He remarks that the Vedas, particularly the Rig Veda, contain lot of historical
data:

“The Indians’ language approximates most closely to that of the Mitanni documents and has been
preserved from a remote date in the hymns of the Rig Veda. This priceless document also furnishes
precious historical data.”

This evidences the age of the Rig Veda longer than the Mitanni documents can be placed before 1800
B.C. Though the Vedas are thousands of years older than that. Mitannis (Mitranis) were Khshtaries
(Warriors) from the Punjab who had established their kingdoms in Asia Minor and in its neighboring

27
region in about 1800 B.C. The age of the Vedas suggests the age of Sanskrit in which the Vedas were
composed.
The religion of the Indo-European Aryans is described in the Reader’s Digest’s The World’s Religions,
edited by Dr. Peter B. Clarke (1993:130,131):

“Knowledge of the Aryans is mostly derived from the heritage of their sacred literature, known as the
Vedas, especially the Rig Veda, a collection of hymns. … They spoke an early form of Sanskrit.”

On p.130, Clarke talks about the connection of the big bath in Mohenjodaro with Hindu rituals:

“Since there are no written records, the bath’s (in Mohenjo-daro) purpose is unknown. However,
scholars believe that it was connected with ritual cleanliness and that it may even have prefigured the
purificatory tanks found beside Hindu temples. If that is the case, ritual ablutions in India may have a
history of 4,000 years.”

On the same page (p.130), it is written that the invading Aryans entered India about 1,500 B.C.,
contradicting the above statement that Hindu ritual ablutions may have a history of 4000 years,
meaning 500 years prior to the alleged invasion of India by Aryans.
On the basis of what is said above, it can be said that the Vedas, especially the Rig Veda, were
composed much earlier than 1,500 B.C. As a matter of fact, the Vedas were composed long before 4,000
years (refer to the chapter: Sanskrit and Vedas)..

Should one write the history of others?

At least the one, who considers own legends as history and of others as myth, should not write history
of others. It would be unprofessional and unethical for an ethnically biased historian to write about
ethnically different people. If he wants to write, he should respectfully consult their scriptures, because,
otherwise unconsciously inter-ethnic comparative bias would creep in. Historians are human beings, not
saints. Historian should have identification with and adequate knowledge of the culture of the people,
he/she is writing the history of. History has been prostituted only by those who have power to.
Sorry to say that most European scholars, particularly those of the colonial days, have superiority
complex in regard to most Eastern cultures. Histories penned by such historians are bound to be
ethnically biased. May be the colonial lords did not give them correct facts, or they told them what to
write and how, evidenced by histories of several European colonies.
28
 The first version of a history, undoubtedly, has more lasting impact than its later corrected versions.
The “first history” has typically been written by government-decorated scholars. In such history books,
truths are set aside to bring forth the accounts as dictated by the colonial agenda. Such government-
sponsored books receive extensive readership due to their recognition by schools and colleges as text
books. They are given much more shelf space in libraries, particularly in public libraries. It is evidenced
by what several copycat present post-independence scholars write.
Max Muller worked enthusiastically to project Hinduism in unfavorable colors. His design is well
reflected in his letter to Chevalier Bunsen (The Life and Letters of Max Muller,Vol.1:17):

“Your Excellency, … I have no doubt whatever, that something can be written about the Veda which
would reach even the dullest ears. Nevertheless I, of course, shall be glad if the Rig Veda is dealt with in
the Edinburgh Review, and if Wilson would write from the standpoint of a missionary, and would show
how the knowledge and bringing into light of the Veda would upset the whole existing system of Indian
theology. It might become of real interest. … The Christianity of 19th century will hardly be the
Christianity of India. But the ancient religion of India is doomed … and if Christianity does not step in,
whose fault it would be?”

Thomas Babington Macaulay, another missionary poised behind the mask of an educationist, told his
father in 1836 (Bharti 1992:66) that if his plans of education were followed up, there will be no high
caste Hindu left in Bengal after 30 years. Both Max Muller and Macaulay worked hard to disfigure and
distort Vedic culture with an objective to infuse, in Hindus, a cultural inferiority complex. Muller and
Macaulay did not succeed that much as they had desired because in those days very few Indians had
knowledge of English; and very few among those few did read the books, Muller and Macaulay wrote.
Moreover, Indians, in general, were getting correct perspectives on their religion and culture from oral
traditions by way of satsangs in temples and traditional plays from town to town, such as Ram Leelas,
Krishna Leelas, satsangs, etc. It seems, Max Muller had changed in his later period of his stay in India.
He started talking positive about Hindu culture. But the damage has been done by the two intertwined
theories – ‘Aryan invasion of India’ and ‘Indo-European family of languages’ – according to which
original natives of Bharat were not Aryans, who along with Sanskrit came from outside, and the original
natives were dark-skin uncivilized Dravidians who were pushed southward by the invading Aryans who
spoke Sanskrit which was linguistically quite alien to the Dravidian languages. They succeeded in
creating wide ethnic rift between the North and the South.
Dr. K. M. Munshi (in Majumdar, 1951:9) has drawn our attention to the harm several European
scholars have intentionally done to Hindu culture: He laments how the failures of Hindus have been
highlighted and how their successes have been consistently ignored:

“It (history) does not give us the real India. … During our school or college career, generation after
generation were told about the successive foreign invasions of the country, but little about how we
resisted them and less about our victories. We were taught to decry the Hindu social systems; but we

29
have never been told how this system came into existence as a synthesis of political, social, economic
and cultural forces; and how it developed in the people the tenacity to survive catastrophic changes.”

We can find consolation in Munshi’s (in Majumdar, 1951:9) assuring note:

“History, as I see it, is being consciously lived by Indians. History is a witness to the fact that politically
motivated recorded history of India has been disappointed by the history given down to us orally by our
Vedas and Upanishads.”

Illiteracy: A Blessing In Disguise

Paradoxically, mass illiteracy in the villages in earlier times has been a blessing in disguise. It has saved
the “Jahil” villagers of India from reading the undesirable material written in history books against
Hindus and their culture. The illiteracy has kept them culturally immune to the colonial historical virus.
They, unlike the educated elite, have remained ignorant of misrepresentations and distortions of the
history, and thus have been correctly informed about their culture and heritage through the traditional
oral mode of transmission of Vedic knowledge from generation to generation. It has been better
explained by Dr. Alan Roland, an eminent American psycho-analyst, in his “In Search of Self in India and
Japan” (1988, p.18):

“British administrative, educational, and missionary attitudes all conveyed intense attitudes of British
superiority and Indian inferiority in numerous shades and ways over the two centuries of their colonial
presence. This had enormous psychological impact, particularly on the Western-educated elite who
were more closely associated with the Raj. Since the men were more exposed to British attitudes than
women, they were much more affected by colonial denigration.”

In fact, the “educated” elite of India, in order to become learned in a real sense, need to unlearn lot. We
Indians have been suffering from an ethno-cultural inferiority complex. It would be beneficial for India
and Indians if politicians and academics take active interest in uncovering the historic truths. Dr. K. M.
Munshi (Majumdar, 1951:8) has remarked:

“To be a history in the true sense of the word, the work must be the story of the people inhabiting a
country. … The central purpose of a history must, therefore, be to investigate and unfold the values
which age after age have inspired the inhabitants of a country to develop their collective will and to
express it through the manifold activities of their life. Such a history of India is still to be written”.

30
In conclusion, I would like to say that Hindus indifference to our own history has been invitation to
foreigners to write our history. Western historians discarded Indian mythology as history. This was the
reason why western scholars did not know true history of ancient India. Matlock, in his India Once Ruled
the Americas (p.170), explains this:
“The one and only reason why we don’t know about India’s true role in human history is our self-
imposed ignorance of Indian mythology, history, and traditions!”

References

Abhayankar, K.D & B.G.Sidharth (eds).Treasures of Ancient Indian Astronomy. New Delhi:

Ajanta Publications, 1993.

Akmajian, Adrian & others. Linguistics: An Introduction and Communication. Cambridge

(MASS) and London: The MIT Press, 1995.

Apte, Vaman Shivram. The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass

Publishers, 1992.

Baldi, Philip. An Introduction to the Indo-European Languages. Carbondale, IL: Southern

Illinois, University Press, 1983.

Banerjee, Satya Ranjan. A Handbook of Sanskrit Philology. Calcutta: Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar,

2000.

Barnett, L.D. Antiquities of India. New York, 1914.

Benveniste, Emile. Indo-European Language and Society. Coral Gables, Florida: University of Miami
Press, 1969.

Bhatia, Tej K. Negation of South Asian Languages. Patiala, India: Indian Institute of Language

Studies, 1995.

Bhattacharjee, Arun. A History of Ancient India (2nd ed.). Liverpool: Lucas, 1988.

Bhattacharya, D.K. Prehistoric Archaeology. Delhi: Hindustan Publishing Corporation,1972.

Bodmer, Frederick. The Loom of Language: An Approach to the Mastery of Many Languages.

New York, London: W.W Norton & Company, 1972.

31
Burrow, T. The Sanskrit Language. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas Publishers,2001.

Calder, W.M. Notes on Anatolian Religion. Journal of the Manchester Egyptian and Oriental Society,
XI,1924.

Cambridge History of India. Vol. I, Cambridge, 1922.

Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. I & II,(3rd edition). Cambridge:1973.

Campbell, Joseph. The Power of Myth. New York: Anchor Books,1988.

Cannon, Garland & Kevin R. Brine (ed.). Objects of Enquiry: The Life, Contributions, and

Influences of Sir William Jones. New York: New York University Press, 1995. (DHL 954,0072, OBJ.)

Caul, Goverdhan. On the Literature of the Hindus, from the Sanskrit@ written in 1780's). In Sir
William Jones (ed.) Asiatic Researches (Vol.1, Ch.XVIII,pp.286-296) New Delhi: Cosmo
Publications,1979.

Childe, V. Gordon. The Aryans: A Study of Indo-European Origins. New York: Knopf, 1926.

________ . New Light on the Most Ancient East. New York : Frederick A. Praeger, 1953.

_________ . The Dawn of European Civilization. London,1950

_________ . Piecing Together the Past

_________ . What Happened in History, Pelican Books,1943

Clark, Grahame. World Prehistory in New Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press,1993.

Clark, Grahame & Stuart Piggot. Prehistoric Societies. New York: Alfred A, Knopf, 1968.

Clarke, Peter B. The World=s Religions, Understanding the Living Faiths. Pleasantville:Marshall Editions
Limited,1993. .

Coedes, G. The Indianized States of Southern Asia. Honolulu: An East-West Center Book, The

University Press of Hawaii, 1964.

Dimock, Jr., Edward & et al. The Literature of India: An Introduction. Chicago & London: The

University of Chicago Press, 1974.

Durant,Will. Our Oriental Heritage. New York: MJF Books,1935.

Elst, Koenraad. Indigenous Indians: Agastya to Ambedkar. New Delhi: Voice of India, 1993.

__________ . Dr. Ambedkar: A True Aryan. New Delhi: Voice of India,1993a.

32
Embree, Ainslie T.(ed.). Sources of Indian Tradition (Vol.I, from the beginning to 1800). New
York: Columbia University Press, 1988.

Feuerstein, George, Subash Kak & David Frawley. In Search Of The Cradle Of Civilization.
Weaton, IL, USA: Quest Books, 1995.

Frawley, David. From the River of Heaven: Hindu and Vedic Knowledge for the Modern Age.
Salt Lake City: Passage Press,1990.

____________ .Gods, Sages and Kings. Salt Lake City: Passage Press, 1991.

Griffith, Ralph T.H. The Hymns Of The Rgveda. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas Publishers Private

Limited, 1995.

Langer,William L (ed.). The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of World History (Vol. 1 & 2). New York:
Harry N. Abrams, Inc.,1968.

McCrindle, John W. Ancient India. As Described in Classical Literature. New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint
Corporation, 1979.

___________ . Ancient India: As Described by Ptolemy. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers
Pvt.,Ltd.,2000.

Malmkjaer, Kristen (ed.). The Linguistics Encyclopedia. London and New York: Routledge,
1991.

Majmudar, R.C.(ed). History and Culture of the Indian People. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1951.

_____________ . Ancient India. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1952.

Mallory, J.P. In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth. New York,

Thames and Hudson,1989.

Malmkjaer, Kristen (ed.). The Linguistics Encyclopedia. London and New York: Routledge,
1991.

Mathews, P.H. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University

Press Inc., 1997.

____________ . Linguistics: A Very Short Introduction, New York: Oxford University Press,

2003.

Motwani, Jagat K. Ancient History of Bharat and Hindu Identity. in Sharma, Bhu Dev & N. Ghosh (ed.).
Revisiting Indus-Sarasvati Age and Ancient India. Atlanta (USA): World Association for Vedic
Studies, USA.1998.

33
_________ . Indo-European Languages: Too Diverse for One Family. In Sharma, Bhu Dev

(ed.). New Perspectives on Vedic and Ancient Indian Civilization. Meerut

(India): World Association of Vedic Studies, 2000.

_________ . Indo-European Languages: A Myth. In Sharma, Bhudev (ed). Contemporary

Views on Indian Civilization. Meerut (India): WorldAssociation of

Vedic Studies, 2003.

Muller, F. Max. Science of Language (Vol .I). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891.

__________ . The Six Systems of Indian Philosophy. Calcutta: Susil Gupte (India) Ltd., 1952.

_________ . India: What Can It Teach Us? London: New York, Longmans, Funk & Wagnalls

Company,1999.

Muller, Herbert J. The Loom of History. New York: Harper & Brothers,1958.

Nadiem, Ihsan H. Moenjodaro: Heritage Of Mankind.(2nd. revised edition) Lahore: Sang-e-

Meel-Publications, 1995.

Nehru, Jawaharlal. The Discovery of India. Calcutta: The Signet Press, 1946.

Pococke, E. India in Greece; or Truth in Mythology. London: Richard Griffin and Company, 1856.

Poonai, Premsukh. Origin of Civilization and Language. Dayton Beach (Florida): Pearce Publishers, Inc.
1994.

Renfrew, Colin. Archaeology & Language: The Puzzle Of Indo-European Origins. New York:

Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Roberts, J.M. History of the World. London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1987.

Robinson, Andrew. Lost Languages: The Enigma of The World’s Undeciphered Scripts. New

York: McGraw Hill, 2002

Robinson, Francis (Ed.). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri

Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, and the Maldivas. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Sharma, Bhu Dev & N. Ghosh (ed.). Revisiting Indus-Sarasvati Age and Ancient India. Atlanta (USA):
World Association for Vedic Studies, USA.1998.

Sharma, Bhu Dev (ed.). New Perspectives on Vedic and Ancient Indian Civilization. Meerut

34
 (India): World Association of Vedic Studies, 2000.

________ . Contemporary Views on Indian Civilization. Meerut (India): WorldAssociation of

Vedic Studies, 2003.

Sidharth, B.G. The Unmythical Puranas: A Study in Reverse Symbolism.@ In Grifith Observer, April
1989.

___________.The Antiquity of The Rig Veda. Hyderabad: B.M.Birla Science Centre, 1991.

___________.Mahayuga: The Great Cosmic Cycle And The Date of the Rig Veda.
Hyderabad: B.M.Birla Science Centre,1991a.

__________ .The Astronomical Symbolism of Vishnu from the Vedas to the

Puranas.Hyderabad:B.M.Birla Science Centre, 1991b...

___________. A Lost Anatolian Civilization: Is It Vedic? Hyderabad:B.M.Birla Centre, 1992.

___________ . .A Date and Place for the Mahabharta. Hyderabad:B.M.Birla Science Centre, 1993.

___________. Calendaric Astronomy, Astronomical Dating & Archaeology: A New View of

Antiquity and its Science. Hydrabad: B.M.Birla Science, 1993a.

