The problem with the chakar is that Ashoka never existed. Image via Wikipedia
The discussion should not be whether Pandit Radhakantta created Ashoka for John Princep–the real question is whether John Princep created Ashoka for Pandit Radhakantta? John Princep wanted desperately to create schisms in South Asia society. One of the schisms was religious. He wanted to perpetuate British Raj.
There was much Hindu-Muslim Unity in the latter half of the 19th century and a united front would have thrown out the “farangis” foreigners from South Asia. The British– masters at deception began inculcating the Hindu elite by telling them that once the British leave, they would hand over the power to the Hindus. This was magic to the ears of a population that had not been in charge of South Asia ever. John Princep began his so called “research” and came up with a composite figure of “Ashoka” who had not been mentioned in any history book before. Ashoka’s name had not appeared in Greek texts on local South Asian narratives. In coming up with Ashoka, John Princep came up with the notion of the ephemeral “Akhand Bharat” a mythical kingdom that existed from Kabul to Raj Kilhani a mythical land east of Bali.
Romila Thapar speaking at the U.S. Library of Congress (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
This “research” was music to the ears of Pandit Radhakantta–who along with others began crafting this version of history which did not exist before 1837. Unfortunately, this version of British manufactured history is taught in Bharat (aka India) and also in other countries of the world. Despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, Ashoka has become an icon of Bharat. Gandgharan symbols have been adopted by the state organs, and Ashoka the mythical figure is the icon of the state machinery.
According to the Asokan myth, he debunked Hinduism in favor of Buddhism–a subtle message of John Princep to the Hindus, to convert to Christianity.
As investigative historians, many around the world are probing the nooks and crannies of historical archives. South Asian history is still being unraveled. Many knots are being solved. The cloak of Hindu scripture and British colonialist dogma has been lifted and the rays of sunshine are now displaying the true history of the land of the Indus and land of the Ganges.
The so called Asokan pillar at Lumbini, Nepal (Photo credit: Wikipedia). Some pre-date the Ashoka-timeline. Others pre-date Buddhism itself
“Ashoka” is a mythical figure (probably a composite figure) who did not exist before James Princep conjured him up.
Although he is a major historical figure, little definitive information was known as there were no available records of his reign until the 19th century.
They have used various languages in these stone edicts–Maghadi, Sanskrit, Prakrit, Aramaic , Greek–which suggests multiple authors. The edicts contain little personal detail about the life of Ashoka. The book published by the Central Institute of Indian Languages (http://www.ciil-ebooks.net/html/iie/five.htm) clearly specifies that Sanskrit was not one of the languages used by Ashoka. The language the so called Asokan edicts is Prakrit. One edict written entirely in Greek script and language and another edict written in Greek and Aramaic script and languages are found in Skandar in Afghanistan while a record in Aramaic script and language found in Taxila (now in Pakistan). Edicts found at Dhauli, Jaugad?a (both in Bihar) and Er-r-agudi (in Andhra Pradesh) are written in what is called the Magadha.
So called “ashoka pillar” (Photo credit: Wikipedia). None mention the name “Ashoka”
The edicts are found scattered in more than thirty places throughout India, Nepal, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Some edicts in Afghanistan are written in Aramaic and Greek. Only ten with inscriptions still survive. Each pillar was originally capped by a capital, sometimes a roaring lion, a noble bull or a spirited horse, and the few capitals that survive. Scholars are skeptical about attaching any meaning to the pillars because the edicts say nothing about the philosophical aspects of Buddhism and some even pre-date Buddhism.
All these can be dated by several means:
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00routesdata/bce_299_200/ashoka/lioncapital/lioncapital.html
A careful study shows that most of the edicts refer to Devanampiya. Some think he is the same the same as Devadatta. The apologists then claim that Ashoka had to change his name to Devadatta as it was a hated name among the Buddhists. Some think he was known as or Diodotus. Others call him Payadasa. In the Nittur Edict he explicitly calls himself the king of Pathavi. Romila Thapar attempt to explain this away by suggesting that Pathavi corresponds to Prithvi, or the Earth, and that the statement only demonstrates royal vainglory. No original Buddhist texts have been unearthed from modern India. G. Tucci pointed out that even the Stupa is of west Asian origin. Similar views were held by A. Coomaraswamy. Ashoka’s history matches that of Diodotus-I almost line by line–and James Princep’s histriography probably used Diodotus-I as a model. Romila Thapar concludes that he was unknown in the West. Her categorical remark, Greek sources mention Sandrocottus and Amitrochates but do not mention Ashoka. (Asoka and the Decline of the Mauryas, Oxford Univ. Press, p. 20.) The classical writers, Prof. Romila Thapar tells us, did not refer to Ashoka.
The find-spot of a relic is of great importance in the reconstruction of history but one of the many problems in Indian history is that pillars were frequently re-written and re-erected at different locations. Some of the Ashokan pillars are about thirty tons, it is not safe to assume that these were erected in their present locations. H.C. Raychaudhuri concluded that … it is not always safe to ascribe all epigraphs that make mention of Priyadarsana, irrespective of their contents, to Ashoka the Great.
Wheeler was amazed by the double-lion capitals at Persepolis but could not recognise that these could have been erected by Alexander. When the Sarnath pillar was first discovered it created a flutter of sensation on an international scale. Sir John Marshall wrote['Cambridge History of Ancient India', ed. E.J. Rapson, p.562.]. As Cumont noted, the lion was a symbol of ancient Lydia. Four lions also guarded the Meghazil tomb near Amrit. His lions were Greek-inspired.
The Sarnath capital, on the other hand, though by no means a masterpiece, is the product of the most developed art of which the world was cognisant in the third century B.C.
In Coryat’s time the script of the inscriptions in the pillar was undeciphered but today, thanks to Prinsep, we know that it contains an inscription of Ashoka; yet there is more to it than meets the eye. We know that many of Ashoka’s pillars were not erected by him.
After the mutiny at Hyphasis Alexander gave up his plans to march further east and to commemorate his presence in India erected twelve massive altars of dressed stone as a thanksgiving to the deities who had blessed his success. Arrian wrote,
He then divided the army into brigades, which he ordered to prepare twelve altars to equal in height the highest military towers, and to exceed them in point of breadth, to serve as thank offerings to the gods who had led him so far as a conqueror, and also as a memorial of his own labours. When the altars had been constructed, he offered sacrifice upon them with the customary rites, and celebrated a gymnastic and equestrian contest.
Surprisingly, although most of the writers place the altars on the right bank of the river, Pliny placed them on the left or the eastern bank. He wrote (vi, 21),
The Hyphasis was the limit of the marches of Alexander, who, however, crossed it, and dedicated altars on the further bank.
The senseless picture of Ashoka and the description of many anecdotes betray a callous attitude which should be denounced in the strongest terms. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Ashoka.
Ashoka’s edicts stopped appearing after 245 BC. The year of Ashoka’s death given by Thapar and others is 232 BC. Diodotus’ son, who was also a Diodotus, died in 232 BC.. Too much confusion.
The timeline for Ashoka is all wrong. New carbon dating evidence question the timeline of Buddha and Ashoka.
Traditionally, eastern Buddhists give the date of Buddha’s death as 949 B.C. (with variants including 878 B.C. and 686 B.C.), while northern Buddhists gave 881 B.C., and the southern Buddhists provide 543 B.C. as the correct year. More recent scholarship began to settle on the year 486 B.C. or even 368 B.C., so many textbooks usually fudge the issue and say he was born around 500 B.C. All methods rely on lists of kings and councils recorded in the Buddhist tradition itself, tied into known history through the Mauryan Emperors Candragupta and Asoka.
Three Brits arrive in South Asia in the 18th century–get some rudimentary knowledge of Pali and Sanskrit and within a few weeks of their arrival they conjure up “Ashoka” the greatest king that ever was!
For Hundreds of years no Bharati had ever mentioned Ashoka, nor written about him. All of a sudden three White men describe Ashoka and he now is represented on the Bharati flag, currency notes and what not.