Walker, Benjamin. Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism (2 vols). New York:

Wheeler, R. E. M. Five Thousand Years of Pakistan. London: Royal India & Pakistan Society,

1950.

Wheeler, Mortimer. The Indus Civilization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.

Wilford, Francis. Chronology of the Hindus.@ In Sir william Jones. Asiatic Researches (Vol.5, Ch.XVIII,
pp.241-295). New Delhi: Cosmo Publications, 1979.

____________ . An Essay on the Sacred Isles in the West@ (written in 1780's). In Sir William Jones
(ed.). Asiatic Researches (Vol.8,Ch.VII,pp.245-375). New Delhi: Cosmo Publications, 1979a.

____________ . A Dissertation on Semiramis, the Origin of Mecca@ (written in 1780's). In Sir William
Jones (ed.). Asiatic Researches( Vol. 4, Ch.XXVI, pp.361-383).

New Delhi: Cosmo Publications,1979b.

____________ . On Egypt and Other countries adjacent to Cali River or Nile of Ethiopia.@ in
Sir William Jones

(ed). Asiatic Researches (Vol.3,Ch.XIII, pp.295-468). New Delhi: Cosmo

Publications, 1979c.
35
____________ . On the Ancient Geography of India@ (written in 1780's). In Sir William Jones. Asiatic
Researches (Vol.14, Ch.VII,pp.373-470). New Delhi: Cosmo Publicationss, 1980.

36
 THE COLONIAL PARADIGM OF INDIAN HISTORY

The Steel Frame

It is a tribute to the persistence and tenacity of the colonial overlords that dominated the Indian
subcontinent for a relatively short period of 200 years that the prevailing paradigm on the origins and
chronology of our civilization is largely constructed by them. Such a paradigm which we shall define as
the Colonial Paradigm, while substantially erroneous, is posited on certain assumptions. The key
assumption is that the civilization that remains extant has been brought into the area by migrating races
such as the Aryans, and in fact some would argue, that such a statement holds also for the so called
Dravidians of India. According to such a narrative everything that was worth preserving has been
handed down to us over the centuries by migrations, within the last 3 1/2 millennia, into the
subcontinent, from somewhere else. It is also true that the history that is taught the children of India
today is vastly at variance with the puranic accounts handed down to us over several millennia. It is to
state it without any embellishments, a revised history that is completely at odds with the traditional
history of India. Even so great an effort as the History and Culture of the Indian people edited by RC
Majumdar, the most famous of Indian historians at the time of Independence accepts the basic
framework of the History of India as revised by the British colonialists. Fifty years after independence
the narrative has not changed and the banner of the colonial version of history is now borne by the
Indian left including the Communists and the rump of the Congress party left behind after successive
defections from its fold and whose only common ideology is the adulation of the family of India’s first
Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, despite the fact that the current generation of that family share
neither the scholarship that he exhibited in his writings, not the deep sense of commitment that he felt
for the betterment of his people and the democratic principles enshrined in the constitution which he
was so keen to preserve

A substantial percentage of Indians now feel they have a stake in the preservation of this false history
and when confronted with the reality of their acquiescence to a false and revised history of their own
land by a very recent arrival on the scene, react with irrelevant responses such as “why blame the
British” (the issue is not one of blame, for after all we are in great admiration of the British for the
extraordinary sagacity they displayed in prolonging their imperial rule by every artifice imaginable) and
in any event it is not about the British at all. One possible reason for such a stance by the Indic in our
view is the so called Societal Stockholm Syndrome, which we have elaborated upon elsewhere. Another
possible explanation is that long centuries of servitude as a Dhimmi in Dar ul Islam have robbed the
Indic of the capability to think and reason for himself , with the result that he has internalized the notion

37
that what others say about his history has to be more accurate than the narrative contained in the epics
and the Puranas from which we derive our values and culture. We have also dealt with the systematic
approach that the British used to remake the weltanschuung of the Indic and to create an international
image of the Indic that is much at variance with reality , and the success they achieved in the resulting
internalization of these views by the Indic himself in our essay titled the South Asia File.

In this monograph we will study the motivations of 2 classes of individuals. One category belonged to
individuals who made it a lifelong passion to study the Indic people and their achievements in sciences
and the arts and in the process undertook a dangerous and long journey in order to satisfy their
curiosity. The other category belongs to those who were influenced considerably by the work of the
Indic ancients. The study is startling in that the current disdain with which the Indic is held in the post
colonial era is a development that occurred mainly in the last 200 years and that for most of our
recorded history the Indic has been held in high esteem by the denizens of the globe. It appears the
British had no small part in assiduously cultivating such a picture of the Indic. We say this because
substantial numbers of scholars from Britain have expressed their disdain for the contributions of the
Indics in unequivocal terms. But the pattern of spending a lifetime studying the Indics for a lifetime and
imbibing their knowledge and then subsequently belittling their achievements was first exhibited by
the Afghan scholar Al Biruni ( a very rare instance of such behavior in the ancient and medieval world) is
more prevalent in recent times. To the extent that the contributions of the ancient Indics are held in
high esteem by the occidentals, after the advent of colonial conquest, it is because it was understood
that these were contributions made by the so called Aryans immediately after arrival in the
subcontinent and that such a creative and inventive spark was extinguished shortly thereafter .
Exemplifying such a viewpoint , we quote W W Rouse Ball, the historian of mathematics12

“The Arabs had considerable commerce with India, and a knowledge of one or both of the two great Hindoo works on
algebra had been obtained in the Caliphate of Al-Mansur (754-775 AD)though it was not until fifty or seventy years later that
they attracted much attention. The algebra and arithmetic of the Arabs were largely founded on these treatises, and I
therefore devote this section to the consideration of Hindoo mathematics.The Hindoos like the Chinese have pretended that
they are the most ancient people on the face of the earth, and that to them all sciences owe their creation. But it is probable
that these pretensions have no foundation; and in fact no science or useful art (except a rather fantastic architecture and
sculpture) can be definitely traced back to the inhabitants of the Indian peninsula prior to the Aryan invasion. This seems to
have taken place at some time in the fifth century or in the sixth century when a tribe of Aryans entered India by the North
West part of their country. Their descendants, wherever they have kept their blood pure, may still be recognized by their
superiority over the races they originally conquered; but as is the case with the modern Europeans, they found the climate
trying and gradually degenerated”

12
W W. Rouse Ball in 'A short account of the History of mathematics' Dover Publications,1960, (originally appeared in
1908, page.146

38
We remind our readers that such an unabashedly racist sentiment was expressed as late as
the beginning of the 20th century, after the renaissance and the enlightenment.

We begin our story by turning our attention to the question of why India has been a subject of such
intense interest at least over the prolonged period of over 2 millennia.

Why was India such a subject of intense study for over a period
of 2 millennia?
That India has been a subject of exhaustive study and ubiquitous interest to a wide variety of peoples
from all corners of the ancient and the modern world throughout the millennia is certainly not in
dispute. To begin with we like to understand the various motives behind this intense interest. Was it
merely intellectual curiosity? Was it really the intention to study these subjects in order that they may
be critiqued extensively and then rubbished as inconsequential to the progress of humankind ? Was it a
curiosity into the origins of the European languages and history, given that the oldest and most prolific
literature of antiquity was in Sanskrit and Pali? We feel the answers were unique to each individual. But
certain patterns are emerging among indologists particularly of British and German origin.

There are many reasons for this intense and sustained interest, not least among them being the
considerable prowess of the ancient Indic in matters of scholarship, relating to the exact sciences. The
Indian university system of the ancient era was world renowned and attracted students from a wide
variety of countries. They were strung across the northern Indo Gangetic plain starting from Takshashila
on the western end to the famed universities of Nalanda, Odantipura and Vikramshila in present day
Bihar.

Indology is a name given by Indologists to the academic study of the history, languages, the sciences and
cultures of the Indian subcontinent. Strictly speaking it encompasses the study of the languages, scripts
of all of Asia that was influenced by Indic culture. As one can imagine this encompasses almost all of
present day Asia except perhaps the very northernmost reaches of Siberia. Indology as viewed by its
practitioners in Europe and America is analogous to Entomology, the science of insects, in more ways
than one. In both instances the subjects of the study have little say in the matter and the scope of the
study. The study is always carried out to be of benefit to the people who undertake the study and there
is little or no benefit to the subject of the study who may end up sacrificing his life for the ’cause’.
Indological studies or the study of the Indic people in a scholarly and serious manner can be broken up
into 6 major categories in some cases with overlapping time periods.

Regions of the world where interest in Indic studies was predominant

Babylonian and Greek (2500 BCE to 150 BCE). The Semitic and Mediterranean world had ubiquitous
contacts with the Indic. We are in the long drawn out process of researching this phase of Indology. Our

39
knowledge of the facts, are meager at the moment. But the more we learn about the Greeks who for the
most part hailed from Asia Minor,like the Trojans of Homer, the more it is apparent that they learned a
lot of their sciences from the Indian subcontinent

This came to a virtual stop during the heyday of the Roman Empire when it became the paramount
Mediterranean power after the fall of Carthage. Rome remained a major trading partner of India but
ceased to be interested in Indic scholarship. The Byzantines or the Eastern Empire centered in
Constantinople, even though it has sufficient contacts ceased to evince interest after the advent of the
adoption of Christianity, as India came to be associated increasingly with the Pagan practices that they
were trying hard to extinguish in Europe.

China and the Sinic Civilization. (2500 BCE – 1200 CE) The interaction between the Indic and Sinic
civilizations has been one of long standing, reaching back to the ancient era, and it has been a two way
street, contrary to popular misconceptions. The interaction has been ubiquitous and consistent. India
has borrowed much from the Sinic civilization ranging from the mundane to the sublime and vice versa.
There is much work yet to be done to study the extent of this interaction, an area that was merely of
tertiary interest to the European.

Arab and Non Arab Islamic studies of India (most of the Islamic savants who studied India did not speak
Arabic as their native tongue, but were descended from converted central Asian and Indic civilizations
(700 CE to 1200 CE). In fact it can safely be said that the Arab savants had enormous respect for the
capabilities of the Indics as did the Greeks like Pythagoras and Apollonius of Tyanneous before them.
The glaring exception to this statement is the cognitive dissonance exhibited by Al Biruni , the most well
known amongst the Islamic indologists, who spent a considerable portion of his life in India while
expressing scathing contempt and stereotyping of Hindus in his remarks about Indians in general. That
there is a contradiction between spending a great portion of one life learning from a people and then
trashing them unequivocally does not seem to bother AlBiruni. Furthermore , Al Biruni even though a
native of Khorasan (Khwaresm), was raised in Ghazni and spoke a dialect of Farsi known as Dari, which
is spoken even today in Afghanistan. These areas of Afghanistan were in fact freshly Islamized after the
last of the Hindu Shahi Kingdoms were defeated not very much earlier. The point being Al Biruni was no
stranger to Hindu scholarship or culture prior to coming to India. Such an attitude of studied
indifference and condescension even after a lifetime of imbibing Indic knowledge, became more and
more prevalent after the advent of the colonial era and the norm rather than the exception .

The scholarly exchanges with the Khilafat came to a halt after the sack of Baghdad and Damascus by
Hulagu, the grandson of the Mongol Great Khan Chinghiz, the most victorious conqueror of all time. It
was also severely impacted when vast numbers of Indics were taken in slavery, especially able bodied
men and women, and those with skills in the arts and sciences and equally large numbers were killed at
the rate of 100,000 a day during and after a battle. So great were the numbers of Indian slaves who
flooded the slave markets of Damascus that the price of slaves dropped dramatically and would
seriously impact the economics of slavery as a profitable activity. Some have estimated the sustained
decimation of the Indic population over the 5 centuries of Islamic domination of the subcontinent to be
in the neighborhood of over 70 million people and for the first time India, always a highly densely

40
populated country in relative terms to the rest of the globe, suffered a drop in population. The scholars
retreated farther and farther to the south until they reached Kerala, which is where the Kerala School of
astronomy and mathematics flourished for at least 300 years, producing such stalwarts as Nilakanta
Somayaji, till the 1700’s.

Pre- British colonial Catholic church dominated study of India. It may be surprising to learn that one of
the first pioneers in European Indology was the 12th Century Pope, Honorius IV. Then as now, the
primary focus of the study was not the scientific acquisition of knowledge but to arm themselves with
enough facts to be able to convert the Indic population to Christianity.

British colonial Indology (1780 CE – 2000 CE) which was in reality dominated by German scholars.
Interest in Indology only took shape and concrete direction after the British came to India, with the
advent of the discovery of Sanskrit by Sir William Jones in the 1770’s. Other names for Indology are Indic
studies or Indian studies or South Asian studies.

The extraordinary level of interest by German scholars in Indic matters is a very interesting narrative in
its own right and we need to reflect upon the highlights of this phenomenon. The German speaking
people experienced a vast increase in intellectual activity at about the same time that Britain colonized
India. We do not understand the specific factors that came into play during this time, other than to
remark on the tremendous intellectual ferment that was running concurrently during the French
revolution, and the keen interest that Napoleon showed in matters scientific including the contributions
of the orient. Clearly the remarks that Sir William made about Sanskrit as well as the high-level of
interest that he provoked in the Sanskrit language, contributed to the overall sense of excitement. But
why was it Germany and not Britain as the center of research on the Oriental contributions. The answer
lies in the intense search for nationhood that was under way in Germany during that period. When
Sanskrit was discovered, and it dawned on the Germans that the antiquity of Sanskrit was very great,
and that Sanskrit and German were somehow related, the Germans suddenly had an answer to the
question of their own ethnic and linguistic origins. Sir Henry Maine an influential Anglo Indian scholar
and former Vice Chancellor of Calcutta university, who was also on the Viceroys council, pronounced a
view that many Englishman shared about the unification of Germany.

“A nation has been born out of Sanskrit”

From the beginning, the great interest that Germany showed in Sanskrit had to do with their own
obsessions and questions regarding their ethnic and linguistic origins. It had very little or at least far less
to do with the origin of the ancient Indic, about whom they had considerably less interest. And yet, that
does not stop the proponents of the AIT in India, whose knowledge of European history appears to be
rudimentary at best, from asserting that AIT is an obsession of nationalistic Hindus. Such is the fate and
the perversion of history that conquered nations can aspire to Different aspects of this fascinating
chapter, on the postulation of an Aryan race and its corollaries the Indo European, Indo German are
described for instance by various authors Trautmann13, Rajaram14 and Arvidsson15 and very recently by
Prodosh Aich16 . The interesting but the curious aspect of this phenomena is that while the concept of

13
Trautmann, Thomas, “Aryans and British India”, 1997, University of California press
14
Rajaram, Navaratna “The Politics of History, Voice of India, 1995
15
Stefan Arvidsson 2006:38 Aryan Idols
16
Prodosh Aich Lies wirth Long Legs, 2006, Samskrti, New Delhi

41
the Aryan race has pretty much been discarded by most of the modern generation of the European
world, It lingers on in the narrative of Indian History, a relic of the heyday of Europe’ s dominance on the
world scene, when racist theories were abundant to explain this dominance as being a consequence of
their heritage as an Aryan people.

In contrast to the Germans and the French , whose interest in matters Indic was catalyzed by their
observance of the ubiquitous presence of the Indic civilization in South East Asia, the British had a
particular reluctance to study the nature and extent of the Indic civilization. First and foremost amongst
their reasons for this neglect was the reluctance to admit that a subject people had any worthwhile
civilization to speak of, let alone one that was of far greater antiquity to their own. Britain was the last of
the 3 countries in Europe to have a chair in Sanskrit, and it was almost 50 years after the death of Sir
William that England got around to establishing a chair at Oxford, the famous Boden chair .

One of the criticisms leveled at the new breed of Indian historians who wish to uncover the authentic
history of India after the morass of inconsistencies to which it has sunk is that they are motivated by
political considerations and the further charge is made that they are ‘nationalistic’. Apart from the
question of any violation of ethics by being nationalistic not being apparent to me, this is to us a
perplexing charge to make since it is apparent that political motivations have been always dominant
in the pursuit of Indological studies during the colonial era, right from the outset since the time of Sir
William Jones, when he discovered the existence of Sanskrit. One such political motivation was the
need for the European to define his identity outside the framework of Semitic traditions which
dominated the religious life of Europe. The notion that the North European Viking owed much of his
civilization to the Mediterranean Semite was not palatable to most of the elite among the countries of
Northern lands of Europe for reasons which we do not have the time to go into now. So, the discovery
of Sanskrit was accompanied by a big sigh of relief that the languages of Europe did not after all derive
from Hebrew but from an ancestor language which was initially assumed to be Sanskrit. In the
immediate aftermath of the discovery of Sanskrit by Sir William Jones, there was a great gush of
admiration and worship of the sublime nature of the Sanskrit texts such as Sakuntala. But as the
European realized that the present day practitioners of Sanskrit were not blonde and blue eyed
(remember ideas of racial superiority were dominant in 18th century Europe despite the advent of the
enlightenment and the renaissance) this was found to be equally unpalatable.

The European indologist therefore came upon the ingenious explanation that the Sanskritic culture of
the subcontinent was not native to the subcontinent but was impregnated by a small band of nomadic
Viking like marauders who then proceeded to transform themselves within the short space of 200 years
into the intellectual class of India. This hypothesis (because that is what it was) had of course no basis in
fact, but it served the purpose and killed several birds with one stone. It denied India the autocthonous
legacy of the dominant culture of the subcontinent, and helped create a schism in the Indian body
politic, and further implied that the native Indics were incapable of original thought and certainly was
not capable of producing a language like Sanskrit. It filled the obsessive need during those decades that
the European had for an ancestor that was not Semitic in origin. Lo and behold the ancestor did not
come from India but from a long lost Shangrila of whom there were no survivors (so that their
hypothesis could never be contradicted). Thus was born the mythical Aryan, whose only qualification
was that he should hail from a land that was anywhere but India, preferably from a region not very
densely inhabited or conscious of their antiquity. Further it gave the excuse for the British to claim that
they were indeed the later day version of the Aryans destined to lord it over lesser, more unfortunate

42
people by reason of the fact that they were Aryans. See for instance (Trautmann (1997) or Chakrabarti
(1997))

In short, the study of India, during the colonial era has always been accompanied by a healthy dose of
imperialist dogma and by disdain for a people who they felt could so easily be vanquished in battle by
handful of Englishmen. This is in addition to the normal human tendency to exhibit a degree of the ‘Not
Invented Here’ syndrome or the propensity to devalue the acquisition of knowledge by people and
civilizations other than their own. This is a train of thought that needs to be explored further, but we do
not wish to be sidetracked from the main topic. We hasten to add that the fundamental scholarly
impulse and intellectual curiosity that drives most scholars still motivates a substantial section of the
indologists, regardless of nationality, despite much pressure from European academia to toe the line
and not to stray from the conventional wisdom . But this stream of objective scholars died out pretty
soon after and became almost extinct in the nineteenth century, and in general, with a few exceptions
amongst the French, the European Indologists toed the party line that Indic contributions were shallow
and insubstantial

In fact the British presence in India was steadily increasing long before the Battle of Plassey in 1757 CE,
but so great was the insularity of the colonial overlord that it took almost three hundred years for a
relatively well educated scholar like Sir William Jones to show up in India after Vasco da Gama landed of
the coast of Goa in 1492 CE, and notice the similarities between Sanskrit and the European languages.
Prodosh Aich has done extensive research into primary sources and has come to the conclusion that the
vaunted linguistic scholarship of Sir William was to put it mildly much exaggerated. We shall examine
the background of Sir William especially his early years to see wherein lay the truth.

But the discovery of Sanskrit by Sir William and the coming of the British had a terminally fatal effect on
the conduct of scientific studies in India. It cut off the Indic from his own native source of traditional
learning and replaced it with the traditions of a land far away with which he had no physical contact,
and could not relate, with the result that literacy fell to 6% at the turn of the 20th century. Education
was tightly controlled by the government and all support to schools that did not teach English was
summarily stopped, except in states that were ruled by a local Maharajah such as Travancore Cochin,
Baroda and Mysore. India was turned into a vast Gulag where no ideas other than those of the British
were allowed to penetrate and the Indian was effectively barred from traveling to foreign lands, except
on a one way trip to a distant land as indentured labor, lest they return with the subversive notions of
freedom and democracy which as Churchill remarked on more than one occasion were not applicable to
the subject populations of their Colonies. So great was the travel restriction that the Indic internalized
this consequence of the rule of the Colonial Overlord, to be a characteristic of the assumed native
propensity to aversion of adventure and exploration. There was no money allocated for research and no
encouragement of savants, who had little opportunity to pursue further research. So the steady supply
of Indic scientists which lasted till about 1780 CE finally died out and Indic science was almost
extinguished from the land.

This is not to say that there have been no benefits accrued from the change in the medium of
instruction to English. Due to the fortuitous circumstance that a substantial part of the new world now
spoke English, placed Indic youngsters at an advantageous situation when it came to getting admission
to graduate studies in North America. This coupled with the investment in higher education made by
Jawaharlal Nehru India’s first Prime Minister catapulted India into the leadership ranks of countries who
were players in the new Information Technology. But the negatives remain. The vast majority of the

43
Indian population is not a participant in this new bounty, because they do not have the access to the
expensive schools that purvey access to such an education.

The most telling impact of the newly coined endeavor called philology , that was the result of this
unwanted gush of attention engendered ever since the discovery of Sanskrit, was the manner in which
the Indic was viewed by the rest of the world and even more importantly the internalization of the
British and European view of India by the average literate English educated Indic. Till then the Indic was
widely respected throughout the world and his geographical origin was synonymous with scholarship.
Today, it is commonplace in India to deride somebody who expresses pride in his tradition and his
civilization as being jingoistic. The Colonial overlord went to extraordinary lengths to undermine the
Civilizational commonalities amongst the people of India by various and diverse means. Anything that
had a negative impact was played to the hilt. The antiquity of Indian history was systematically whittled
away and the new dates had to conform to the notion that India did not contribute anything of value to
civilization and that all she knew in the area of science and mathematics, was learned from the Greeks.
The Indian was uniformly characterized as a shiftless indolent individual with very few redeeming
qualities

So great was the change and so lasting in its effect that today vast numbers of Indian youth have almost
the same opinion of India and Indic traditions that the Colonial overlords had, of India in the eighteenth
and nineteenth century. There has been a massive change in the psyche of the Indic, much of it for the
worse, a fact that was brought out in vivid portrayals by V S Naipaul when he coined the phrase ‘the
wounded civilization’ in his references to the subcontinent.

Examples of the internalization of the European views of India abound in India today. Even eminent
Indian historians like RC Majumdar have expressed some of these views in writing without
substantiating how they arrived at such conclusions. We give below a sample. It is ironic that these
viewpoints are usually expressed by Indics rather than non Indics.

44
Table 1 the general British view of the Indic during the Colonial Era

The Caricaturization of the Indic

There is a strong undercurrent in the Occident that it Is the religious beliefs of the Indic that are the
root cause of his misfortunes.

The Indic is inherently incapable of adventurous behavior and will not venture beyond the confines of
the Indian subcontinent (Kaalapaani syndrome)

The Indic is incapable of original, rational and creative ideas. The Indic is incapable of independent
thinking and is unquestioning in his adherence to authoritarian diktats such as those in the Vedic texts
and is only capable of rote learning (presuming it is conceded that the Indic is capable of learning at
all.)
The caste system is an artifact of the Indic religious belief system, and that the Indic is inherently
opposed to egalitarian ideas and is wedded to the racial and ethnic stratification of his own society.
The Indic is especially unique and egregious in the manner in which he exploits his fellow Indics
The Indic is fundamentally not tuned to making progress and advancing in the modern world, and is
lost in an ancient mind set
Everything good and worthwhile in the Indian subcontinent has been imported by the invaders, and
the only indigenous characteristics are those like caste that are inherent to the Indic civilization.
The Indic is fatalistic and will not make an effort to change his destiny which is written in stone the
moment he is born
The Indic is lazy and indolent
The Indic has no sense of history and is even poorer at keeping records of his historical past
As a consequence of the above the Indic is socially backward, possibly morally corrupt and perennially
hence dependent upon Westernization to reform the current problems in Indian society.
From such a viewpoint it was indeed a short step to assume as Karl Marx did, that the Indic was destined
to be ruled by others. The germ of such a vast change in psyche was the goal of Thomas Babington
Macaulay and he would have been rather pleased to see the consequences of his minute on education
where he proposed changing the medium of instruction to English in the 1830’s in order to produce a
class of Brown Englishman who would occupy positions intermediate between those of the Colonial
overlords and the unwashed masses of the subcontinent. In the same vein, HH Wilson, the first
occupant of the Boden Chair in Sanskrit, wrote as follows,

45
 “From the survey which has been submitted to you, you will perceive that the practical religion of the
Hindus is by no means a concentrated and compact system, but a heterogeneous compound made up of
various and not infrequently incompatible ingredients, and that to a few ancient fragments it has made
large and unauthorized additions, most of which are of an exceedingly mischievous and disgraceful
nature. It is, however, of little avail yet to attempt to undeceive the multitude; their superstition is based
upon ignorance, and until the foundation is taken away, the superstructure, however crazy and rotten,
will hold together.”

Power over a vast area like India does strange things to people, one of which is the loss of ‘common
sense’ , not to mention the loss of humility, and one can see the process of creating the mythological
Indian has already begun as early as 1833, the process of remaking the Indic mindset had commenced in
earnest.

There is an immense irony in this state of affairs and that is that India is well on its way to becoming the
largest English speaking nation in the planet. If present trends continue the number of English speaking
people residing in India will exceed that of the Unites States within 20 years. The implications are
enormous. For instance, India will become the largest producer of English books in the planet, a state of
affairs that may already be true because of the huge market of South and South East Asia.

1. Indic studies by native Indics when the Indic tradition miraculously resurrected itself shortly after the
beginning of the twentieth century from an almost comatose condition (1900 CE to the present)

So we come to the sixth and current period of Indological studies. The European, with few exceptions
continued to study the Indic past as if the present day practitioners did not exist. In this the indologists
tried to emulate Egyptology and the study of Meso American civilizations. In both these instances, the
Europeans could say anything they liked without being challenged by survivors of the tradition and get
away with it, because there were no survivors after the routine scourging of native populations using
the well entrenched twin techniques - first with the sword and then the Holy book to erase all prior
traditions, as well as inflicting upon them diseases which effectively decimated their populations. They
studied India in the same vein, making untenable assumptions and hypotheses and then indulged in
circular arguments that anything that does not fit the assumption that they made, is invalid

But the Hindu is a strange creature, imbued with the genetic longevity of the cockroach and the
intellectual hardiness that comes from millennia of tradition devoted to scholarship. Indics were the first
to codify the principle of acquisition of knowledge known now by the name of Epistemology and they
resisted the imposition of a history and a narrative that was substantially at variance from their Puranic
traditions. These principles of acquisition of knowledge are alluded to in my booklet on Dhaarmik
traditions and include Perception and Observation (Pratyaksha), Anumaana (inference), Comparison
and Analogy (Upamaana), shabda ( acceptance, though not necessarily uncritical acceptance, of the

46
Word as manifested in the ancient scriptures, Arthapaati (implication) and anupalabdi (non
apprehension and skepticism in the face of non-apprehension).

The systematic approach, combined with the methodology of learning recommended by the Upanishads
namely, the triune method of shravana, manana and nididhyasana forms the core of the approach to all
kinds of knowledge , whether It be Paara Vidya or Apaara Vidya (see Glossary). The term Shravana
refers basically to hearing, but also includes reading, discussions and the like. Manana is contemplation
of what has been studied or heard. Nididhyasana is concentration on the subject to the exclusion of
everything else. It may not always be possible or advisable to practice multitasking, which has become
de rigueur in this age of rapid technological change. Usually, the initial knowledge about anything has to
be acquired through a guru, because he is the dependable authority on the subject. Manana and
Nididhyasana depend on one’s own effort, with some guidance from the guru. The role of the teacher is
only as a guidepost. The journey has to be undertaken by us with our own efforts.

It is this comprehensive approach to the acquisition of knowledge that has given the edge to the Hindu
Vis a vis other civilizations over the millennia and is catalyzing the reclamation of the high ground in the
field of Indic studies. This is not to say that the Modern Indic should ignore the work done by others in
this field , but it does mean the converse that indologists outside India, can no longer ignore the
legitimate claims to scholarship of Indic savants in the study of their own History. Let us hope that as we
go from here that he, the Western Indologist will abandon the politically motivated approach that he
has taken till hitherto and will accord the discerning Indic savant the same consideration and apply
objective criteria to the studies undertaken by those who are not of a European background. Certainly it
means that he should eschew the use of the convenient and stereotypical characterization of anything
that he does not like as being a product or a conspiracy of the Hindutva or a Hindu nationalist.

In reality, there is a basic contradiction in the western characterization of the Hindu and the pejorative
use of the word Hindu nationalist. The Hindu faith or Sanaatana Dharma has often been characterized in
my view with adequate justification, as being too eclectic and all encompassing. In fact in the quote
above Hayman Wilson characterizes it as being ‘heterogeneous and contradictory’. And yet, there is the
constant and ubiquitous drumbeat in the use of the word Hindu nationalist, which implies an
exclusionary stance and narrow mindedness. To the followers of Plato and Socrates in the Occidental
world, I ask, well, which is it, eclectic and all encompassing weltanschuung, or exclusionist and narrow
minded.

47
 Eurocentrism and Mathematics
For some, their Eurocentrism (or Greco-centrism) is so deeply entrenched that they cannot bring themselves to
face the idea of independent developments in early Indian mathematics, even as a remote possibility.

The geographical location of India was a key factor in the exchanges which India had with varius regions of the
world. This enabled her from the very beginning to play an important role in the transmission and diffusion of
ideas. The traffic was often two-way, with Indian ideas and achievements traveling abroad as easily as those from
outside entering her own consciousness. Some sources even credit Pythagoras with having traveled as far as India
in search of knowledge, which may explain some of the close parallels between Indian and Pythagorean philosophy
and religion. These parallels include:

a. a belief in the transmigration of souls;

b. the theory of four elements constituting matter;
c. the structure of the religio-philosophical character of the Pythagorean fraternity, which resembled
Buddhist monastic orders; and
d. The contents of the mystical speculations of the Pythagorean schools, which bear a striking resemblance
of the Hindu Upanishads.

According to Greek tradition, Pythagoras, Thales, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Democritus and others undertook
journey to the East to study philosophy and science. By the time Ptolemaic Egypt and Rome’s Eastern empire had
established themselves just before the beginning of the Common era, Indian civilization was already well
developed, having founded three great religions – Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism – and expressed in writing the
massive literature (of the Veda, the Brahmanas, the Upanishads, the Purana,) as well as fundamental theories in
science and medicine. There are scattered references to Indian science in the literary sources from countries to the
west of India after the time of Alexander.

Transmittal of Knowledge – Was there theft of Intellectual

Property
There is another point to be made about the direction in which knowledge was transmitted. Many have been the
individuals from other parts of the world who studied at Indian universities like Nalanda, Takshashila, Vikramshila,
and Odantipura till the 12th century. It was a rare instance where they would go back and denigrate the
knowledge they had so acquired or the land they acquired it from, and in fact went out of their way to eulogize
the education they received at these locations which were studded all along the Gangetic valley, but particularly so
in Vihara (Bihar). However all this changed during the16th century when the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) sent highly
educated (for those days) individuals, the number sometimes exceeding 70 or 80 at times at any given point in
time, whose sole purpose was to extract as much information from the people who practiced such skills, like
Jyotish Pandits and engage in intellectual property theft. What defines such activity as theft? If the recipient does
not acknowledge the source of his teaching then it is fair to call it theft.