A clear case of manufactured history—
In order for Ashoka to exist–there must be historical references to his rule–either by historians of his time or Greek invaders who intermingled with the society, and impacted South Asia dramatically. The Hellenic influences were the genesis of The Gandhara Civilization. Amazingly the Greek, great historians from the Homer days–never mention King Ashoka or any corruption of his name. Neither do any Bharati historians list Ashoka by name.
Historians are curious to find out where the connection between the mythical figure and Sir James Princep’s narrative. There is no record of a Lankan priest describing anything to the British linguist.
First Mr. Princep tried to pin Piyadasi on Buddha–then on other people. They finally settled on a new name which didn’t exist–Ashoka. Here is another excerpt which kind of uses the inscriptions to portray the territory. Of course it is a fact that all the inscriptions do not belong to a single date–they are all over the place–even in China and Korea.
For a while, Princep thought that the Devanampiya Piyadasi of the inscriptions was actually Devanampiya Tissa of Lanka – but he gave soon up the idea because there was no evidence of King Devanampiya Tissa having ruled those areas where the inscriptions were found. Of course soon after that, Prinsep and Turnour hit upon the correct identity of King Devanampiya Piyadasi in the inscriptions – Ashoka
Of course there is a huge anomaly in the inscriptions also. None of the inscriptions mentions Buddha or Buddhism.
However, if you read the actual wording of the pillars of Asoka (I highly encourage it, they are short reads), the Buddha is never mentioned. The only thing mentioned remotely Buddhist is the word dharma.
On pillar #11 “proper behavior towards servants and employees, respect for mother and father, generosity to friends, companions, relations, Brahmans and ascetics…”
Only Minor Edict 3 mentions the Buddha by name, and also the Sangha, and even presumes to advise on the specifics of Buddhist texts to be read! What can we say? It sticks out like a sore thumb from the rest of the edicts, and it is almost certainly a forgery much after the fact, not done by Asoka at all. It doesn’t even begin with the proper salutation “Beloved of the gods speaks thus: ” Am I the only person to look at this with any common sense? The translator even makes this point in the footnotes: “This edict was found inscribed on a small rock near the town of Bairat and is now housed at the Asiatic Society in Calcutta. Its date is not known.” (see http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html for the translation and footnotes I am using.)
The Minor Pillar Edicts 1 and 2 are also so obviously, even in translation, of a different style and subject, it is a wonder how they were ever classified with the others. The translator admits in the footnotes concerning the 2nd minor pillar: “Allahabad version, date of issue not known.”
From the same website we see evidence that the pillar supposedly erected at the Buddha birth place has some problems of provenance: “As the centuries passed, both the language of the inscriptions and the sites themselves were lost. In the 14th-C Sultan Feroz Shah had two of the pillars transported to Delhi. Another was rediscovered and re-erected in 1896 in the Lumbini Garden, where it had first been erected in 254 BC, to mark the site of the birthplace of the Buddha.” Critical thinking indicates that something “rediscovered and re-erected in 1896″ is not the best historical source, and would tell us more about 1896 than what occurred 2000 years before.
Here is an excerpt that describes how Ashoka was transformed from ephemeral myth to some semblance of reality by three Britishers—who based their entire theory on two vague inscriptions–hardly “an overwhelming body of evidence”.
The first breakthrough came in 1834. According to Prinsep, “upon carefully comparing them [the Delhi, Allahabad and Lauriya Nandangarh inscriptions] with a view to finding any other words that might be common to them … I was led to a most important discovery; namely that all three inscriptions were identically the same … except for a few lines at the bottom which appear to bear a local import”. The next clue would come from the great Stupa at Sanchi near Bhopal. Prinsep had received drawings and copies of inscriptions found at Sanchi. These included some short inscriptions found on stone railings around the main shrine – it were these “apparently trivial fragments of rude writing [wrote Prinsep] that have led to even more important results than the other inscriptions.” What followed was described by Prinsep in June 1837.
“While arranging and lithographing the numerous scraps of facsimiles [from the Sanchi stone railings], I was struck by their all ending in the same two letters. Coupling their circumstance with their extreme brevity, which proved that they could not be fragments of a continuous text, it immediately occurred that they must record either obituary notices, or more probably the offerings and presents of votaries, as is known to be the present custom … ‘Of so and so the gift’ must then be the form of each brief sentence; … [this] led to the speedy recognition of the word danam (gift), teaching me the very two letters d and n, most different from known forms. …
My acquaintance with ancient alphabets had become so familiar that most of the remaining letters in the present examples could be named at once on re-inspection. In the course of a few minutes I became possessed of the whole alphabet, which I tested by applying it to the inscription on the Delhi column.” Thus was deciphered the earliest Brahmi script, now known to be the most ancient post-Indus-Valley Indian script and the precursor of all Indian scripts in use today. So what did the inscription on the Delhi Pillar reveal? Prinsep read the first line as:
Devanampiya Piyadasi laja evam aha
Now that these inscriptions could be read, they still had to be understood. Prinsep – a Sanskrit scholar himself – along with a distinguished pundit set about the task. The language turned out to be one of the Prakrit languages, vernacular derivations of classical Sanskrit, which made translation a little difficult. But in a few weeks the translation of the “Delhi no 1” was ready:
Thus spake King Devanampiya Piyadasi. In the twenty-seventh year of my annointment I have caused this religious edict to be published in writing, I acknowledge and confess the faults that have been cherished in my heart … Let stone pillars be prepared and let this edict of religion be engraven thereon, that it may endure into the remotest ages.
The question now was, who was this person Devanampiya Piyadasi? Prinsep initially thought it could be the Buddha himself, for, so far as scholars then knew, no single Indian monarch had ruled over such a vast territory as was covered by the pillars and rock inscriptions. This explanation, however, had soon to be given up because the inscriptions referred to ‘such and such year of my reign’, and the Buddha had never been a monarch. Unfortunately, wrote Prinsep, “in all the Hindu genealogical tables with which I am acquainted, no prince can be discovered possessing this very remarkable name”. The mystery was solved within a few short months, with information gleaned, not from archaeological sites in India, but from distant Sri Lanka. George Turnour, a member of the Ceylon Civil Service, had taken upon himself the task of translating Sri Lankan Buddhist texts in Pali into English – a rather daunting task, since “no dictionaries then existed … and no teacher could be found capable of rendering them into English”. Turnour persisted, however, and his work threw light not only on the history of Sri Lanka but also on the history of Buddhism in India. Around August 1837 while going through a major work of Pali Buddhist literature, the Dipowanso, he came across one passage, which read:
Two hundred and eighteen years after the beatitude of Buddha, was the inauguration of Piyadassi … who, the grandson of Chandragupta, and own son of Bindusara, was at that time viceroy at Ujjayani.
So finally, the mystery was solved. King Devanampiya Piyadasi was none other than Ashoka, already known from the Sanskrit king lists as a descendent of Chandragupta Maurya and, from Himalayan Buddhist sources, as a patron of early Buddhism. Now, his historicity was dramatically established. With the discovery of Ashoka as the righteous ruler of a vast empire, a glorious chapter in the history of India was thrown open. Of course, much work still remained to be done. More and more evidence would be found over the years confirming Ashoka as King Devanampiya Piyadasi – but it would not be until 1915 that the matter was settled beyond all doubt when a rock edict referring to Ashoka explicitly as “Ashoka” was found in Maski in Raichur district in Karnataka.
However much of the “evidence” has now been refuted through carbon dating.
that early date for the reign of the Emperor Kanishka has been overthrown by the carbon dating of ancient Buddhist writing, and is no longer tenable. So the middle 100’s A.D. is a more accurate timetable for those first Buddhist-inspired artifacts [from www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=82&ObjectID=10371631
].The oldest extant Buddhist writings we have are the so-called “Dead Sea Scrolls of Buddhism,” the Kharosti Scrolls. Currently housed at the British Library, these scrolls are 60 fragments of text written in the ancient Kharosti script on birch bark, and are the earliest known Buddhist writings. They were produced by monks in the Greco-Buddhist society around Gandhara (more on that later). They are dated as early as 130-250 A.D.The Pali Canon, the mother of all Buddhist scriptures, is usually asserted be first-century B.C. in origin, reflecting hundreds of years of oral tradition. However, that claim is itself based on legend, and the manuscripts we have available are no older than the 18th or 19th centuries A.D., and “the textual traditions of the different Buddhist countries represented by these manuscripts show much evidence of interweaving” [www.palitext.com/subpages/lan_lite.htm]. The basic fact is, in the Pali Canon, there is a lack of historical dates or descriptions of the Buddha that would provide any historical context or clues. The Pali Canon mostly details teachings and rules for monks, not Buddha as a person.