48
 Differing standards for Claims for transmission of knowledge

In fact no study of this kind would be complete without a reference to the differing standards by which
Occidentalists have concluded whether a particular discipline was imported or exported out of the Occident. We
quote C K Raju17

“However, we have also seen that the standard of evidence is not uniform, but varies with the claim being made.
The standard of evidence required for an acceptable claim of transmission of knowledge from East to West, is
different from the standards of evidence required for a similar claim of transmission of knowledge from West to
East. Thus there is always the possibility that similar things could have been discovered independently, and that
western historians are still arguing about this. even in so obvious a case as that of Copernicus. Finally we have seen
that this racist double standard of evidence is not an incidental error, but is backed by centuries of racist tradition,
religious exhortations by Popes, and by legal interpretations authoritatively handed down by, say the US Supreme
Court.”

Priority and the possibility of contact always establish a socially acceptable case for transmission from west to East,
but priority and definite contact never seems to establish an acceptable case for transmission from East to West,
for there is always the possibility, that similar things could have been discovered independently.

“Hence to establish transmission we propose to adopt a legal standard of evidence, good enough to hang a person
for murder. Briefly we propose that the case for any must be established on the grounds of

1. Motivation,

2. opportunity,

3. Circumstantial evidence and

4. Documentary evidence.

The importance of epistemological continuity has been repeatedly stressed above; any such claim must also take
into account epistemological issues”

Examples abound, especially when it comes to areas such as Mathematics, Astronomy and Linguistics and the
discovery of the origin of scripts. In particular we cite the instance of David Pongee’ PhD thesis titled “Materials for
the Transmission of Greek astrology to India”. Notice he does not ask whether such a transmittal ever happened.

17
C K Raju “Cultural Foundations of Mathematics”, Centre for Studies in Civilizations(PHISPC), Pearson Education,
2007,page 313,

49
That is a given, a hypothesis that needs not be proven. This is another example of a circular argument. Assume the
answer in your initial hypotheses and then claim that it is an incontrovertible fact

The inconsistencies in the current narrative of Indian history

What are the major contentions and the resulting contradictions in the Occidentalist (an
Occidental who studies the civilizations and the linguistics of the languages of the orient)
chronology of India.

Table 2 The inconsistencies in the current narrative of Indian history

The inherent contradictions of the Aryan Invasion Theory by the mythic and yet to be identified
Aryan race.

The insistence on clinging to a racial terminology even when it is widely discredited and abandoned
elsewhere
The insistence that Indic astronomy , geometry and mathematics was not autochthonous to India but
was borrowed from the Greek or the Babylonians
The origin of the Brahmi script becomes a victim of the ‘anywhere but India’ syndrome
Devaluation and denigration of the extent of the ancient Indic contribution to Mathematics and
Astronomy
Dating of the Mahabharata
Dating of the Satapatha Brahmana
Dating of the Veda
Dating of the Vedanga Jyotisha
Dating of the Sulva sutras
The beginning of the Vikrama era
The dating of the Buddha
The dating of the Arthashastra
The dating of Chandragupta Maurya
The dating of Panini’s Ashtadhyayi and consequentially the dating of Panini himself
The dating of Aryabhata
There are resulting inconsistencies in the chronology of the Indic historical narrative,, which is now
horribly mangled to fit the straightjacket of British assumptions

In discussing the individuals, one is struck by the generally, high intellectual caliber of the scholars who
form the bulk of the Indologists. And yet a very high percentage were loathe to discard the prevalent

50
racist dogma of the day , that the Indics were incapable of a high level of intellectual effort and that
therefore the only explanation (of the high level of civilization in the Indian subcontinent relative to the
rest of the ancient world) was that such a circumstance could only have been possible if an alien
civilization had transplanted it from somewhere else, The Occidental was unable to free himself from
the bondage and blindness resulting from the prejudice that the Indic was incompetent to make these
discoveries

It is also becoming increasingly clear that the initial assumptions regarding the competence and
scholarship of such well known people as Sir William, Max Mueller, Franz Bopp, and many others have
to be reevaluated and that the vast majority of the so called Sanskrit scholars were indifferent to
mediocre scholars in the Sanskrit language and were rather presumptuous in their pronouncements on
the nature , antiquity and significance of the literature that was now available to them . The extensive
forensic investigation that Prodosh Aich has carried out and reported in his book called “Lies with long
Legs”, on the competency of these scholars yields some shocking facts including misrepresentation of
their earned degrees and consigns most of these individuals to the category of mediocre imposters

Explanatory notes

The dates associated with most of the gentlemen we will identify should be regarded only as
approximate at least to the nearest decade, as there were no accurate birth records prior to the 18th
century. Unlike in ancient India where a birth was sometimes recorded with the appropriate Nakshatra,
tithi, maasa and Samvatsara , such access to a calendar was not easily available to the ordinary folk in
Europe till well into the enlightenment and in fact the Gregorian calendar was defective till 1540 CE. As
such the birthdates of most European individuals other than royalty, prior to the nineteenth century,
must be regarded with circumspection and merely as an approximation.

One final comment before we begin. It is estimated that the total manuscript wealth available in India
today is in the order of 5 million according to the National Mission for Manuscripts was established in
February 2003, by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Government of India. A unique project in its
program and mandate, the Mission seeks to unearth, preserve, catalog, index and make available for
research the vast manuscript wealth of India.

These manuscripts cover a variety of themes, textures and aesthetics, scripts, languages, calligraphies,
illuminations and illustrations. Together, they constitute the ‘memory' and the DNA, of India's history,
heritage and thought. These manuscripts lie scattered across the country and beyond, in numerous
institutions as well as private collections, often unattended and undocumented. The National Mission

51
for Manuscripts aims to locate, document, preserve and render these accessible—to connect India's
past with its future, its memory with its aspirations. The electronic catalogue or database contains data
on about three hundred thousand (300,000) manuscripts, and the database is steadily increasing day by
day.

This is the case despite heavy losses due to wars, destruction and natural decay. Out of this staggering
number about 1 million have been catalogued in India and perhaps another 200,000 abroad in various
libraries such as the Bodleian Libray in Oxford. This is by far the largest extant literature from the ancient
world for any civilization. There is nothing even remotely comparable anywhere else. In one field alone,
namely astronomy, the late David Pingree found so many manuscripts that he called the resulting effort
at cataloguing a Census, s Census which took several volumes to compile

And yet we are told repeatedly that the ancient Indics were deficient in historical record keeping. Our
riposte is the query ‘relative to whom are we deficient ?’. Where else in the world do we find a literature
going back to 4000 BCE. It is no wonder that scholars have found the study of India to be such a fertile
field and continue to find it so even today.

Figure 1 The DeviMahatmya MS in Sanskrit, an example of a manuscript on palm-leaf, Bihar or Nepal,

11th c., 32 ff., 5x31 cm, 2 columns, (3x27 cm), 5 lines in an early Bhujimol script, borders marked with
double lines with orange pigmentation between lines, 1 miniature in text.

52
Binding: Nepal, 11th c., carved wooden covers, decorated with 10 miniatures, poti with hole for
the binding cord.

Provenance: 1. Monastery in Nepal (ca. 11th c.-); 2. Sam Fogg cat. 17(1996):40.

(7992 words)

53
 MAHABHARATA-HISTORY OR MYTH?

BY

Narayan Joshi Ph.D.

Abstract

Ramayana and Mahabharata have special place in hearts of Indian people. The fabric of Hindu
culture is woven with characters and values of heroes from these two epics. Among all heroes
Rama and Krishna are highly respected and worshipped by Indian people with loving hearts.
Almost all of them believe these two personalities were incarnation of Bhagawan Vishnu. Both
epics were repeated by people with devotion years after years. Stories of heroes from these
two epics were retold thousands of time for character building of children in home and schools.
Almost all Indian people believe the incidents described in epics were actually happened in
prehistoric time. Hence they are part of the ancient Indian history. However there are Indian
and alien scholars believe otherwise. In this work Dr. Joshi presents evidence about migration
of Asians into the prehistoric Europe that could be due to the epic war.

Keywords: Mahabharat, Kuru, Kamboja,

Introduction

Without going into details, one can summarize broad belief of some (not all) alien
scholars about the ancient Indian history. For past two hundred years alien scholars promoted
the theory of white Aryan invasion from the northwest corner of the subcontinent and
subsequent subjugation of indigenous black Dravidians. Indian epics thus describe struggle
between invaders and aborigines of the subcontinent. Dr, Stanley Wolpert (1) wrote this was
the most important invasion in all of India’s history, since the Aryans brought with their
Caucasian genes a new language-Sanskrit-and a new pantheons of gods, as well as the
patriarchal, patrilineal family and the three-class social structure (priests, warriors and
commoners) into which their tribes were organized. Late Dr. Murray Emeneau (2) wrote that
Indians lost memory of Aryan invasion. Aryan invasion theory has undergone modifications in

54
the past thirty years. The reward for forcing this modification on die-hard invasionists goes to
Indian immigrants to countries like US in the past fifty years.

Opinions of Indian Scholars

Now let us see the opinions of Indian scholars living in and outside of India. In January 2001, Dr.
Amartya Sen, Nobel Laureate economist in annual conference of Indian History Congress at
Alipur Campus of the University of Calcutta, while addressing delegates, said that Ramayana
and Mahabharata do not have any historical value. These two epics are simply mythology and
nothing but poets’ fancy. He also said that neither Rama nor Krishna was a historical personality
and both of them were simply mythological.

Dr. S.S.N. Murthy in his article (3) declared that the composer of Mahabharata was more
concerned about the spiritual aspect and hence, we have to seriously doubt the historicity of
the matter presented in the epic.

Dr. R.D. Banerji in his book (4) reported that Pandus were immigrants into India who were
entirely unconnected with Kurus. It is quite possible that Kunti, a daughter of Yadava clan was
carried away by a barbarian named Pandu and five Pandava brothers were born of this illicit
connection.

Dr. Suniti Kumar Chatterji in his book (5) wrote that Hindus were mild diluted brothers of the
aggressive pure white European Aryans.

Dr Rajesh Kochhar in his book (6) wrote that the clearing of Ganga plain forests had to await
the development of iron technology. The technique would have been to first burn down the
jungles and then remove the rumps with axes. The Mahabharata itself provides an example of
such a clearing, when Khandava forest was burnt down to found Indraprastha. He added
further that Rigveda was a pre-iron age document. The compilation of Rigveda was taken up
after 1700 BC by Indo-Iranian people or Indo-Aryans. After 1400 BC the Rigvedic people entered
the Punjab plain and eventually spread further eastwards. In about 900 BC, the compilation of
the Rigveda was finally closed and the Bharata battle was fought.

55
 We see here clearly that these scholars are engaged in simply guesswork without giving
us concrete evidence. Some of them present us few river names from Afghanistan and other
talk superficially about Hindu Vedas and Iranian Avesta. Most of the information of these
scholars is based on the theory of Aryan invasion promoted by alien scholars in order to
demote the ancient Indian antiquities. Discovery of Indo-European family of languages by
Europeans and British occupation of India coincided. It was in great interest of alien rulers of
India to rewrite the ancient history of India. They realized that they cannot make Krishna a
post-Jesus (1AD) historical figure. So they tried to make him post-Moses (1500 BC) figure by
promoting Aryan invasion of India after 1500 BC. However one cannot deny that there might be
other reasons related to archaeological discoveries from the middle-east countries.

Time of the Epic War

Archaeological discoveries from India and Pakistan in the past 100 years are not of any
great help in proving historicity of Mahabharata. There are diverse opinions about the
decipherment of Indus script. Moreover thousands of samples of script found in excavations
were taken outside of the subcontinent by alien researchers. Among people of India there is
general belief that Mahabharata war took place in north India by the end of Dwapar Yuga. After
departure of Bhagawan Krishna effect of Kaliyuga took its force. In Astronomical books of the
ancient India we find references of the year of starting of Kaliyuga based on astronomical and
astrological references from the epic Mahabharata.

Many Indian scholars of diverse background like medical, engineering, sciences, and
humanities have some knowledge of astronomy and astrology. Due to their interest in
Mahabharata they also tried to fix the year of Mahabharata war. Many of them arrived the date
somewhere between 3200 BC and 3000 BC. One noteworthy effort in recent years to be
mentioned here in this direction was that of Dr. Narahari Achar (7). Using modern planetarium
software and his decipherment of Sanskrit astronomical passages from the epic, he arrived at
the year 3017 BC for Mahabharata war. To the best of my knowledge nothing that ancient has
discovered in the soil of the subcontinent during archaeological excavations except Indus
civilization. But it has its own problem about decipherment of Indus script to the satisfaction of
both indigenous and foreign scholars. Certainly pottery pieces that old are always found but
would that be enough to prove that Hastinapur and Indraprastha were somewhere in north
India?

Five Cities Claimed by Pandava Brothers

56
 People of India are proud of Hastinapur and Indraprastha which were world capitals
according to some of them. Although no concrete archaeological evidence so far came forward
for their existence in north India, north Indians are eager to show their locations somewhere in
Uttar Pradesha or Harayana. They even claim that five villages claimed by five Pandava brothers
were Sonapat, Marpata, Panipat and other two in the same area. However the names of five
cities (not villages) claimed by five Pandava brothers were Indraprastha, Avisthala, Vrikasthala,
Varanavata and Makandi (capital of the south Pancala of the king Drupada) as described in
Mahabharata. In short general belief of people may be different from actual references in the
epic. This happens because the original Mahabharata is in Sanskrit verses and very few people
nowadays have knowledge of Sanskrit, time and patience to read the epic in detail. Many read
short stories from Mahabharata. Scholars differ again on different editions of the epic. Some of
them claim that there are many interpolations in the epic over the known Indian history of
2500 years,

Yaksha worship in Kurukshetra

Fortunately the whole Mahabharata is translated in many regional languages of India in

recent years. The translation into Marathi is published and therefore I was able to read it. There
are hundreds of interesting things in the epic like flying city of king Shalva. The research paper
of Bharadwaj (8) describes Yaksha-worship in Kurukshetra. Yakshas were described as
Dvarapalas of Kurukshetra. On one hand they are described as models of beauty and on the
other hand they are grouped with Rakshasas, Gandharvas, Kinnars, and Pishacas. The word
Yaksha occurs several times in the Rigveda, the oldest literary testament of mankind.
Description of Yakshass from the ancient books of India is not always free from doubt. The four
Yaksha guardian deities of Kurukshetra were Tarantuka, Arantuka, Kapil and Machakruka of
Ramhrada. However in another reference these were identified as names of the places and not
as the names of Yakshas. So confusion always persists in connection with identification of
Yakshas. Many stories from Indian Puranas often describe Asuras, Suras, Rakshasas, Yakshas,
Gandharvas, Pishacas and Vidyadharas along with place names from the area of Kurukshetra.
So if we assume Kurukshetra was located around the modern state Harayana of the north India,
then all these people were in ancient times within the borders of undivided subcontinent. In
that case who were in the rest of the world when Mahabharat war was fought in the north
India? To the best of my knowledge no satisfactory answer was offered to this question. Some
Indian scholars reply saying in the ancient prehistoric times Indians pushed their brothers
beyond Khyber Pass. This answer is based on the story of children of Yayati, namely Anu,
Druhyu, Yadu and Puru . In short, Indians are happy to believe that the world capitals
Hastinapura and Indraprastha were located somewhere in the north India and there is no need

57
to extend inquiry beyond the Sindhu river now in Pakistan. Many are even happy with the
newly promoted Indian river Sarasvati within the borders of the truncated subcontinent called
India. Is it really necessary to go beyond Sindhu river in order to understand the ancient history
of Mahabharat? Let us see!

Main Parties in Mahabharat War

In the present west Pakistan, we come across Sindha province. This is Sindhu desha of
the king Jayadratha of Mahabharat. Coupled with Sindhu, we always find Sauvira desha in the
epic. This province is east of Sindha now called Huri.. In the north of Sindha there is Shibi desh.
In the north of Shibi is Gandhar desh. The princess Gandhari was mother of one hundred
wicked Kauravas. They were cousin brothers of noble Pandavas from the epic. In the west of
Sindha is Baluchistan province of Pakistan. This is the country of Bhadragana kshatriyas from
the epic. In the north-west of Gandhar was the ancient Valhika desh (modern Bactria) from the
epic. In the south of Bactria were Kambojas. Thus the main parties in the war, namely Kurus
and Kambojas and their relative provinces were concentrated on the border of the present day
Pakistan and Afghanistan. So is it justified to assume that the epic war took place all over the
north India only?

Indo-European Language Family

Many believe the epic war was office time war after two armies gathered on the battle
field of Kurukshetra. There is contradiction here too. The warrior Karna was king of Vanga east
of Magadha. Magadha was under control of Jarasandha. After he was killed, his sons agreed to
help Pandavas. Karna was on the side of Kauravas. In that case how Magadha would have
allowed army of Karna to pass through their kingdom towards the west to Kurukshetra to fight
war? Kings engaged in the struggle of the epic appear to be located on both sides of the Vedic
Sarasvati river. During the war Balaram went on holy journey on the river Sarasvati when the
war was raging on both sides of the river. I think something is missing from this picture of the
war of the epic. This picture did not address the countries and their kings from the land of the
ancient Persia. Persia is important because alien scholars of the Indo-European language family
are firm believers that Sanskrit was developed in Indian subcontinent from the mixture of
language of invading Aryans and indigenous linguistic elements. Due to similarities between
Vedas and Avesta some of them believe that Sanskrit was brought to India from ancient Persia.
Although the “Aryan invasion theory” (AIT) was diluted to the Aryan migration theory in recent
years, it did not disappear totally yet. To the best of my knowledge, Indian linguistic scholars

58
and Indian archaeologists to this day had not provided us with satisfactory answers to the
spread of Indo-European language family over the vast mass of Eurasia. Only explanation came
forward so far from Indian side is that Indians pushed their brothers beyond Khybar pass in the
ancient times. This is called the” Out of India” theory.

Indian River Names to Lithuanian Rivers

I met professor Mislav Jezic from the country Croatia from Europe. I met him in May
2007 in Vedic workshop of Asian Studies Center of University of Texas at Austin. I asked him
respectfully that is it true that Croatia’s name derived from the name SarasvatŸ (H‘Rat). He said
yes. So we have country SaravatŸ in Europe. Let us move further to the west. The author
Krishna Chaitanya (9) in his book reported that Lithuanian rivers have names like Tapti,
Nemuna, Srobati, Narbudey and Gauja which are surprisingly like Indian river names Tapti,
Yamuna, Saraswati, Narmada, and Ganga. The tribal or clan names of the ancient Lithuanians
such as Kuru, Puru, Yadava and Sudava seem distinctly Aryans; so also are the names of their
gods such as Indra, Varuna and Purakanya. Late Arvinda Ghosh from Houston visited Lithuania
and reported in Voice of Asia (April 7, 1997) that Lithuanian language is Sanskritic and not
Slavic. It has seven declensions.The city Kaunas has a museum called the Museum of Devils.
Idols of Mahakali, Shree Hanuman are featured here. I myself checked the truth of river names
with Lithuanian computer professional lady working in Houston. She confirmed the above
information as true. How do we explain the river names?

Indo-Asian Invasion of Prehistoric Europe

This information can be used in both ways. Proponents of “Aryan invasion theory” (AIT)
have used Lithuanian connection to prove that Aryans invaded (recent modification--migrated)
India from Europe. The proponents of “Out of India theory” (OIT) say Indians went to Lithuania
in prehistoric times. In the second version of the theory, Indians pushed their unwanted
brothers beyond Khyber Pass and decided to forget the west afterwards until this day. Where is
the truth? Why Ganga, Yamuna and Sarasvati are also in Lithuania? Let us check in the book of
the Lithuanian archaeologist late Marija Gimbutas (10). She wrote that Sanskrit and Baltic are
the two linguistic poles between which the languages of the Indo-European homelands are
found. Some linguists, because of very archaic character of the Lithuanian and Old Prussian
languages, believed and still believe, that the homelands must be in Lithuania, or near it,
somewhere between the Baltic Sea and western Russia, even in a small area between the
Vistula and Nemunas. However archaeological data indicate movements of people from

59
Eurasiatic steppes into Europe and Asia Minor and assimilation or disappearance of local
Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures in Europe at the end of the third and beginning of the second
millennium BC. She continued that in 2300-2200 BC the first sign of expansion of an entirely
new culture from steppe zone north of Black sea into western Anatolia and then in Europe. The
Kurgan Pit-grave people from Volga and the south Siberian steppes and Kazakhstan were
ceaselessly advancing westwards. They possessed vehicles- - - - - -. So in ancient times people
from Asia were moving towards Europe. However some alien clever scholars turned the whole
history around and fooled us for more than two hundred years with faked theory of Aryan
invasion of Dravidian India. These clever alien scholars conveniently transferred ancient Dasas
from the northeast of the ancient Persia into subcontinent and constructed fake history in
which Aryan hero Indra destroying Dasas inside subcontinent. After destroying the ancient
history of Indian people for two hundred years, they finally got revelation of their mistake and
shifted Dasas back to the middle-east in the later part of twentieth century.

Conclusions

Was Asian migration into Europe in the ancient times was the result of the epic war?
There is more information hidden in the epic that needs to be reinvestigated going beyond
borders of the subcontinent. Dr. Koenrad Elst has written that a theory does not die because it
has faults. It is replaced by more comprehensive theory that can explain all existing facts. The
proponents of AIT know that their theory is not perfect. But the proponents of OUT have not
come with comprehensive theory either. There is room for deeper research in the epic
Mahabharat in order to prove that it is not a myth but it is history of the ancient world

References

(1) Stanley Wolpert, “A New History of India”, Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press, New
York and Oxford, 1993, p.27 and p.37.

(2) Murray Emeneau,” Linguistic Prehistory of India”, Proceedings of the American

Philosophical Society, vol. 98, 1954, pp.282-292.

(3) S.S.N. ”The Questionable Historicity of Mahabharata”, in Electronic Journal of Vedic

Studies, 10, 2003.

60
 (4) R.D. Banerji, ”Prehistoric Ancient and Hindu India”, The World Publishing Company,
Cleveland and New York, 1963, p.152.

(5) Suniti Kumar Chatterji,” Indo-Aryan and Hindi”, Pub: Firma, K.L. Mukhopadhyay,
Calcutta-12, revised and enlarged Second Edition, 1969, p.32.

(6) Rajesh Kocchar, “The Vedic People, Their History and Geography”, Pub: Oriental
Longman Ltd, New Delhi, 1997, p.90.

(7) Narahari Achar, ”Date of the Mahabharat War-Simulations using the Planetarium
Software”, Vedic Science, Vol.8, No.4, Oct-Dec 2006,
pp. 12-22.

(8) O.P.Bharadwaj, “Yaksha-worship in Kurukshetra” in Prach-Prabha edited by

D.C.Bhattacharya, Herman publishing House, New Delhi, 1989, pp. 203-223.

(9) Krishna Chaitanya, “A New History of Sanskrit Literature”,

Pub: R.C. Jam for Manohar Book Service, 2 Ansari Road, Darya Ganj,

New Delhi, 1977, p.3.

(10) Marija Gimbutas, “The Balts”, Pub: Frederick A. Praeger, New York,

1963, pp. 37-38.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About Author: N. R. Joshi, 1735 Bryant Way, Beaumont, Texas 77706 USA.

E-mail address: giravani@juno.com

61
 (Paper presentation in the 7th Intl. Conf. of WAVES on June 27 - 29, 2008)

THE "DOTTED RECORD" AND ITS IMPACT ON ANCIENT INDIAN

CHRONOLOGY, INCLUDING THE ANTIQUITY OF THE VEDAS AND
OF THE BHAGAVAD GITA

By

Sunil Kumar Bhattacharjya, Pune, India

ABSTRACT

In the Indian tradition, history is very important and this is one of the five criteria that a Purana must
meet. The Puranas have maintained details of the royal dynasties from the times of Ramayana and
Mahabharata and have even ventured to determine the age of the earth and the universe. With records
carefully maintained the Hindus always thought that they are the indigenous people of India from the
ancient times and that their philosophical, religious and other literature are several millennia old.

In the 4th century BCE Megasthenes wrote the "Indica", which has also been used as a sort of historical
document but this has not been interpreted properly. Similarly the account of Alberuni, who came much
later, has also not been interpreted properly. Megasthenes, who was in the court of Sandrocottus, said
that the capital of the kingdom of the latter was Palibothra. In late 18th century CE Sir William Jones
wrongly arrived at the conclusion that Pataliputra was the Palibothra and also suggested that
Chandragupta Maurya was the Sandrocottus. Then in early 19th century CE, Dubois suggested that
people from Caucasus region migrated to India. Yet till the middle of the 19th century CE nobody raised
the question as to whether the Hindus are the indigenous people of India or not. In the later part of the
19th century Prof. Max Muller proposed that there was Aryan Invasion in the 15th century BCE. He had
also worked out an Ancient Indian Chronology and also gave the dates of the Vedas, the Brahmanas, the
Puranas and the Sutras after the Aryan invasion. He arrived at the date of Lord Buddha from the work of
Sir Jones as well as from the Dotted record. But the Dotted record was the record, which was kept
together with the Samantapāsādikā and Sanghabhadra translated the latter from Sanskrit to the

62
Chinese. Buddhaghosa also translated the Samantapāsādikā into the Pali language. The Sri Lankan
Buddhist scholars considered Sandrocottus to be Chandragupta, as suggested by Sir Jones and
calculated the date of Lord Buddha in the 5th century BCE. They gave a date of the translation of
Samantapāsādikā by Sanghabhadra to tally with their date of Lord Buddha. Prof. Max Muller heard
about the Dotted record and he received the details of that from his friend and past pupil, B. Nanjio and
Prof. Max Muller seemed to have found confirmation for his speculations from it. Thus a combination of
the speculation of Sir Jones with the speculation of the Sri Lankan Buddhist scholars on the date of Lord
Buddha and of the translation of the Samantapāsādikā (and hence of the Dotted record) helped Prof.
Max Muller to further speculate the Aryan Invasion Theory and to prepare an Ancient Indian Chronology
including the date of the Vedas and other scriptures and literature.

The date of the Dotted record as well as of Sanghabhadra has been re-examined and it is shown that
Prof. Max Muller's ideas were flawed. The real Palibothra has been identified for the first time and this
will dismiss Sir Jones speculations for ever. There was no Aryan Invasion and Lord Buddha died many
centuries before the 5th century BCE. It has also been shown how Alberuni was misquoted by the
historians to keep the Jonesian and Max-Mullerian speculations alive.

INTRODUCTION

India has a very ancient history and every Indian can be proud of the very high material and intellectual
achievements of the past. Yet there was an eclipse, which climaxed towards the end of the nineteenth
century CE, with Prof. Max Muller's speculation of the Aryan Invasion Theory as well as of an Ancient
Indian chronology, which defied all logic. Prior to Prof. Max Muller's speculation of the Aryan Invasion
Theory, the historians referred to the Hindus as the indigenous people of India. In his "History of India",
M.S. Elphinstone wrote in 1841 CE that nowhere in any ancient book of the Hindus there is any mention
of the Hindus ever inhabiting any other country. Moreover the Hindus do not have any Vedic rituals
performed outside India in the ancient times. This is despite Jean Antoine Dubois's speculation in 1816
CE that there was migration of people to India from the Caucasus region but without making any
mention of the Aryans. As a result of these speculations of Prof. Max Muller, the antiquity of the Vedas
and also of the Bhagavad Gita were lowered. Prof R.C Zaehner, who wrote an excellent book on
Bhagavad Gita, even ventured to make the absurd claim that Bhagavad Gita got the ideas from Lord
Buddha's teachings, while the contrary is only true. Further his speculations of the Ancient Indian
Chronology had lowered the antiquities of all the Religious, Philosophical and Literary stalwarts of India
of the ancient past.

There were several factors which led Prof. Max Muller to make these fantastic speculations and the
"Dotted Record" contributed to it in no less measure.

63
HISTORY OF THE DOTTED RECORD

After Lord Buddha passed away Upali collected the Vinaya pitaka with due respect and marked a dot on
a record and kept it next to the Vinaya. This became a regular practice to mark a dot in that record every
year. Before his death Upali gave it to his disciple Dāsaka. Dāsaka gave it to Sonaka and Sonaka gave it to
Siggiva. Siggiva gave it to Moggaliputta Tissa and the latter gave it to Candavajji. This practice continued
till it reached a Tripitaka Master, who took the Dotted Record and the Samantapāsādikā (a commentary
on the Vinaya pitaka) with them, when he and his disciple Sanghabhadra visited Canton in China. Before
his death the Master wanted to return to his native land (India) and he handed over the Dotted Record
and the Samantapāsādikā to his disciple Sanghabhadra. Sanghabhadra translated the Samantapāsādikā
into the Chinese language with the help of a Sāmanera (bhikshuni) named Seng-Wei, at the Bamboo
Grove monastery at Canton. These details have been given by Fei Chang-fang. ( Ref.1). At that point of
time there were 975 dots in the "Dotted Record", which indicated that 975 years have passed since Lord
Buddha died.

Sangabhadra belonged to the Dharmagupta school of the Sarvāstivādins. All Sarvāstivāda literature was
in Sanskrit and the history of their compilation goes back to the time of Kaniska, who came to power in
1298 BCE. The Rajatarangini and the recent studies of Prof. Narahari Achar on the available astronomical
data of that time confirm that Kaniska became king in 1298 BCE. The great Buddhist scholar Asvaghosa
came from Magadha to the court of Kaniska and a Buddhist Council of the Sarvāstavādins was held
under the patronage of Kaniska. In that council the Buddhist literature of the Sarvāstavādins including
the Tripitaka were compiled and written down in Sanskrit. Sri Lankan Buddhists do not recognize this
council but the northern Buddhist schools confirm that it did take place five hundred years after the
death of Lord Buddha. Thus from the Date of Kaniska the date of death of Lord Buddha comes out to be
around 1800 BCE.

DATE OF SANGHABHADRA

64
Sanghabhadra was a Sarvāstavādin and a contemporary of Vāsubandhu. According to Hiuen Tsang
Vāsubandhu was born 900 years after the death of Lord Buddha. In his early life Vāsubandhu was a
sarvāstivādin and he wrote the Abhidharmakosha but later on he became a critic of his own work and
wrote the Abhidharmakosha-bhashya, where he refuted many aspects in Abhidharmakosha. He finally
became a co-founder of the Yogāchāra school in association with his half-brother Asanga. The Buddhist
scholar, Dignaga was a disciple of Vāsubandhu. Dignaga had been criticized by Kumarila Bhatta. The
Jaina records confirm that Lord Mahavira lived from 599 BCE to 527 BCE and also that Lord Mahavira
defeated Kumarila Bhatta in debate. According to Jina Vijaya, Kumarila Bhatta was born in 557 BCE.
Kumarila Bhatta was a contemporary of another Buddhist scholar Dharmakirti, who was born long after
Dignaga. It is thus reasonable to state that Sanghabhadra was born long before the 6th century BCE and
it could well be around the 8th or the 9th century BCE.