Serious questions are being raised about the timeline of Buddha.
there was a Greek writer, Megasthenes, who lived for ten years, around 300 B.C., in the very heartland of where the Buddha had taught, and he makes no mention of Buddhism when describing the religious or social practices of India. There were also no sculptures or art that exist from B.C. that talk about Buddha.
New Delhi considers itself the successor state to Ashoka. This is the only figure that the bigots can find to justify the unity of the conglomeration of more than 570 states. The 80 year rule is considered the map of “Greater India.” The figure of Ashoka has a larger than life presence for the Hinduvata and New Delhi. Many extremist Hindus base their ideology on Ashoka and try to build a case that Ashoka’s empire should be resurrected as “Akhand Bharat“. Pakistani history is being hijacked by people outside the borders of Pakistan. Now scholars are questioning the existence of Ahoka and many others.
there is also little evidence for even assuming they were written B.C. It is a huge body of literature, with many obvious layers [“there are texts within the canon either attributed to specific monks or related to an event post-dating the time of the Buddha or that can be shown to have been composed after that time”
[from www.buddhacommunity.org/scriptures.htm]. Which passages are the oldest, when were they written? Very hard to say. [Read some of the mind-numbing discussion of the issues related to dating the Pali Canon here. See a nice basic overview summary of the Canon here and a more in-depth summary, here.]
Another basic problem is that if the lists of kings and masters are not accurate, then the chronology is totally thrown off. The variability of the chronologies accounts for the wide range in dates used traditionally by the various Buddhist schools. In fact, it is not until the time of the commentaries of Buddhaghosa, Dhammapala, and others — that is to say, the fifth to sixth centuries A.D. — that we can know anything definite about the actual contents of this canon, according to the leading expert in Pali Canon studies, Dr. Gregory Schopen. http://religionnewsblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/historicity-of-buddha-lack-of-evidence.html
For centuries historians have been trying to establish the chronology of early “India”. The question of whether Chandragupta can be identified with the figure known in Western texts as Sandrokottas is an important element in fixing the chronology. The philologist William Jones began the systematic study of the chronology in the late 18th century. His work and that of his contemporaries are still highly regarded.[4] However, even William Jones could not believe in the antiquity of the Bharata War since…
Very little is known about the entire Maurya dynasty. For example little is known about Chandragupta’s youth. Much of what is known about his youth is gathered from later classical Sanskrit literature, as well as classical Greek and Latin sources which refer to Chandragupta by the names “Sandracottos” or “Andracottus”. He was paragon for next rulers.
Dr. Naveed Tajammal has written some fascinating articles on Ashoka. He claims that Ashoka never existed and is simply a figment of the imagination of the Hinduvata who needed a figure to justify the myth that India belonged to the Hindus and on one else.
As, per the records submitted to Sir William Jones, acclaimed as father of Indianology by Pandit Radhakantta of Calcutta.in 1770-1780, a period when world chronology was redefined,the term
It is a fact that the name Ashoka did not exist in the chronologies of historians before the British Indianologist started talking to the religious figures of the Hinduvata. Is it possible that Ashoka might have been a composite figure made out of many kings and his stature embellished with the passage of time.
Dr. Naveed Tajammal, an American educated and trained scholar claims that:
- Mother India or Bharat Mata is a figment of the fertile Brahman mind. Historically, such a state never existed in the annals of history. Even the very term,”ASHOKA” is a post -1837, creation. It is a term coined by a James Princep an English man!
- Per the records submitted to Sir William Jones, acclaimed as father of Indianology by Pandit Radhakantta of Calcutta. Before 1770-1780, a period when world chronology was redefined, the term ‘ASHOKA’ does not EXIST.
- (R?dh?k?nta Tarkav?g??a, a pandit of Bengal who toward the end of his career became involved with the British, first with Warren Hastings and then Sir William Jones. Through his career one can see how for many pandits living at the close of the eighteenth century service to British courts had become a way of life. http://www.jstor.org/pss/604088),
- Researching ancient Subcontinental, Greek and Chinese narratives, we find no record of Ashoka or many of the kings attributed to be alive at the time.
- Nehru wanted a creation of a Mahabharata inclusive of Afghanistan, from Oxus to Burma, down to Ceylon (Sri Lanka) inclusive of Tibet.
- (Dubious Foundations of Historical records:Calcutta’s intellectual life received a great boost in 1784 with the foundation of the Asiatic Society of Bengal by Sir William Jones, with the encouragement of Warren Hastings, himself no mean Oriental scholar. Jones worked closely with the pandits of the Kalighat Temple, together with the local ulema, in translating and producing new editions of rare and forgotten texts. His study of Sanskrit with Pandit Ramlochan at Nadiya led him to posit the existence of the Indo-European family of languages. Many distinguished scholars, English and Bengali,such as Henry Thomas Colebrooke, James Prinsep and Pandit Radhakanta Sarman would grace the Society’s meetings and publications over the following century, vastly enriching knowledge of India’s culture and past.)
- In the Greek accounts, we find the statements of the Greek and Roman writers belonging to the period from 4th century BC to 2nd century AD None of them have mentioned the names of Kautilya or Asoka.
- Per the records submitted to Sir william jones, acclaimed as father of Indianology, (he should be declared an indian for how he distorted our past) by pandit Radhakantta (R?dh?k?nta Tarkav?g??a, a pandit of Bengal who toward the end of his career became involved with the British, first with Warren Hastings and then Sir William Jones.
- Through his career one can see how for many pandits living at the close of the eighteenth century provided services to British courts. This had become a way of life. http://www.jstor.org/pss/604088), of callcutta.in 1770-1780–a period when world chornology was redefined,the term ‘ASHOKA’ does NOT exit.
- Dr. Ahmed Hassan Dani has agreed on this point (Journal of Central Asia.vol.20, July 1997. page 193.). Chandragupta Maurya’s rise to power is shrouded in mystery and controversy. On the one hand, a number of ancient Indian accounts, such as the drama Mudrarakshasa (Poem of Rakshasa - Rakshasa was the prime minister of Magadha) by Visakhadatta, describe his royal ancestry and even link him with the Nanda family. A Kshatriya tribe known as the Maurya’s are referred to in the earliest Buddhist texts, Mahaparinibbana Sutta. However, any conclusions are hard to make without further historical evidence. Chandragupta first emerges in Greek accounts as “Sandrokottos“…
The Indologists of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were reluctant to believe in the veracity of Indian history books or to accept the antiquity of Indian history. Arthur A. McDonnell
Early India wrote no history because it never made any. The ancient Indians never went through a struggle for life like the Greeks, the Persians and the Romans. Secondly, the Brahmans early embraced the doctrine that all action and existence are a positive evil and could therefore have felt but little inclination to chronicle historical events.
Later scholars took this identity of Sandrokottas with Chandragupta Maurya as proven and carried on further research. James Princep, an employee of the East India Company, deciphered the Brahmi script and was supposedly able to read the inscriptions of Piyadassana. Turnour, another employee of the Company in Ceylon, found in the Ceylonese chronicles that Piyadassana was used as a surname of Asoka, the grandson of Chandragupta Maurya. The inscription bearing the name of Asoka was not found till the time of Turnour. In 1838, Princep found five names of the Yona kings in Asoka’s inscriptions and identified them as the five Greek kings near Greece of the third century BC who were contemporary with Asoka
Almost all of the Ancient Greek works was lost because of the incidents like fire in the library of Alexandria and just because the mode of storing the knowledge was perishable. This is in stark contrast with much of ancient Indian work, which was in Sanskrit and had to memorized from one generation to the next. There was no contradiction in the works from different parts of the country. The works attributed to Strabo, etc. are translations from the later work in Arabic and hence a lot got mixed into the actual facts. To analyze linguistically based on that is more than a stretch.