The question naturally arises that if Sanghabhadra was born around the 8th or the 9th century BCE and
the Sarvāstivāda literature were in Sanskrit why then the Sri Lankan Buddhist scholars believed that
Sanghabhadra translated the Samantapāsādikā in 489 CE and that the text was originally in the Pali
language. To delve into this mystery we must look at the misinterpretation of Indian Chronology during
the 18th and the 19th century CE.

HANDLING OF INDIAN CHRONOLOGY IN THE 18th AND the 19th CENTURIES CE

In the Indian tradition the puranas provide the geneology of the royal dynasties as this is one of the five
criteria requirements, which must be fulfilled by a work, to be eligible to be called a purana. Because of
this requirement even though the puranas are very ancient yet they have to be updated from time to
time, so far as the historical information is concerned. Thus the puranas are valuable historical
documents and the historical details of the puranas are authentic and free from the exaggerations and
allegorical details found in the other pauranic stories, which were meant to convey the spiritual
messages through different stories. Another historical source book was Kalhana's Rajatarangini. On top
of these there were many astronomical details given in the ancient literature, which help one to arrive
at the chronological information precisely.

In the 4th century BCE Megasthenes was in the court of Sandrocottus as a Greek emissary, though he
himself was not of Greek origin. He wrote "Indica" and only the fragments of it are available today. But it
does help one to know about the royalty and the social structures of those days. He says that
Sandrocottus had his capital at Palibothra. Sir William Jones had mistakenly identified Pataliputra to be
the Palibothra. Megasthenes wrote clearly that Palibothra was at the confluence of Ganga and
Errannobas (or Yamuna), the third largest river in India (after Ganga and Sindhu or Indus). Megasthenes
also mentioned several other rivers of India including Sone. But Sir Jones said that there was no ancient
city near the confluence of Ganga and Yamuna. (Ref. 2) Even though Megasthenes had specifically
mentioned Sone separately yet Sir Jones conveniently stated that Megasthenes mentioned about Sone
negligently. But there was none in those days to protest against such horrendous accusation hurled at

65
Megasthenes. Present day well -informed historians know that there was indeed the city of
Pratisthanpur at the confluence of Ganga and Yamuna, which was also mentioned by the great poet
Kalidasa of the 8th century BCE in his drama "Vikramorvashia". The city of Pratisthanpur was destroyed
completely about one thousand years ago by a devastating fire and from that time onward that city has
been known as Jhusi (or Jhunsi), a name derived from the Hindi word Jhulasna or to burn. Megasthenes
stated that in those days all the buildings / houses near the rivers and the sea were made of wood and
Palibuthra, being at the confluence of Ganga and Yamuna, was no exception and that the structures
with brick and clay were built only in places far away from the rivers and the sea. Thus it appears
possible that the fire destroyed all the traces of the ancient wooden structures, if any of these at all
survived till the time of the devastating fire. Jhusi is located towards the east of Allahabad, just across
the river Ganga. Archaeologists have found grains and other artifacts in the mounds of Jhusi, which
dates back to before the 4th century BCE. The Ashokan pillar found in Jhusi had inscriptions of
Samudragupta and it was shifted to the Allahabad Fort and the emperor Jahangir also made his
inscriptions on that. There is also inscription of Ashoka in that and it was of Samudragupta after he was
converted to Buddhism and he assumed the name of Ashokaditya. All the Gupta kings had their second
names ending in "-aditya"

Sir Jones found abundant information from the Buddhist literature regarding the Pataliputra being the
capital of Chandragupta Maurya, the grandfather of Ashoka Maurya. It was earlier during the reign of
the king Ajātsatru that the capital of Magadha was shifted from Rajagriha to Pataliputra. Sir Jones had
conveniently suggested that Pataliputra was the Palibothra and Chandragupta Maurya was the
Sandrocottus.

In reality Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty was the Sandrocottus. Jaina record says that the Gupta era
started 215 years after the death of Lord Mahavira. Gupta era is reckoned from the coronation of
Chandragupta. The coronation of Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty thus took place in 527 - 215 = 312
BCE. Chandragupta had a truce with Seleucus in 305 BCE, according to which Seleucus ceded some of his
territory to the west of Indus to Chandragupta and Chandragupta made a return gift of five hundred
elephants to Seleucus. Seleucus, as a result, could concentrate on consolidating his empire in the west.
According to the Jaina records Chandragupta abdicated his throne in 297 BCE and became a Jaina monk.
Chandragupta was born before the advent of the Shālivahana Saka era and the Vikrama Samvat era. His
date is therefore should be expressed in terms of the Saka-raja kāla (or the Saka-nripati kāla), which
started in 553 BCE. According to Alberuni, the Gupta rule ended in the year 241 of the Saka kāla ie. in
241 + 78 = 319 CE. He identified the last king of the Guptas as Valabha. If we consider the date of start of
the Gupta era as 312 BCE as given by the Jaina records then we find that 241 years before that ie in 312
+ 241 = 553 BCE there was the Sakarāja kāla. Sakarājā kāla started from the year 553 BCE, in which
Cyrus-II, the Great, led a revolt against the median king, as a consequence of which he became the ruler
of all Iran, thus starting the Achaemenian period, which lasted till the arrival of Alexander, the Great, in
330 BCE. This means that the Indian historians should have considered the Sakarāja kāla and calculated
to find the start of the Gupta era in 553 - 241 = 312 BCE. This matches with the figure obtained by using
the data from the Jaina record. Because of the wrong identification of Sandrocottus with Chandragupta

66
Maurya by Sir Jones and also because of the tremendous power and influence enjoyed by him, the
contemporary historians ignored all historical facts and obligingly reduced the antiquity of the Gupta
dynasty by 553 + 78 = 631 years and started saying that Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty became
king in the year 241 of the Shalivahana Saka and consequently the Ancient Indian Chronology was
greatly damaged. In fact Alberuni also was of the opinion that Buddhism prevailed in Persia (Iran) and
Irak (Iraq and upto Syria )before the advent of Zarathustra in the 7th century BCE. (Ref.3) This shows
that Ashoka Maurya lived much before the 7th century BCE and Lord Buddha died about 300 years
before the coronation of Ashoka Maurya. So would Alberuni have ever said that Sandrocottus was
Chandragupta Maurya and would he have ever said that Chandraupta of the Gupta dynasty was born
around 600 years after Sandrocottus? Alberuni must be turning in his grave as the Indian historians,
since the second half of the 19th century, conveniently overlooked this observation of Alberuni to suit
their own pre-conceived notions, even though Max Muller himself retracted his own speculations when
he said subsequently that no one on earth can tell the date of the Vedas correctly. It is the historians,
who are keeping the Aryan Invasion Theory and his chronology alive even today even after getting so
many newer information such as about the lost Saraswati river to which Sir William Jones and Prof. Max
Muller did not have access to..

From Buddhist record Ashoka Maurya became king 300 years after the death of Lord Buddha and that
the Jaina teacher Nighanta Nataputta was a contemporary of Lord Buddha. The Sri Lankan Buddhist
scholars fixed the date of Lord Buddha assuming two limits (ie. upper and lower limits) that Lord Buddha
died after Lord Mahavira and that he died before Ashoka Maurya became the king. But they were wrong
in assuming that Nighanta Nataputta and Lord Mahavira was the same person. They were in fact
different persons as they died in different places and they did not profess the same code of practice or
vows. While Lord Mahavira recommended the five-fold vows (or yamas or restraints), Nighanta
Nataputta , like Bhagawan Pārsvanath recommended four-fold vows. In fact after the death of Lord
Mahavira there was a meeting of Kesi, the senior follower of Bhagawan Parsvanath and Gautama
Indrabhuti

The linguistic experts also ignored the fact that Lord Buddha taught in the Pali language, also called the
Shuddha-Magadhi or the Ancient Prakrit, whereas Lord Mahavira taught in Ardha-Magadhi or Jaina-
prakrit, which is the language that evolved from Pali, over several centuries. All these show that Lord
Buddha preceded Lord Mahavira by long time and they could not have been comtemporaries. Not only
the linguists did not do justice to Indian History even the Political and Social scientists till late 20th
century ignored the fact that the Polity as found in the accounts of Megasthenes and Kautilya (or
Vishnugupta or Chanakya) were vastly different, as pointed out by Goyal. ( Ref.4) From his studies Goyal
had rightly concluded that Megasthenes and Kautilya could not have belonged to the same time period.
This also means that if Kautilya, the king-maker, who was instrumental in installing Chandragupta
Maurya in the throne of Magadha, was not a contemporary of Sandrocottus then obviously
Sandrocottus cannot be Chandragupta Maurya. But it appears that Goyal did not dare to challenge the
views of those academic historians, who still holds on to the speculations of Sir William Jones and Prof.

67
Max Muller. Goyal simply said that Kautilya could have been from a period later than that of
Megasthenes.

With two wrong premises that Chandragupta Maurya was Sandrocottus and that Lord Mahavira was
Nigantha Nataputta, the Sri Lankan Buddhist scholars fixed the date of Lord Buddha between the date of
sandrocottus and that of Lord Mahavira. Taking the date of Chandragupta's abdication of throne in 297
BCE and the reign of his son Bindusara to be 25 years they calculated Ashoka's accession to throne in
297 - 25 = 272 BCE and his coronation four years later in 272 - 4 = 268 BCE. They assumed that Ashoka's
coronation took place 218 years after the death of Lord Buddha. However according to the Indian
Buddhists it was 300 years and not 218 years. They had reduced the reign of the Nandas to 22 years
whereas it was 100 years. They also did not mention the period of reign of Aniruddha and his brother
Munda properly. Both of them ruled for 8 years each but the the Pali version of Samantāsādikā has
given only 8 years for both of them together. They had necessarily reduced that period by about 100
years to make it 218 years as otherwise it would have meant that the death of Lord Buddha occurred
before that of Lord Mahavira. Adding 218 years to 268 BCE, the year of Ashoka's coronation they
calculated that Lord Buddha died in 268 + 218 = 486 BCE. Taking 486 BCE as the date of death of Lord
Buddha they calculated the date of Sanghabhadra's translation of Samantapāsādikā to be 975 - 486 =
489 CE, since 975 years passed from the death of Lord Buddha as indicated by the 975 dots on the
Dotted Record.

In the introduction to his translation of "The Amitayur-dhyana sutra" Prof. Max Muller states as follows:

"-----------The date of Kandragupta (Sandrocryptos) as fixed by Greek historians and serving to determine
the dates of Ashoka and his inscriptions in the third and indirectly Buddha in the fifth century (BCE) ------
------." (Ref. 5)

Here Prof. Max Muller writes the name of Chandragupta as Kandragupta. Prof Max Muller received the
details of the Cantonese Dotted Record from his friend and past pupil B. Nanjio in 1884 CE. Other
western scholars came to know of the Dotted record later when Takakusu wrote about it while trying to
show that not only Sanskrit but Pali literature was also translated to the Chinese language and he took
Samantapāsādikā as an example. (Ref. 6) Prof. Max Muller accepted the Dotted Record as giving support
to his speculations on ancient Indian Chronology, even if he might have known about the manipulations
of the date of Lord Buddha as well of the Dotted record. Prof. Max Muller rejected the protests from
other Indian and western scholars including M.Troyer, who on the basis of his mastery in Kalhana's
Rajatarangini, did not accept Prof. Max Muller's speculations on the ancient Indian Chronology.

68
Assumed support from the Dotted Record coupled with Max Muller's own Germanic background
induced him to suggest a historical time-line, which included the mythical Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT)
according to which the Aryans invaded India in the 15th century BCE. In 1868 CE the German linguist
Theodor Benfey stated that Aryan mother-tongue originated in Europe between the source of the
Danube river and the Caspian Sea. Then Ludwig Geiger suggested that Germany was the Aryan
homeland. At that time Prof. Martin Haug suggested that the Rig Veda was composed subsequent to the
Pentateuch (ie. the first five chapters of the Old Testament of the Bible). The latter was composed in the
middle of the 15th century BCE, as evidenced from data given in the Old Testament itself. Prof. Max
Muller also believed that the origin of all languages was when and where the Biblical Tower of Babylon
was constructed. Equipped with all this information Prof. Max Muller thought that the Aryans came to
India from Germany in the middle of the 15th century BCE but without making it explicit he simply
suggested that Aryan invasion occurred in the middle of the 15th century BCE and that this was based
on linguistic studies, thus camouflaging his real inspirations which came from his fancy that his own
ancestors came to India in the middle of the 15th century BCE and composed the Rig Veda as well as the
other Vedas and that was the real root of the Vedas. Ascribing 15th century BCE to the time for Aryan
Invasion and the 5th century BCE to the date of death of Lord Buddha, Max Muller worked out the dates
of the ancient Indian literature including the scriptures, ie. the Vedas, Brahmanas, Puranas and Sutras
allocating arbitrary time periods for their development. Thus he had completely disoriented the
historians, both western and Indian. But Max Muller saw his reasoning crumble before his eyes towards
the end of his life and he realized his mistakes and the AIT has generally weakened. Towards the end of
his life Max Muller himself said that nobody can definitely say about the date of the Vedas whether it is
1500 BCE or much earlier and that was a clear negation of the AIT and it does not require a genius to
understand that. But the subsequent historians including the Indian historians wanted to keep the AIT
alive and some of the books are perpetuating that to this day without any sign of their withdrawal. In
the course of analyzing the ways of working of Prof. Max Muller, Gregory Schrempp wrote that in the
light of criticisms Max Muller started revising his own formulations ultimately leaving behind him a
legacy of retrodictions (contradictions) that covered his entire career. (Ref. 8)

MORE ON THE DOTTED RECORD

Pachow (Ven. Fa-Chow), who was a professor in the Ceylon University in Sri Lanka, gave the translation
of a passage from Seng-Yu's Ch'usan-Tsang Chi Chi, a portion of which is as follows:

69
 "On the 10th of the third Moon, in the 10th year of Yung-Ming of the Chi dyanasty, Bhikshuni Ching-hsiu
of Cheng-Lin learnt that the Venerable Sanghabhadra. assisted by the Venerable Seng-Wei translated
the Sanskrit text "Samantapāsādikā, into Chinese, consisting of 18 fascicles---------------." ( Ref.7)

It is clear from the above that Sangabhadra translated the Sanskrit text and not the Pali text of
Samantapāsādikā. But Pachow, probably from pressure from the Sri Lankan Budddhist scholars,
contradicted what is given in the original excerpt shown above and stated in a foot-note that actually
this was in Pali. His assertion was unfounded as Sanghabhadra was a Sarvāstavādin and all Sarvātavādi
literature were in Sanskrit, right from the time of Kaniska.

Buddhaghosa did write the Pali version of the Samantapāsādikā before his arrival in Sri Lanka towards
the end of the rule of his host king, Sriniwasa or Sirikuda, who died within one year of his arrival in Sri
Lanka. The Sri Lankan Buddhist scholars identified Mahanama as the Sirikuda, but this is questionable.
Buddhaghosa wrote several books during this time and the writing of Samantapāsādikā during that time
does not seem probable. In the book " The Inception of Discipline and the Vinaya Nidana", the author
mentions that the commentaries of the four Agamas refer to Samantapāsādikā but the latter scarcely
refers to the other Agamas. This suggests that the Samantapāsādikā is the earlier work.(Ref. 9) Before
his arrival in Sri Lanka he had translated the Samantapāsādikā into pali from its Sanskrit version, which
was the same as the version used by Sanghabhadra and that version remained with him in Canton
unless he came back with it later to India, but there is no mention of his return to India anywhere.
According to Bigandet Buddhaghosa went to Sri Lanka 943 years after the year of the religion, ie. after
the death of Lord Buddha. (Ref. 10) The time gap between Buddhaghosa's visit to Si Lanka and the time
of Sanghbhadra's translation of the Samantapāsādikā was only 975 - 943 = 32 years. This makes
Buddhaghosa a contemporary of Sanghabhadra and Vasubandhu.