Unanswered doubts
According to the Greek accounts, Xandrammes was deposed by Sandrokottas and Sandrocyptus was the son of Sandrokottas. In the case of Chandragupta Maurya, he had opposed Dhanananda of the Nanda dynasty and the name of his son was Bindusara. Both these names, Dhanananda and Bindusara, have no phonetic similarity with the names Xandrammes and Sandrocyptus of the Greek accounts.
In the Greek accounts, we find the statements of the Greek and Roman writers belonging to the period from 4th century BC to 2nd century AD None of them have mentioned the names of Kautilya or Asoka. Kautilya’s work on polity is an important document of India’s mastery on this subject. It was with his assistance that Chandragupta had come to the throne. Asoka’s empire was bigger than that of Chandragupta and he had sent missionaries to the so-called Yavana countries. But both of them are not mentioned. Colebrook has pointed out that the Greek writers did not say anything about the Buddhist Bhikkus though that was the flourishing religion of that time with the royal patronage of Asoka. Roychaudhari also wonders why the Greek accounts are silent on Buddhism
Nanda Dynasty affiliation
Some Indian literary traditions connect him with the Nanda Dynasty of Magadha in eastern India. The Sanskrit drama Mudrarakashasa not only calls him Mauryaputra (Act II) but also a Nandanvaya (Act IV). Dhundiraja, a commentator of 18th century on Mudrarakshas states that Chandragupta was son of Maurya who in turn, was son of the Nanda king Sarvarthasiddhi by a wife named Mura, daughter of a Vrishala (shudra). Mudrarakshas especially uses terms like kula-hina and Vrishala for Chandragupta’s lineage. This reinforces Justin’s contention that Chandragupta had a humble origin.[7][8] On the other hand, the same play describes the Nandas as of Prathita-kula i.e illustrious lineage. The commentator on the Vishnu Purana informs us that Chandragupta was son of a Nanda prince and a dasi (Hindi:maid), Mura. Pandit Kshmendra and Somadeva call him Purvananda-suta, son of genuine Nanda as opposed to Yoga-Nanda i.e pseudo Nanda.
Peacock-tamer theory
Other literary traditions imply that Chandragupta was raised by peacock-tamers (Sanskrit: Mayura-Poshakha), which earned him the Maurya epithet. Both the Buddhist as well as Jaina traditions testify to the supposed connection between the Moriya (Maurya) and Mora or Mayura (Peacock). While the Buddhist tradition describes him as the son of the chief of the Peacock clan (Moriya), the Jaina tradition on the other hand, refers to him as the maternal grandson of the headman of the village of peacock tamers (Moraposaga).[9] This view suggests a degraded background of Chandragupta. (The same Jain tradition also describes Nanda as the son of a barber by a courtesan).
According to some scholars, there are some monumental evidence connecting the Mauryas with peacocks. The pillar of Ashoka in Nandangarh bears on its bottom the figures of a peacock which is repeated in many sculptures of Ashoka at Sanchi.[10] According to Turnour,[11] Buddhist tradition also testifies to the connection between Moriya and Mora or Mayura or peacock. Aelian informs us that tame peacocks were kept in the parks of the Maurya palace at Pataliputra. But scholars like Foucher[12] do not regard these birds as a sort of canting badge for the dynasty of Mauryas. They prefer to imagine in them a possible allusion to the Mora Jataka. Moreover, besides the peacocks, there were also other birds like pheasants, parrots as well as a variety of fishes etc also kept in the parks and water pools of the Mauryas.
Moriya clan view
Silver punch mark coin of the Mauryan empire, with symbols of wheel and elephant. 3rd century BCE.
Yet there are other literary traditions according to which Chandragupta belonged to Moriyas, a Kshatriya (warrior) clan of a little ancient republic of Pippalivana located between Rummindei in the Nepalese Tarai and Kasia in the Gorakhpur district of Uttar Pradesh. Tradition suggests that this clan was reduced to great straights in the 4th century BCE under Magadhan rule, and young Chandragupta grew up among the peacock-tamers, herdsmen and hunters.
The Buddhist text of the Mahavamsa calls Chandragupta a scion of the Khattya (Kshatriya) clan named Moriya (Maurya). Divyavadana[13] calls Bindusara, son of Chandragupta, an anointed Kshatriya, Kshatriya Murdhabhishikata, and in the same work, king Ashoka, son of Bindusara, is also styled a Kshatriya. The Mahaparinnibhana Sutta[14] of the Buddhist canon states that the Moriyas (Mauryas) belonged to the Kshatriya community of Pippalivana. These traditions, at least, indicate that Chandragupta may have come from a Kshatriya lineage.
The Mahavamshatika connects him with the Sakya clan of the Buddha, a clan which also claimed to belong to the race of Aditya i.e solar race.[15]
A medieval age inscription represents the Maurya clan as belonging to the solar race of Kshatriyas.[16] It is stated that the Maurya line sprang from Suryavamsi Mandhatri, son of prince Yuvanashva of the solar race. [17]
Alternate views on Maurya origin
As it can be noticed from above, there is no concrete evidence on Chandragupta’s origin and all the above referred to theories are quite divergent. Therefore, additional views have been proposed by an alternative school of scholars.
North-western origin view
There is school of scholars like B.M. Barua, Dr J.W. McCrindle, Dr D.B. Spooner, Dr H.C. Seth, Dr Hari Ram Gupta, Dr Ranajit Pal and others who connect Chandragupta (Sandrokottos) to the north-western frontiers.
B.M. Barua calls him a man of Uttarapatha or Gandhara if not exactly of Taksashila.[18]
Based on Plutarch’s evidence, Dr J.W. McCrindle and Dr H. R. Gupta write that Chandragupta Maurya was a Punjabi and belonged to the Ashvaka (Assakenoi) territory.[19]
Appian of Alexandria (95CE-165CE), author of a Roman History attests that ‘Antrokottos (Chandragupta), the king of the Indians, dwelt on river Indus’.[20] This reference also seems to indicate that Chandragupta belonged to north-west rather than East India.
These scholars relate Sandrocottos (or Androcottos) with Sisicottos of the Classical writings. Sisicottos was the ruler of Paropamisos (Hindukush) who had helped Bessus of Bactria against Alexander but later co-operated with the latter throughout the Sogdian campaigns.[21] During Alexander’s campaign of Kabol and Swat valleys, prince Sisicottos had rendered great service to Alexander in reducing several principalities of the Ashvakas. During war of rock-fort of Aornos, where Alexander faced stiff resistance from the tribals, Sisicottos was put in command of this fort of great strategical importance. Arrian calls Sisicottos the governor of Assakenois. It is however not quite clear if this Sisicottos was same as Sandrocottos or if they were brothers or else they were related in someway. Dr J. W. McCrindle and Dr H. R. Gupta think that they both possibly belonged two different branches of the Ashvakas.[22] Meri was probably another political centre of the Mor or Meros people. It is asserted by scholars of this school that the name Moriya or Maurya comes from the Mor (Modern name Koh-i-Mor i.e Mor hill—the ancient Meros of the classical writings) located in the Paropamisadae region between river Kunar and Swat in the land of Ashvakas (q.v.). It is pointed out that since Chandragupta Maurya belonged to Mor (Meros of classical writings) hence he was called Moriya or Maurya after his motherland.[23][24]
It is notable that Adiparva of Mahabharata (verses 1/67/13-14) also seem to connect Maurya Ashoka with the Ashvakas.[25]
Dr Spooner observes: “After Alexander’s death, when Chandragupta marched on Magadha, it was with largely the Persian army (Shaka-Yavana-Kamboja-Parasika-Bahlika) that he won the throne of India. The testimony of the Mudrarakshasa is explicit on this point, and we have no reason to doubt its accuracy in matter of this kind“.[26] Thus, Dr Spooner’s comments also point to the north-western origin of the Mauryas.
It is however interesting to see that the scholars also identify the Ashvakas as a branch of the Kambojas. They were so-called since they were specialised in horse-profession and their services as cavalrymen were frequently requisitioned in ancient wars.