A comparison of the pali version of the Samantapāsādikā has been done with the Chinese version of that
by Bapat and Hirakawa. (Ref.11) In the Chinese version the influence of the Dharmagupta school of
Sarvāstivādins is very clear. Pali version uses the word "Nikaya" and the Chinese version uses the word
"Nigama" in line with the Northern schools of Buddhism. There were several other leanings towards the
Dharmagupta school. The names of the places are different in many cases. Bapat and Hirakawa mention
that in several places the transliterations point to Sanskrit origin.

70
Pachow says that the contention of Takakusu that Sanghabhadra was a Sinhalese or Burmese is not
convincing.(Ref. 7) Pachow suggests that Sanghabhadra's return to "Nan" in the South, as mentioned in
Li - tai San - Pao - Chi of Fei Chang - fang and Ch'u - San - tsang Chi Chi of Sang - Yu, was actually to Fu-
Nan or Cambodia and the Dotted record was taken from India to Cambodia and from there to Canton by
sea and not from Ceylon. (Ref. 7) When Moggaliputta Tissa handed over the Vinaya to Candavajji, the
Dotted Record was also given with the Sanskrit version of Samantapāsādikā and that is how it reached
Canton. Mogaliputta gave one set of the Vinaya to Mahinda (Mahendra) also but without the Dotted
Record, otherwise it would have been known to the Sri Lankan Buddhist about it from that source.

CONCLUSIONS

During the times of Sanghabhadra the Chow dynasty (1122 - 249 BCE) was in power in China. Thus it was
the Chow dynasty and not the Chi dynasty at time of Sangabhadra contrary to what has been claimed by
Takakusu. As Sanghabhadra was around the 8th or 9th century BCE and the Dotted record indicated 975
years from the death of Lord Buddha at the time of the translation by Sanghabhadra it is reasonable to
say that Lord Buddha died in the 18th or the 19th century BCE and not in 486 BCE as worked out by the
Sri Lankan Buddhist scholars. Their assertion that the Dotted Record was translated in 489 BCE has no
basis except for this being an attempt to prove that Lord Buddha was born in 486 BCE. They have not
tried to determine the date of Sanghabhadra independently. That Lord Buddha was born many centuries
before 486 BCE has been ascertained by the modern scholars also by studies on astronomical data
available in the literature of those days, according to which Lord Buddha was born 1887 BCE and he died
in 1807 BCE. The more reliable period as to when the Dotted Record was translated, as shown above,
removes one of the great hurdles in working out the ancient Indian Chronology correctly. This also helps
in establishing the antiquity of the Vedas and of the Bhagavad Gita, which are considered the
foundations of the Sanatana dharma or the Hinduism.

REFERENCES

71
1) Li - tai San - Pao Chi (or "The Chronicle of the three jewels"), Fei Chang fang (597 CE), as quoted
in Ref. 5

2) The Tenth Anniversary Discourse at the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Sir, William Jones, February 28,
1793.

3) Edward C. Sachau, Alberuni'a India, Vol. 1, Page 21

4) India as known to Kautilya and Megasthenes, S.R. Goyal, Kusumanjali Book World, Jodhpur
(2001 CE)

5) Buddhists Mahayana Texts, Translation by E.B.Cowell, F. Max Muller and J. Takakusu, Oxford
Clarendon Press (1984) ( Vol. XLIX of the Sacred Books of the East)

6) On the "Dotted Record", J. Takakusu, Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, 435,437 (1896), as quoted
in Ref. 5

7) A Study of the Dotted Record, W. Pachow, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 85,342 -
348 (1965)

8) "The Re-education of Friedrich Max Muller : Intellectual Appropriation and Epistemological

Antinomy in Mid-Victorian Evolutionary Thought" by Gregory Schrempp, MAN (erstwhile
"Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland"), New Series, Vol.
16, No. 1, pp. 90 - 110, March 1983

9) The inception of Discipline and the Vinaya Nidana (Being a translation and edition of the
Buddhaghosa's Samantapāsādikā, the Vinaya commentary by N.A.Jayavickrama (Sacred books of
the Buddhists, Vol. XXI (1962)

10) The Life and Legend of Gaudama, Bishop Bigandet, Rangoon (1866)

72
11) Shan - Chien - P'i - P'o - Sha, A Chinese version by Sangabhadra of Samantapāsikā (English
translation), P.V. Bapat and A. Hirakawa, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune, India
(1970)

73
74
 SOME SLIDES FROM HISTORY TUTORIAL

Slide 1 ___________________________________

भारतीय सभ्यता का
___________________________________
कालतत्व और इितहास
कोसल वेप
___________________________________

___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 1

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 2 ___________________________________
The Indic Civilization

Why study history ? ___________________________________

What is History ?
The study of history
The Father of Historiography ___________________________________
Our Framework for writing history
___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 2

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

75
Slide 3 ___________________________________
The Indic Civilization

The Traditional Definition ___________________________________

What do historians look for

What was said

What was written
___________________________________
What was physically preserved
The earliest oral record of a history is that of the Veda
(4000 BCE) and the earliest written record is the
Cuneiform 3400 BCE
___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 3

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 4 ___________________________________
The Indic Civilization

What is history ___________________________________

• पुराणिमितवृत्तमाख्याियकोदाहरणं धमर्थर्शास्तर्ं चेतीितहासः
• Puraana (the chronicles of the ancients), Itivrtta (history),
Akhyayika (tales), Udaaharana (illustrative stories), Dharmashastra
(the canon of Righteous conduct), and Arthashastra (the science of
Government) are known by (comprise the corpus of Ithihaasa ) ___________________________________
History
• Kautilya’s Arthashastra, Book 1, Chapter 5

___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 4

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 5 ___________________________________
The Indic Civilization

Mahabharata Adi Parva 1.267,268 ___________________________________

• “इितहासपुराणाभ्य़ां वॆदो समुपबृंयेत
• िबभॆत्य अल्पौुतादं वॆदो मामयं ूहिरंयित “

the Mahabharata (Adi-Parva1.267,268) and Manu-Samhita state,

___________________________________
"One should complement one's understanding of the Vedas with
the help of the Itihasas and the Puranas." And elsewhere it is
stated, "The Puranas are called by that name because they are
complete."
___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 5

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

76
Slide 6 ___________________________________
The Indic Civilization
• Kalhana’s Rajatarangini
___________________________________
• धमार्थक र् ाममोक्षाणामुपदे शसमिन्वतं ।
• पुरावृत्तं कथायुक्तिमितहासं ूचक्षते ।।

___________________________________
“Dharmaartha-kaama-mokshanaam upadesa-samanvitam |
Puraa-vrttam, kathaa-yuktam Ithihaasam prachakshate ||”

History will be the narration of events as they happened, in the form of a story,
which will be an advice to the reader to be followed in life, to gain the purusaarthas

___________________________________
namely Kama the satiation of desires through Artha the tool, by following the path of
Dharma the human code of conduct to gain Moksha or liberation.

10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 6

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 7 ___________________________________
The Indic Civilization

___________________________________
Why should we take a fresh look at History

The state of knowledge in various fields such as Physics,

Genetics, biology, chemistry, and forensics, is such that
they can now be brought to bear on the questions that
___________________________________
arise in the decipherment of history. No longer is one
forced to guess, at least in an increasing number of cases,
the dates when an event took place, as did the colonial
overlord ___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 7

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 8 ___________________________________
The Indic Civilization

___________________________________
2 Key assumptions in Colonial Paradigm of history

___________________________________
1. Every noteworthy development was made by invaders (Hegelian
Hypothesis). The history of India is almost entirely a History of Invasions

2. No discovery ought to be credted to the Indics prior to the advent of the

Golden age of Greece, circa 600 BCE

___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 8

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

77
Slide 9 ___________________________________
The Indic Civilization

Caricaturization of the Indic I

___________________________________
• Religious beliefs of the Indic that are the root cause of his misfortunes.

___________________________________
• The Indic is inherently incapable of adventurous behavior and will not
venture beyond the confines of the Indian subcontinent (Kaalapaani
syndrome)
• The Indic is incapable of original, rational and creative ideas. The Indic is
incapable of independent thinking
• The caste system is an artifact of the Indic religious belief system, and that

•
the Indic is inherently opposed to egalitarian ideas
The Indic is especially unique and egregious in the manner in which he ___________________________________
exploits his fellow Indics

10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 9

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 10 ___________________________________
The Indic Civilization

Caricaturization of the Indic II

___________________________________
• The Indic is fundamentally not tuned to making progress and advancing in the
modern world, and is lost in an ancient mind set

___________________________________
• Everything good and worthwhile in the Indian subcontinent has been imported by
the invaders, and the only indigenous characteristics are those like caste that are
inherent to the Indic civilization.
• The Indic is fatalistic and will not make an effort to change his destiny which is
written in stone the moment he is born
• The Indic is lazy and indolent
• The Indic has no sense of history and is even poorer at keeping records of his

•
historical past
As a consequence of the above the Indic is socially backward, possibly morally ___________________________________
corrupt and perennially hence dependent upon Westernization to reform the
current problems in Indian society.

10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 10

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 11 ___________________________________
The Indic Civilization

•
Inconsistencies I
The inherent contradictions of the Aryan Invasion Theory by the mythic and yet to
___________________________________
be identified Aryan race.
• The insistence on clinging to a racial terminology even when it is widely
discredited and abandoned elsewhere
•
___________________________________
The insistence that Indic astronomy , geometry and mathematics was not
autochthonous to India but was borrowed from the Greek or the Babylonians
• The origin of the Brahmi script becomes a victim of the ‘anywhere but India’
syndrome
• Devaluation and denigration of the extent of the ancient Indic contribution to
Mathematics and Astronomy
• Dating of the Mahabharata
•
•
Dating of the Satapatha Brahmana
Dating of the Veda ___________________________________
• Dating of the Vedanga Jyotisha

10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 11

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

78
Slide 12 ___________________________________
The Indic Civilization

Inconsistencies II ___________________________________
• Dating of the Sulva sutras
• The beginning of the Vikrama era
•
•
The dating of the Buddha
The dating of the Arthashastra ___________________________________
• The dating of Chandragupta Maurya
• The dating of Panini’s Ashtadhyayi
• The dating of Aryabhata
• Inconsistencies in the chronology of the Indic historical narrative
___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 12

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 13 ___________________________________
The Indic Civilization

___________________________________
The study of History
Why study history? The answer is because we virtually
must, to gain access to the laboratory of human
experience. When we study it reasonably well, and so
acquire some usable habits of mind, as well as some basic
___________________________________
data about the forces that affect our own lives, we emerge
with relevant skills and an enhanced capacity for informed

___________________________________
citizenship, critical thinking, and simple awareness.

10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 13

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 14 ___________________________________
The Indic Civilization

___________________________________
Who were the founders of History and Historiography
• Writing in the Muqaddimah in the 14th century, Ibn Khaldun said that “All
records, by their very nature, are liable to error” because of the following

___________________________________
reasons:
– They favor a creed or opinion (biased)
– It is difficult to determine the original intent or context
– History may have been written to favor a certain power
• The trouble with interpreting the past is that we look at it through the

___________________________________
present. We must learn to put ourselves in their shoes.
• The Indics regard Veda Vyaasa as the father of historiography

10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 14

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

79
Slide 15 ___________________________________
ICIH2009, January 9-11,2009

___________________________________
History

___________________________________
ICIH2009

Civilization Geopolitics
___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 16 ICIH2009, January 9-11,2009, IIC,Delhi

___________________________________

पुराणिमितोुत्तमाख्याियकोदाहरणं ___________________________________
धमर्थश
र् ास्तर्ं चेतीितहासः

___________________________________
History

ICIH2009
Civilization Geopolitics
___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 17 ___________________________________
The Indic Civilization

___________________________________
• Jayashree Anandampillai
what would be the Indian perspective and approach to history? Traditionally acclaimed historian of India Kalhana who wrote the
Rajatarangini says,

• “Dharmaartha-kaama-moskshanaam upadesa-samanvitam |
• Puraa-vrttam, kathaa-rupam Ithihaasam pracakshate ||”
•

• History will be the narration of events as they happened, in the form of a story, which will be an advice to the reader to be followed
in life, to gain the purusaarthas namely Kama the satiation of desires through Artha the tool, by following the path of Dharma the
human code of conduct to gain Moksha or liberation.
•

•
.The kalhanian formula seems to be the ideal perspective to be followed in writing history. For we feel that it will avoid to a large
extant the subjective distortion that has invariably been creeping in to the histories written so far.

By accepting such a norm, History becomes relevant and contemporary and accepting the logic of the six systems of philosophy by
___________________________________
which one can fine tune the authenticity of a statement based on just oral tradition along with the objective evidence of the artifacts
available. That apart we also have the clear enunciation of the way of life (Dharma) enunciated in the smrtis. This can be applied at
three stages Namely Dharma of nature, human dharma, and locational dharma. This helps one to come to conclusions which can be
fairly logical and acceptable to the majority. It is after all, the conclusions that lands historians into controversy. The more objective
it is, more comprehensive it is, more purposeful it is, will naturally lead to the reduction of controversies.

___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 17

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

80
Slide 18 The Indic Civilization
___________________________________

___________________________________
§ इितहास itihaas Tradition has it that it stands for the epics Ramayana
and Mahabharata. In other words these are our historical
narratives.Historical evidence or tradition which is recognized as proof ___________________________________
by the pauranikas
§ History Helps Us Understand People and Societies
§ History Helps Us Understand Change and How the Society We Live in

___________________________________
Came to Be

10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 18

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 19 ___________________________________
The Indic Civilization

___________________________________
If we do not write our own history somebody else will (they will have no compulsion
to be true to our history). They will write it from their perspective an account
favorable to their civilization

A History of a civilization is the record of all its experiences, mistakes and successes
(the DNA of the civilization)

Nations have gone to war in order to learn from an adversaries history ___________________________________

___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 19

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 20 ___________________________________
The Indic Civilization

Why is chronology important ___________________________________

• Chronology must be internally and externally consistent,
• Current History is both internally and externally inconsistent
• A false chronology leads to false conclusions about our ___________________________________
history
• It denies us precedence in mathematical discoveries
• If chronology is not important why is the occidental so
tenacious in denying our antiquity ___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 20

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

81
Slide 21 ___________________________________
The Indic Civilization
Why is chronology important
___________________________________
• We who are of Indic heritage realize only too well that a
mere claim of antiquity will not gain us the respect of the
world, but it is indeed remarkable to see the great lengths
that some amongst the occidentals today will go to deny us
the antiquity which we feel is the right one. The ferocity
___________________________________
with which he argues against our historical heritage is only
matched by the tenacity with which he would deny us a
place at the table with other major powers, and that is
another story unto itself.
___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 21

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 22 ___________________________________
The Indic Civilization
Famous indologists who studied Indic literature

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 22

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 23 The Indic Mathematical ___________________________________

tradition
The Problem of Ancient Indic Chronology ___________________________________
 Created by Sir William Jones (1746-1794)
 He single handedly retrofitted Indic History to fit his own misconceptions


Lopped off 1200 years from Puranic Itihaasa texts
Mistakenly identified the identity of Sandrocottus, referred by
___________________________________
Megasthenes with Chandragupta Maurya
 Thus was born the subject of Indology analogous to Entomology, the study
of insects
___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 23

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

82
Slide 24 The Indic Mathematical ___________________________________
tradition
It must have been the Aryans !

Eurocentricity (a euphemism for a clearly racist attitude)

___________________________________
gave greater credit to Greece and later to Babylonian
mathematics rather than recognize Indic and Vedic
mathematics on its own merits
Indics incapable of discovering and utilizing a gamut of
mathematical techniques
___________________________________
Ergo, since the Indics were incapable, the discoveries were
made by a mythical race from elsewhere – the Aryans
The Circular argument persists to this day – assumptions
are treated as facts and any conclusion contradicting the
assumption is therefore dismissed summarily as absurd
___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 24

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 25 The Indic Mathematical ___________________________________

tradition
Colonialism and its forms of knowledge
The command of Language and the Language of Command

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________
Sir William Jones learning Sanskrit from Indian Pundits

10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 25

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 26 The Indic Mathematical ___________________________________

tradition

What the rest of the world said about Indic ___________________________________

contributions
The historian Florian Cajori, one of the most celebrated
historians of mathematics in the early 20th century,
suggested that "Diophantus, the father of Greek algebra, got
the first algebraic knowledge from India." This theory is
supported by evidence of continuous contact between India
and the Hellenistic world from the late 4th century BC, and
___________________________________
earlier evidence that the eminent Greek mathematician
Pythagoras visited India, which further 'throws open' the
Eurocentric ideal.