Calcutta’s intellectual life received a great boost in 1784 with the foundation of the Asiatic Society of Bengal by Sir William Jones, with the encouragement of Warren Hastings, himself no mean Oriental scholar. Jones worked closely with the pandits of the Kalighat Temple, together with the local ulema, in translating and producing new editions of rare and forgotten texts. His study of Sanskrit with Pandit Ramlochan at Nadiya led him to posit the existence of the Indo-European family of languages. Many distinguished scholars, English and Bengali,such as Henry Thomas Colebrooke, James Prinsep and Pandit Radhakanta Sarman would grace the Society’s meetings and publications over the following century, vastly enriching knowledge of India’s culture and past
Scythian origin view
A Jat writer B.S.Dehiya published a paper titled The Mauryas: Their Identity[27] in 1979 and a book titled Jats the Ancient rulers[28] in 1982, wherein he concludes that the Mauryas were the Muras or rather Mors and were jatt of Scythian or Indo-Scythian origin. It is claimed that the Jatts still have Maur or Maud as one of their clan name.[29]
The Rajputana Gazetteer describes the Moris (Mauryas?) as a Rajput clan.[30]
Fa-Hsien visited South Asia hundreds of years after the so called existence of a conjured up entity called “Ashoka”. The non-entity was supposedly born in 304 BC and supposedly died in 232 BC, about six hundred years before the arrival of Fa-Hsien.
Fa-Hsien of his Travels in India and Ceylon (A.D. 399-414) does not contain the world “Ashoka”. It is pedagogical to note that When —Dr. Eitel’s “Handbook for the Student of Chinese Buddhism” appeared in 1870–
Any research done post Princep begins to count on the disinformation created by James Princep. What is needed is work on “Ashoka” during the 300BC era–and that does not exist. Tons of work on Alexander and all the kinds he interacted with or did not interact with–and no mention of “Ashoka” in any contemporary writing. What gives?
It is true that the Greeks did not mention America–they did not know about it. However Greeks were present in South Asia at the time. In fact there were Greeks present in the areas supposedly ruled by “Ashoka”–even present in the city of his supposed birth—and no one noticed “Ashoka” either as a young man or a King. Why? because he did not exist and was in fact conjured by up Pandit Randhakantta and Sir James Princep. They did it for political reasons.
Another expert in the area is Dr. Naveed Tajammal. He is an encyclopedia on the subject.
This is a colossal ommision. None of the Greek authors mention “Ashoka”:
- Xenophon, Greek general, historian and essayist (c. 430 BC – after 357 BC)
- Plato (originally Aristocles}, Greek philosopher (c. 427 BC – 347 BC)
- Aristippus, Greek philosopher and founder of the Cyrenaic school (425? BC – 366? BC)
- Ezra (Esdras), Hebrew scribe and priest (5th century BC)
- Brennus, Celtic leader of the Senonian Gauls (fl. 390 BC)
- Iphicrates, Athenian general (419 BC – 348 BC)
- Diogenes (“The Cynic”), Greek philosopher (412 BC – 323 BC)
- Phocion, Athenian general and patriot (402? BC – 317 BC)
- Anaxandrides, Greek comic poet (fl. 370 BC)
- Scopas, Greek sculptor and architect (400 BC – 320 BC)
- Antipater, Macedonian general and statesman (398? BC – 319 BC)
- Xenocrates, Greek philosopher (396 BC – 314 BC) -
- Dionysius the Younger, Syracusan tyrant (c. 367 BC – 356 BC)
- Antiphanes of Macedonia, Greek comic poet (fl. 360 BC)
- Aeschines, Greek statesman and orator (389 BC – 314 BC)
- Aristotle, Greek philosopher (384 BC – 322 BC)
- Antigonus I (“The Cyclops”) (Antigonius), Phrygian ruler and one of Alexander’s generals (382? BC – 301 BC)
- Demosthenes, Greek orator and statesman (382 BC – 322 BC)
- Philip of Macedon, Macedonian king, father of Alexander the Great (382 BC – 336 BC)
- Archidamus III, Greek king of Sparta (fl. 350 BC)
- Demades, Greek orator and politician (fl. 350 BC)
- Phryne, Athenian courtesan (fl. 350 BC)
- Tachos, Egyptian king (c. 350 BC)
- Pyrrho, Greek philosopher and skeptic (c. 376 BC – 270 BC)
- Demodocus, Greek epigrammatist (4th century BC)
- Mencius, Chinese philosopher (371 BC – 289 BC)
- Theodorus of Cyrene, Greek philosopher (fl. 340 BC)
- Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi), Chinese philosopher (369 BC – 286 BC)
- Parmenio, Macedonian general under Alexander (fl. 335 BC)
- Archestratus, Greek naturalistic poet (fl. 330 BC)
- Philemon, Greek poet of new comedy (360? BC – 262? BC)
- Pytheas, Greek mariner of Marseilles (c. 330 BC)
- Alexander, the Great, Macedonian general and ruler (356 BC – 323 BC)
- Apelles, Greek painter (fl. 325 BC)
- Cercidas of Crete, Greek epigrammatist (c. 325 BC)
- Menedemus, Greek philosopher (350 BC? – 276 BC?)
- Appius Caecus Claudius (“The Censor”), Roman censor, dictator and poet, started building of Appian Way (fl. 312 BC)
- Epicurus, Greek philosopher (341 BC – 271 BC)
- Menander, Greek dramatic poet (c. 341 BC – c. 293 BC)
- Qu Yuan, Chinese poet and patriot (340 BC – 278 BC)
- Amphis, Greek playwright (4th century BC)
- Bion of Smyrna, Greek popular philosopher and poet (c. 325 BC – c. 255 BC)
- Euclid, Greek geometer (c. 323 BC – 283 BC)
- Pyrrhus, Epirus king (318? BC – 272 BC)
- Arcesilaus, Greek philosopher (c. 316 BC – c. 241 BC)
- Appius Claudius Caecus, Roman orator (c. 312 BC – 278 BC)
- Callimachus, Greek poet and grammarian (310 BC – 240 BC)
Notes
Peter Turchin, Jonathan M. Adams, and Thomas D. Hall. East-West Orientation of Historical Empires. University of Connecticut, November 2004.
Roger Boesche (2003). “Kautilya’s Arthashastra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India”, The Journal of Military History 67 (p. 12).
Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones (1978), “Atlas of World Population History”, Facts on File (p. 342-351). New York.
Hindu Books Universe – Content
Strabo II,I, 9
Plutarch 62-3
“He (Seleucus) next made an expedition into India, which, after the death of Alexander, had shaken, as it were, the yoke of servitude from its neck, and put his governors to death. The author of this liberation was Sandrocottus, who afterwards, however, turned their semblance of liberty into slavery; for, making himself king, he oppressed the people whom he had delivered from a foreign power, with a cruel tyranny. This man was of mean origin, but was stimulated to aspire to regal power by supernatural encouragement; for, having offended Alexander by his boldness of speech, and orders being given to kill him, he saved himself by swiftness of foot; and while he was lying asleep, after his fatigue, a lion of great size having come up to him, licked off with his tongue the sweat that was running from him, and after gently waking him, left him. Being first prompted by this prodigy to conceive hopes of royal dignity, he drew together a band of robbers, and solicited the Indians to support his new sovereignty. Some time after, as he was going to war with the generals of Alexander, a wild elephant of great bulk presented itself before him of its own accord, and, as if tamed down to gentleness, took him on its back, and became his guide in the war, and conspicuous in fields of battle. Sandrocottus, having thus acquired a throne, was in possession of India” (Justin “Epitome of the Philippic History” XV-4)
There is however, a controversy about Justin’s above mentioned account. Justin actually refers to a name Nandrum, which many scholars believe is reference to Nanda (Dhana Nanda of Magadha), while others say that it refers to Alexandrum, i.e. Alexender. It makes some difference which version one believes
- Parisishtaparvan, p 56, VIII239f
- A Guide to Sanchi, pp 44, 62, Sir Johmn Marshal.
- Mahavamsa (Mahawamsa), xxxix f.
- Monuments of Sanchi, 231.
- Edited by Cowel and Neil., p 370
- Mahaparinnibhana Sutta, page 409
- also Avadanakalpalata, No 59.
- Epigraphia Indica, II, 222.
- For prince Mandhatri, son of prince Yuvanashva, please refer to Mahabharata 7/62/1-10
‘To me Candragupta was a man of the Uttarapatha or Gandhara if not exactly of Taksashila’ (Indian Culture, vol. X, p. 34, B. M. Barua).
Invasion of India by Alexander the great, p. 405. Plutarch attests that Androcottos had seen Alexander when he (Androcottos) was a lad and afterwards he used to declare that Alexander might easily have conquered the whole country (India); Was Chandragupta Maurya a Punjabi? Article in Punjab History Conference, Second Session, Oct 28-30, 1966, Punjabi University Patiala, p 32-35
Appian (XI, 55). Some historians state that he belonged to Kunar and Swat valleys. See: The Kambojas Through the Ages, 2005, pp 150-51, Kirpal Singh.
Arrian. iv, 30. 4.
Invasion of Alexander, 2nd Ed, p 112, Dr J. W. McCrindle; Op cit., p 33, Dr H. R. Gupta; Dr McCrindle further writes that modern Afghanistan was the ancient Kamboja and that the name Afghanistan is evidently derived from the Ashvakas or Assakenois of Arrian See: Megasthenes and Arrian, p 180; Alexander’s Invasion of India, p 38; Dr J. C. Vidyalankar identifies Sisicottos as a Kamboja ruler: See Itihaas Parvesh, pp 133-34, Dr J. C. Vidyalankar; Kamboj Itihaas, 1973, p 58-59, H. S. Thind.
Op. cit., pp 32-35, Dr H. C. Gupta; Also: The Kambojas Through the Ages, 2005, pp 149-154.
Tribune writes: “Most historians are of the view that Chandragupta Maurya belonged to Bihar, and that he called himself Maurya because his mother was the keeper of royal peacocks (mor) at Pataliputra. He came to Punjab and conquered it. Afterwards, with the help of the Punjab army he seized the Nanda empire. However, there are reasons to believe that Chandragupta belonged to the Kshatriya caste of the ruling Ashvaka tribe of the Koh-i-Mor territory. He called himself Maurya after his homeland” (Ref: Article in Sunday Tribune, January 10, 1999 They taught lessons to kings, Gur Rattan Pal Singh; Also cf: Was Chandragupta Maurya a Punjabi?, Punjab History Conference, Second Session, Oct 28-30, 1966, Punjabi University Patiala, p 33, Dr H. R. Gupta)
yastvashva iti vikhyAtaH shrImAnAsInmahAsuraH |. Ashoko nAma rAjAsInmahAvIryaparAkramaH. ||14|| tasmAdavarajo yastu rAjannashvapatiH smR^itaH |. daiteyaH so.abhavadrAjA hArdikyo manujarShabhaH ||15.|| ( See English Translation): “That great Asura who was known as Aswa became on earth the monarch Asoka of exceeding energy and invincible in battle.”
op cit., (Part II), p.416-17, Dr D. B. Spooner
Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal, Vol. 17 (1979), p.112-133.
Jats the Ancient rulers, Dahinam Publishers, Sonipat, Haryana, by B. S. Dahiya I.R.S.
This view may become creditable only if it is accepted that the Jatts evolved from the Madras, Kekayas, Yonas, Kambojas and the Gandharas of the north-west borderlands of ancient Indian sub-continent. This is because king Ashoka’s own Inscriptions refer only to the Yonas, Kambojas and the Gandharas as the most important people of his north-west frontiers during third century BCE. They do not make any reference whatsoever, to the Sakas, Shakas or the Scythians. See: Rock Edict No 5 [1] and Rock Edict No 13 [2] ( Shahbazgarhi version).
II A, the Mewar Residency by Major K. D. Erskine, p 14.
Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestry_of_Chandragupta_Maurya”
Dear Ansari ,
Do good to your country , your beleif will not serve any good to your country. We have taken lot of majors address the greivances of Dalits and these demarcations are no where visble in metropoliatan and cities . But to my utter surprise your country too suffering from casteism even being mislim country .plz do something for your country.
Kumar
Caste is a curse of Brahmanic barabarity. Only Hindusism has this nonsense.
All Muslims are equal–there is no difference
@ moin
Bro if all muslims are equal then why do shias and sunnis fight?
Moreover, I am a brahmin by birth but i dont believe in religion or caste. Why dont you just accept that all of us indians-pakistanis, hindus-muslims are the same? This debate is quite unnecessary and would do no good to you or harm to us.
We should accept that they are “same”?
Let me know the next time you invite a Muslim, and a Dalit to your kitchen to cook you and your family a dinner–send us some pics.
Shia and Sunnis share the same food, the same homes, the same barracks, the same dorms—and they fight only when outsiders stir trouble. Quaid e Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Zardari are Shia–who cares!
The hatred for Pakistan is based on draconian Brahmanic arrogance, and the fear that the end of Hinduism in sight (once the 450 million Dalits ad Shudra leave the caste system–read Dr. Koncha’s latest “Post Hindu India”. The coming revolution combined with the Naxal,Kashmir, Assamese independence (well under way) spells the death of the “dictatorship of the Brahman”.
The world looks forward to it
what are you talking about? Not having a meal together is a thing of the past. I agree that my grandparents wouldnt like the idea but today i eat with all my muslim and hindu friends. Honestly i dont even know the caste of my hindu friends. And what are you talking about the “dictatorship of the Brahman”? Brahmans form hardly 2-3% percent of the Indian population. Only the fact that they are well educated puts them in a position of advantage. This is changing as we have more than 50% reservation in educational institutes for backward classes and minorities. Politically Bramhans are the worst represented.
There is no hatred of Pakistan in India as you say. We only hate the terrorists, who sadly originate from Pakistan and attack our land. I am sure that most of the Pakistani brothers hate them too. I am really appaled by the faulty conclusions you draw from partial facts. Remember hate begets hate. So, instead of bashing India(yes it is India as it is Bharat or Hindustan) all the time you should be doing some productive journalism. Please take it as a suggestion and not a critique or advise. I know I am not qualified enough to advise you but I sure do notice that you are just criticizing India and blaming her for the apparent failure of your state.
Akshay:
There you go with your temple indoctrination, Bollywood nonsense. Please take off your rose colored glasses and see the reality of Bharat. Indians in the States mostly do not allow others to eat with them in their homes–Untouchability is a fact of life in most villages (and thats where 70% of Bharat lives)
Your 50% number is pure unadulterated nonsense. If you had read the Ranganath report you would not have shown your ignorance about Bharat. Even 10 percent is an elusive goal which has not gone beyond recommendations. The Sachar report and the Dalit Freedom network and the UNHCR and Amnesty International reports do not support your claim–they are all quoted in the articles on the Dalits. Contact Dr. Koncha for the latest statistics.
Right now, according to the Sachaar Report the participation of Muslims in the government stands at 3% (for 15% of the population), and of Dalits/Scheduled classes/Shudras is also in the single digits (for about 40% of the population).
The 1991 census figures show there were 3.45 percent dalits in the household sector, 7.11 percent in non-household industry (meaning factories), and 3.12 percent in the construction industry. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32667
The reports by Indian Committees are usually do not depict the horrid conditions on the ground. Even the meagre gains are being opposed by the Bigoted racists who want to keep the malichs out of the mainstream
Khandwa, Dec 25 (PTI) Vishwa Hindu Parishad has said they would launch a country-wide agitation if the Centre implements the Ranganath Mishra Commission report, which has recommended reservation for minorities.
VHP will strongly oppose the implementation of Ranganath Mishra Commission, which has recommended 10 per cent reservation for Muslims and five per cent for Christians, International General Secretary of VHP, Pravin Togadia, told reporters here last evening.
“If this was done, an agitation would be launched on the issue throughout the country,” he saidhttp://www.ptinews.com/news/440319_VHP-will-oppose-Ranganath-Commission-report-s-implementation
The 450 million Dalits are not allowed into homes–read the international and Arundhati Roy’s reports on the matter.
Please read the TOI report:
NEW DELHI: THE Ranganath Commission has recommended Scheduled Caste status to Dalit Hindu converts to Christianity and Islam. It has also
suggested a 10% reservation for Muslims and 5% for other minorities in government jobs. But this report that contains politically unpalatable recommendations is certain to put in the deep freezer.