___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 26

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

83
Slide 27 The Indic Mathematical ___________________________________
tradition

Saad al-Andalusi,
___________________________________
the first historian of Science who in 1068 wrote Kitab Tabaqut al-
Umam in Arabic (Book of Categories of Nations) Translated into

___________________________________
English by Alok Kumar in 1992

To their credit, the Indians have made great strides in the

study of numbers (3) and of geometry. They have acquired
immense information and reached the zenith in their
knowledge of the movements of the stars (astronomy) and
the secrets of the skies (astrology) as well as other
mathematical studies. After all that, they have surpassed all
the other peoples in their knowledge of medical science and
the strengths of various drugs, the characteristics of
___________________________________
compounds and the peculiarities of substances.

10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 27

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 28 The Indic Mathematical ___________________________________

tradition
TimeLine according to MaxMueller[4]

Chandas Rg Veda
Mantras later Vedas
1200 to 1000 BCE
1000 to 800 BCE
___________________________________
Brahmanas 800 to 600 BCE
Sutras 600 to 200 BCE

___________________________________
Timeline according to Keith[5]
Taittiriya Samhita 500 BCE
Baudhayana 400 BCE
Ashvalayana 350 BCE
Sankhayana 350 BCE
Yaska 300 BCE
Apastambha 300 BCE
Pratisakhya
Panini
300 BCE
250 BCE ___________________________________
Katyayana 800to 600 BCE

10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 28

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 29 The Indic Mathematical ___________________________________

tradition
 Yajnavalkya who wrote the Shatapatha Brahmana ( as well as the
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad)in which he describes the motion of the
sun and the moon and advances a 95 year cycle to synchronize the
motions of the sun and the moon
___________________________________
 Lagadha who authored the Jyotisha Vedanga
 Baudhayana the author of the Sulvasutra named after him
 Apastambha “
 Katyayana “
 Panini the Grammarian for the Indo Europeans ___________________________________
 Pingala Binary System of number representation
Aryabhatta the astronomer laureate of ancient India
 Varahamihira who synthesized the knowledge
 The author of the Jaina treatises the Suryaprajnapati,
Chandraprajnapati and the seventh section of Jambudvipaprajnapati
___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 29

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

84
Slide 30 The Indic Mathematical ___________________________________
tradition
Savants in the Mathematical Sciences

Apastambha
Aryabhatta I
Indian Subcontinent, through the Millennia

Narayana Pandita
Nilakantha Somayaji
___________________________________
Aryabhatta II Panini
Ashvalayana Paramesvara
Baudhayana Patodi
Bhadrabahu Pingala
Bhartrihari Pillai
Bhaskara I Prthudakasvami

___________________________________
Bhaskara II Puthumana Somayajee
Bose Rajagopal
Brahmadeva Ramanujan
Brahmagupta Sankara
Govindasvami Satananda
Harish-Chandra Sridharacharya
Hemchandra Suryaprajnaapati (author unknown)
Jagannatha
Jyesthadeva Sripati
Kamalakara Varahamihira
Katyayana Vateswaracharya

___________________________________
Lagadha Vijayanandi
Lalla Virasena Acharya
Madhava Henry Whitehead
Mahadeva Bhatta Yajnavalkya
Mahavira Yaska
Mahendra Suri Yativrsabha
Manava Yatavrisham Acharya
Manjulacharya Yavanesvara

10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 30

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 31 The Indic Mathematical ___________________________________

tradition
Proposed chronology of the Vedics
A work in progress
___________________________________
What is the proper sheet anchor to use

 The sheet anchor the Western Indologists use is the

___________________________________
ascension to the throne of Chandragupta Maya
 The Indics especially the Mathematicians preferred to
use the end of Mahabharata or the death of Sri Krishna
as the reference year

___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 31

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 32 The Indic Mathematical ___________________________________

tradition
Proposed chronology of the Vedics

Event
A work in progress

Individual Date
___________________________________
Birth Veda Vyaasa ~3300 BCE
Apastambha 3200 BCE
Birth
Birth

___________________________________
Baudhayana
Birth Aryabhata 2765 BCE
Lifespan Gautama Buddha 1888-1807 BCE
Coronation Chandragupta Maurya 1554 BCE
Coronation Asoka Maurya 1472 BCE
Coronation Kanishka 1294-1234 BCE
Era Andhra Satavahana 833 BCE -327 BCE
Coronation
Pancha Siddhanta
Reign
Chandragupta of Gupta dynasty
VarahaMihira
Vikramaditya
327 BCE
123 BCE
102 BCE to 78 BCE
___________________________________
Birth Brahmagupta 30 BCE
Writings Bhaskara IISiddhanta Siromani 486 BCE

10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 32

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

85
Slide 33 The Indic Mathematical ___________________________________
tradition

The Structure of Indic Literature

___________________________________
We can only discuss what survived the millennia of
wars and destruction. Literally thousands of
manuscripts were destroyed when Ikhtiar Khalji rode
into Bihar with a small band of looters around 1200 CE
Indic Literature is derived from a Srautic parampara –
___________________________________
an oral tradition, which is one reason that the original
language has still survived
Hence there is great importance paid to brevity
The content needs to be maximized for a given
number of syllables hence the need for Sutras
___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 33

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 34 The Indic Mathematical ___________________________________

tradition
The structure of Vedic Literature (continued)
EachVeda consists of Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas - speculation in
___________________________________
the solitude of wilderness eventually taking shape as the Upanishads,
To these were appended what were later called the Vedangas
comprising of
Shiksha (phonetics) Sandhi rules
Chandas (meter)
Nirukta (etymology)
___________________________________
Vyakarana (grammar)
Jyotisha (astronomy and calendric functions)
KalpaSutras(Ritual procedures and the associated mathematics)
Note the emphasis on brevity throughout, sandhi to make the content
more compact, phonetics for mnemonic purposes. Panini’s Ashtadhyayi
is a tour de force as the worlds oldest Grammar text and Nirukta for
___________________________________
associativity in remembering the meaning of words

10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 34

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 35 The Indic Mathematical ___________________________________

tradition

The Vedanga Period ___________________________________

• The Vedanga (IAST vedāṅga, "member of the Veda")
• are six auxiliary disciplines for the understanding and tradition of the Vedas.
• Shiksha (śikṣā): phonetics and phonology (sandhi)

___________________________________
• Chandas (chandas): meter Pingala
• Vyakarana (vyākaraṇa): grammar Panini
• Nirukta (nirukta): etymology Yaska
• Jyotisha (jyotiṣa): astrology Lagadha
• Kalpa (kalpa): ritual Apastambha, Baudhayana,
• Katyayana , Manava
• The Vedangas are first mentioned in the Mundaka Upanishad
•
•
•
as topics to be observed by students of the Vedas.
Later, they developed into independent disciplines,
each with its own corpus of Sutras.
___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 35

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

86
Slide 36 The Indic Mathematical ___________________________________
tradition
___________________________________
What were the SulvaSutras (literally Sutras of the cord)
As we emphasized absence of a likhita parampara 5000 years ago(scriptural
resources)demanded brevity and the sutra represents a technological marvel of
high order. A set of Kalpasutras attached to each Veda consisted of
Grihya Sutras (associated with household duties)

___________________________________
Srauta Sutras
Dharma Sutras
Sulvasutras
In what follows we wll be concerned with Jyotisha and the SulvaSutras

___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 36

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 37 The Indic Mathematical ___________________________________

tradition

___________________________________
What kind of Math problems did the Sutrakaras tackle
geometry for practical use in the construction of alters and places
of sacrifice.
construction of squares and rectangles of equivalent squares and
rectangles, construction of equivalent circles,
construction of squares equal to the sum of two given squares or
the difference of the two given squares.
they knew the theorem which is today attributed to Pythagoras.
Familiar with surds like sqrt 2 and transcendental numbers like PI
complex numbers using the imaginary number ‘i’ or π1−
For obtaining the diagonal , the rule given in the Sulva Sutras is to
___________________________________
multiply the side of the square by

___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 37

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 38 The Indic Mathematical ___________________________________

tradition
The Indian Mathematicians of the ancient era primarily number
theorists. ___________________________________
Excelled in Diophantine Equations
ax + by = 1: this is a linear Diophantine.
X**n + y**n = z**n: For n = 2 there are infinitely many solutions
(x,y,z), the Pythagorean triples. For larger values of n, Fermat's last

___________________________________
theorem states that no positive integer solutions x, y, z satisfying the
above equation exist.
X**2 - n y**2 = 1: (Pell's equation) which is named, mistakenly, after
the English mathematician John Pell. It was studied by Brahmagupta and
much later by Fermat

___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 38

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

87
Slide 39 The Indic Mathematical ___________________________________
tradition
Example of Brahmi script
___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 39

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 40 The Indic Mathematical ___________________________________

tradition
Panini पािणिन
___________________________________
Based on new research 3100 BCE
conventional date (520 BCE - 460BCE)

Probably the single most influential individual in the

linguistic and symbolic mathematical development of India.
___________________________________
The worlds first Grammarian
the worlds first developer of Linguistics as a science
codified rules of Sanskrit grammar
first suggested alphameric symbols for numbers

Postulated use of zero and place value system ???

___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 40

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 41 The Indic Mathematical ___________________________________

tradition

Apastambha
Author of SulvaSutras
___________________________________
References
Books:

G G Joseph, The crest of the peacock (London, 1991).

Articles:

R P Kulkarni, The value of p known to Sulbasutrakaras, Indian J.

___________________________________
Hist. Sci. 13 (1) (1978), 32-41.
G Kumari, Some significant results of algebra of pre-Aryabhata
era, Math. Ed. (Siwan) 14 (1) (1980), B5-B13.
A E Raik and V N Ilin, A reconstruction of the solution of certain
problems from the Apastamba Sulba Sutra Apastamba
(Russian), in A P Juskevic, S S Demidov, F A Medvedev and E I
Slavutin, Studies in the history of mathematics 19 'Nauka'
___________________________________
(Moscow, 1974), 220-222; 302.

10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 41

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

88
Slide 42 The Indic Mathematical ___________________________________
tradition
Aryabhata I (the elder)
आयर्भट
Born 2765 BCE (based on modern research)
conventional dating (476 - 550 CE)
___________________________________
astronomer mathematician of the ancient world

___________________________________

___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 42

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 43 The Indic Mathematical ___________________________________

tradition

Misdating of Aryabhata
___________________________________
"Aryabhata is the first famous mathematician and astronomer of Ancient India.
In his book Aryabhatteeyam, Aryabhata clearly provides his birth data. In the 10th
stanza, of the Kalakriya, or the reckoning of time
he says 60 x 6 = 360 years elapsed in this Kali Yuga, he was 23 years old.
The stanza of the sloka starts with “Shastyabdanam Shadbhiryada vyateetastra

___________________________________
yascha yuga padah.”“Shastyabdanam Shadbhi” means 60 x 6 = 360. While printing
the manuscript, the word “Shadbhi” was altered to “Shasti”, which implies 60 x 60
= 3600 years after Kali Era.

षष्टयब्दानाम षिद्भिह्यदार् व्तीतस्तर् यश्च युगपादाः ।

ऽयिधका िवंशित रब्दाःत दे ह मम जन्मनो अतीताः ।।

___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 43

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 44 The Indic Mathematical ___________________________________

tradition
___________________________________
Misdating of Aryabhata
As a result of this intentional arbitrary change, Aryabhata’s birth time was fixed
as 476 A.D Since in every genuine manuscript, we find the word “Shadbhi” and
not the altered “Shasti”, it is clear that Aryabhata was 23 years old in 360 Kali
Era or 2742 B.C. This implies that Aryabhata was born in 337 Kali Era or 2765
B.C. and therefore could not have lived around 500 A.D., as manufactured by
the Indologists to fit their invented framework. Bhaskara I is the earliest known
___________________________________
commentator of Aryabhata’s works. His exact time is not known except that he
was in between Aryabhata (2765 B.C.) and Varahamihira (123 B.C.)."
.

___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 44

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

89
Slide 45 The Indic Mathematical ___________________________________
tradition
Aryabhata आयर्बठा ___________________________________
Explains the causes of eclipses of the Sun and the Moon.

Estimated the length of the year at 365 days 6 hours 12 minutes

30 seconds is remarkably close to the true value which is about 365
days 6 hours.

___________________________________
book has four chapters:
(i) the astronomical constants and the sine table
(ii) mathematics required for computations
(iii) division of time and rules for computing the longitudes of
planets using eccentrics and epicycles
(iv) the armillary sphere, computation of eclipses.
___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 45

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

Slide 46 The Indic Mathematical ___________________________________

tradition

So, who invented the Zero and the decimal place value ___________________________________
system
Was it Yajnavalkya ?
Pingala perhaps ?
Was it Panini ?
Or Apastambha ?
___________________________________
Or was it Aryabhata ?
Or perhaps none of the above

___________________________________
10/12/2007 ©Indic Studies Foundation 46

___________________________________

___________________________________

___________________________________

90
 INDEX
Abhayankar, K.D .............................................................................................. 31

Al Biruni ................................................................................................. 38, 40

Anaxagoras, ................................................................................................... 48

Astronomy .............................................................................................. 49, 50

B.G.Sidharth ................................................................................................... 31

Banerjee, Satya Ranjan ....................................................................................... 31

Bharat ........................................................... 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 29, 33

Bharti .......................................................................................................... 26

British East India Company .............................................................................. 25, 26

Campbell, Joseph ............................................................................................. 32

Chach Namah ............................................................................................ 21, 22

Coedes, G ..................................................................................................... 32

Dar ul Islam ...................................................................................................37

David Pingree .................................................................................................52

Dhimmi ........................................................................................................ 37

Dr. Alma Kunanbay ........................................................................................... 11

Embree, Ainslie T ............................................................................................. 33

Empedocles ................................................................................................... 48

Graham Clark ................................................................................................. 17

Indology ................................................................................................. 39, 41

K. M. Munshi .................................................................................................. 25

Kenoyer ....................................................................................................... 10

Lake Mansarover .............................................................................................. 9

Mathematics, .................................................................................................49

Max Muller ...................................................... 4, 11, 20, 26, 29, 62, 63, 67, 68, 69, 72

91
Mohenjodaro ....................................................................................... 11, 20, 28

Motwani, Jagat K.............................................................................................. 33

Nalanda .......................................................................................................39

P. Poonai ...................................................................................................... 11

Parthians ................................................................................................. 19, 20

Pococke ......................................................................................... 21, 24, 25, 34

Pythagoras ............................................................................................... 40, 48

RC Majumdar ........................................................................................ 7, 37, 44

Renfrew, Colin ................................................................................................ 34

Sharma, Bhu ............................................................................................. 33, 34

Sir William Jones ............................................ 4, 11, 20, 26, 32, 35, 41, 42, 43, 62, 65, 67

Thales ......................................................................................................... 48

Vaman Shivram Apte ......................................................................................... 24

Vincent Smith ................................................................................................. 19

92