The commission has recommended delinking of Scheduled Caste status from religion and abrogation of the 1950 Scheduled Caste Order which “still excludes Muslims, Christians, Jains and Parsis from the Supreme Court net.” The order originally restricted Scheduled Caste status to Hindus alone, but was later opened to Buddhists and Sikhs. “We recommend that all those social and vocational groups among minorities who but for their religious identity would have been covered by the present net of Scheduled Castes should be unquestionably treated as socially backward, irrespective of whether the religion of those other communities recognise the caste system or not,” the Commission said.
It also said that “those groups among minorities whose counterparts in the majority community are at present covered by the net of Scheduled Tribes should also be included in that net. More specifically, members of the minority communities living in any tribal area from pre-independence days should be so included irrespective of their ethnic characteristics,” the commission recommended.
The commission, which felt that education is a crucial factor for development and enhancement of social and economic status, told the government that “the focus has to be not only for extending the education facilities for all, but also ensuring the quality of education.”
The commission said that 10% seats should be reserved for Muslims and 5% for other minorities in Central and state government jobs in all cadre and grades. It added that in case of non-availability of Muslims to fill the 10% earmarked seats, these may be made available to other minorities, but in “no case” shall any seat within the recommended 15% shall be given to anybody from the majority community.
Member Secretary of the Commission Asha Das has given a note of dissent on the the Commission’s recommendation for conferment of SC status on Dalit converts to Christianity and Islam saying there was “no justification” for it.
Besides, she has said that as Dalit converts to Christianity/Islam do not qualify for inclusion as SCs, they should continue to form part of OBCs and avail facilities and reservations given to the OBCs until a comprehensive list of Socially and Educationally Backward (SEB) is prepared. The Commission, however, rejected the contentions made by Das in the dissent note and said: “We firmly stand by every word of the recommendations, we have made under this term of reference.”
The government has not placed an Action Taken Report on the recommendation in Parliament. In any case, the government is not bound to come out with an ATR as the panel was not set up under the Commissions of Inquiry Act.
The recommendation of ‘religion-based’ quota not just goes against the Constitution, it could also give a handle to the Opposition to beat the government with. There is constitutional restriction on Christian
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/Ranganath-recommends-15-quota-for-Dalit-minorities/articleshow/5354328.cms
To implement ragnath misra commission, Muslims should accept common civil code and voluntarily do birth control.
Infact they got their share in 1947 in the name of Pakistan.
You are right Pakistan 1 was liberated in 1947. By 2050 Bharat will be a Muslim majority area anyway!
What gave you the notion that this was a “big bang” approach–not it is a phased implementation
There is Dalitistan, Nagaland, Mizuram, Assam..and others that come in phases
Raganath Misra reports of for Dalits, not Muslims–Scahaar report is for Muslims
[...]
the new theory is you have been killed in millions in iraq,afganistan,pakistan,palestine,Kashmir and lebenon.
Thats wat we are in afganistan to promote peace in pakistan.
With in few years you will be banned to travel in flights
Bharat and Europe will be Muslim majority countries in the next generation. All problems will be eliminated.
Indians have been walked out of planes in the US too–the only person who was killed after 911 was a Sikh
Indians face massive issues in travel too. When one minority suffers–the others will suffer too. It is your bigoted racist thinking that H1Bs will not be curtailed–there is a backlash against Indians in Australia and England—Dubai is kicking Indians out!
That is your own theory that indians get trouble in airports.
please go thru the link.
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakis
tan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/International/04-Jan-2010/Travellers-from-14-nations-will-face-additional-screening-in-US
US patted down pakistanis in the airport.The are considering you all are terrorist.
Moin ansari saheb,
Let me know the next time you invite a Muslim, and a Dalit to your kitchen to cook you and your family a dinner–send us some pics.
And how will you know that they are Muslims or Dalits? Indian Muslims and Dalits don’t have horns on their heads that you can make out.
Shia and Sunnis share the same food, the same homes, the same barracks, the same dorms
Yeah, but what about Mirzais?
Dev Kant
I just finished reading Dr. Koncah’a “Post Hinu India”–fascinating read. Recently LISA (London Institute of Strategic Alliances) and gave an award to Dr. Koncha–plenty of pics on the LISA site. Its owner is a friend of mine and a Muslims.
We also have invited Dr. Koncha to come and dine and stay with us. Hopefully this year he will find time
It is a matter of “order of magnitude”. 450 million Untouchables and Scheduled classes are just too many. Mirzais have every right to do whatever they want–Muslims eat with Christians, Dalits, why not Ahmedis?
EIther you live in a cave, or don’t read any real newspapers. I had 25 Indians working for me–they came back with horror stories. Recently Shahrukh Khan was detained. George Fernandez the Indian Minister was body cavity searched. Thousands of Indians face massive discrimination–specially the Sikhs. Indians also face a huge backlash in Australia.
You are naive if you think that by supporting bigotry you will remain immune to it.
Once you start discrimination it doesn’t stop at the Muslim door–it continues on all brown people!
Dear Moin,
People like you are more racical than any Indian Bramhin.
Just look at your own words ……… how many times you say against Hindus.
This is not a question of religion but a question of mindset-up of people like you. be it a Hindu or Muslim but surely people like you definitely a problem for any nation who only find the ugly side of the story and simply avoid and ignore the real issue.
And you are saying by 2050 India will be a Muslim majority nation …………….. that may happen …………..but surely before that The word “Pakistan ” will be erased from the world map.
DEAR Moin Saheb,
You have pointed out something which the society is eradicating . This boundary has almost dinished inthe cities ( ALL) Poeple in India trying to declair the schedule caste as they get lot of benefits .
Untouchability is wor of Past –no mere exists in day today life . Some form of discrimination still exists but will diappear with the passage of time.
You will be disappointed to know the progress they have made in 60 yrs bcz you urself cannot see them progressing > Here i congratulate the Govt and public of India acheiving it .
In future now onwords you have to invent another drawback in India. Situation of minority is hopeless beyond doubt . they are second class cityzen. You will suffer miserably as you talk and stand for Muslims . Minority will revolt — stop force conversion . It is not the solution
Kumar
correction
Condition of Minority In Pakistan
The Dailts disagree with you. Please read “Why I am not a Hindu” and “Post-Hindu India” By Dr. Kancha
We reject all racism and do not support it.
Respected Mr. Ansari,
At the outset let me declare that I am from a Brahmin, though communist family,. I have been a regular reader for over two years, and even though you sometimes engage in meaningless India bashing & China praising, I come here to read several important news which will not be published in Indian newspaper.
First of all spell his name properly, its Dr. Kancha Ilaiah, and he is a professor of Osmania University.
I have read all his three books, and have travelled the length and breadth of India. First of all, Mr. Ansari, say something if you have seen or witnessed it yourself. I do not know whether you have come to India, but you are here commenting aggressively, based on his book. When you have not seen the thing, do not stake your reputation on one an’s book.
Does discrimination happen? Yes and no. If you go to the interiors of Bihar, where Ranveer Sena still rules, conditions exist which are worse than that described by Dr. Ilaiah. By the way, look up on Ranveer Sena, I assure you that you will be shocked.
In the cities, however conditions for them are better, in fact even better than Brahmins. For an example, 70% of rickshaw pullers in Chennai, and more than half the toilet cleaners in Delhi are actually Brahmins. So when Dr. Ilaiah says discrimination exists, he is 100% right,but when he thunders thatALL Dalits are slaves, and all 450 million people should take up arms for civil war he is massively wrong.
The problem with countries like India are that they are huge, incredibly diverse, and the concept of a nation as such is actually jut a generation old here. A one-size-fits-all policy is bound to fail. Does the government know where are the centers of this atrocity? Very well. Then why does sit silent and dole out the farcical policy of reservations while doing absolutely nothing for their basic upliftment, like giving them fist a proper school education, proper medical access, and most importantly respect?
Because the hereditary oppressive Thakur’s son is now the new oppressive Thakur. He has just a different name – MP, and an extra wielding stick, he is also a member of thae government. To the poor illiterate hereditary Dalit, what’s the difference? Zilch.
A Sikh was killed because of his turban, not because of his citizenry. At that time Taliban also wore turbans, and the Sikh man was actually mistaken for an Afghanistani Talib.
Come on, Mr. Ansari, this was common news.
And as for reservations the 50% number actually exists. The division is 8% ST, 14% sC, and 27.5% OBC. The fact is that there is Supreme Court cap on the reservation at 50%.
However this is at Central Universities, like IIT, IIM (Go to any of the websites, and the circular is there, in fact if the quota is not fulfilled then the administration will be showcaused. To prevent that, some say standards are being diluted, as the cutoff for general students last year was 184, while it was only 76 for ST.) States like Tamil Nadu in fact have a mandatory 72% reservation.
Mr. Ansari, India at least thinks of reserving seats for Muslims people. It elects Muslim people, and apprehends terrorists, even if they are Hindu.
Can Pakistan claim to be doing that? Please give a honest answer. The number of top Hindus or Ahmaddiyas in Pakistan are almost nil. Infact anti-Ahmadiyya movement broke the mind of your space pioneer, and your only Nobel laureate.
Please don’t practice armchair journalism, and try getting your facts right.
PS: I have been to Pakistan too, in 2003, as part of a peace delegation
We quoted actual numbers from reports–you quoted yourself bravo!
You simply proved our point–when bigotry increase against Muslims/Pakistanis Indians are not spared. So don’t celebrate yet—surely Australia will put a damper on your joy!
There are seats reserved for backward areas and minorities–Hindus are present in a huge numbers in the judiciary-Bhagwan Das etc
Ahmedi problem was resolved 30 years ago. No issue now
Thank you for your feedback. I have witnessed it myself–brutality in Lucknow, Unnao and Garhi (small town in UP)–Dalit was severely beaten because he ran into a Brahmin. I have seen it on the train outside Fatepur Sikri-Agra (Dalit was thrown out of train for trying to sit next to a Brahman –even though he was on the floor).
I know Dr. Kancha–and have tremendous respect for him He is not the only one who describes the racism.
Thank you for your feedback
I think what you witnessed cannot be beleived as you are biased person .
Good steps taken by Govt has decreased inequality in Cities but some mild to moderate form exits in remote villages . If informed strict action is taken by and large they have become very important part in voting which you wil not beleive.
Find out problem with Pakistan and try to solve . Leave India alone .
Kumar
Dear Ansari saab,
If the dalits in india survived REAL oppression in the hand of caste hindus .. and no doubt there was massive oppression on them..and yet did not leave hinduism over the last 1000 years when most of the sovreign power in India lay in the hands of muslim nawabs and a christian government what makes you and Dr illiah think that they will rebel now??? When the country is secular in principle, they have reservations and dalit parties and a social voice unthinkable for a Bahai to have in Pakistan or iran??
Do you think Phulan Devi..a dalit backwards woman, abused and gang-raped, and then turning into a dacoit and avenging her torture and then getting caught and jailed to released to become an MP in india could have happened in Pakistan?? That she was killed by the revenge seeking upper class victims only goes to complete this bloody saga…where the upper class HAD to resort to assasination..not systemic tools..to stop the rise of their erstwhile victim….the same that she did years ago when the doors of administrative justice was denied to her. Can you see how the society came a full circle in this case?? For all her backing..Mukhtar Mai is still to sit in Pakistan assembly.
anyway..lets not take this debate further. We have our problems but India and Hinduism have been inclusive societies..and will continue to be these..Narendra Modi not withstanding.
And..ASHOKA becnme known when his stone curvings were discovered and deciphered. The historians went through the same confusion as you mentioned in the post….why his name was not mentione earlier. Nothing more is known about him but from the inscriptions and the spread of these inscriptions mark out his empire as it is unlikely that any king will let another foreign king put up inscriptions in his land. Strangely this aspect was NOT mentioned in your blog.
The entire Indian narrative thrives on Tokenism, fake non-violence, fake Secularism, and exaggeration. The Kindergarten grade stories though in Bharati schools complimented by the temple indoctrination fails to allow people so see beyong the propoganda thrust upon them by the socialistic icons built by the Indian National Congress that is today mired in corruption and malaise.
Ashoka’s name did not appear even on the inscriptions. Ashoka was a figment of the imagination–possibly a composite figure made up by the Pandits while “teaching” the British “history”. The pillars were about Buddhism not about marking territory. If Ashoka existed he would have written a book “Why I am not a Hindu”.
The Buddhist ashoka legend was NOT created by Hindus and the chronicles are best found in two Srilankan sources Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa.
However, what caught people’s imagination was NOT akand Bharat…but the inspirational edicts of one king PIYADASSI who apparently reigned far and long. From whichever dynansty he came..the words of emperror PIYADASSI were something people had not heard before or after.
It was only when a chronicle referred the Maurian Ashoka as Ashoka Piyadassi that the connection was made and later historical research found this out to be true.
The points being…
1. PIYADASSI..the king of the edicts is the person who has spoken the ideals of India and has given India the sovreign symbols
2. It was NOT hindu casteist and imperial India who has propagated the ashoka myth..but a buddhist srilanka (hmm….rather inconvinient)
3. As it is not doubted that pillars were erected by a single king…it also shows the EXTENT of his kingdom!! Unlikely that he can set these up in others land and call other kings subject his children!!!!
Anyway as you actually KNOW what you are talking about and WHY this debate is rather weird. As usual your rejoinder is very refreshing. Thanks
BTW, I belong to a grouping that is borderline between caste hindu and SC. However as said earlier..I see no reason why if we have survived thousands of years of oppression we will rebel now!!!!! My grandfather was a zaminder in East Bengal..and he rather left everything and came to India than stay and enjoy FREEDOM!!!
Thank you for your deep insight into the subject. We appreciate it. However a few items still confuse us. Your note referes to “A Chronicle”, “A Lankan” and an undefined person who made the link between Piyadasi and Ashoka. Who was that person who made such a grand leap fo faith–and how can history be manufactured on the basis of one person?
Three Brits arrive in South Asia in the 18th centruy–get some rudimentary knowledge of Pali and Sanskrit and within a few weeks of their arrival they conjure up “Ashoka” the greatest king that ever was!!!!
For Hundreds of years no Bharati had ever mentioned Ashoka, nor written about him. What kind of people don’t remeber their greatest king ever? All of a sudden three White men describe Ashoka and he now is represented on the Bharati flag, currency notes and what not.
A clear case of manufactured history—
In order for Ashoka to exsit–there must be historical references to his rule–either by historians of his time or others who came into contact with him. Greek invaders who intermingled with the society, and impacted South Asia dramatically do not mention him at all. The Hellenic influences were the genesis of The Gandhara Civilization. Amazingly the Greek, great historians from the Homer days–never mention King Ashoka or any corruption of his name. Neither do any Bharati historians list Ashoka by name.
Now you say Piyadasi was the same as Ashoka? Hmm! So why call him “Ashoka”?
I will be curious to find out where the connection between the mythical figure and Sir James Princep. There is no record of a Lankan priest describing anything to the British linguist. Please clarify with documentary proof.
Here is an exceprt that describes how Ashoka was transformed from ephemeral myth to some semblance of relaity by three Britishers—who based their entire theory on two vague inscriptions–hardly “an overwheleming body of evidence”.
The first breakthrough came in 1834. According to Prinsep, “upon carefully comparing them [the Delhi, Allahabad and Lauriya Nandangarh inscriptions] with a view to finding any other words that might be common to them … I was led to a most important discovery; namely that all three inscriptions were identically the same … except for a few lines at the bottom which appear to bear a local import”. The next clue would come from the great Stupa at Sanchi near Bhopal. Prinsep had received drawings and copies of inscriptions found at Sanchi. These included some short inscriptions found on stone railings around the main shrine – it were these “apparently trivial fragments of rude writing [wrote Prinsep] that have led to even more important results than the other inscriptions.” What followed was described by Prinsep in June 1837. “While arranging and lithographing the numerous scraps of facsimiles [from the Sanchi stone railings], I was struck by their all ending in the same two letters. Coupling their circumstance with their extreme brevity, which proved that they could not be fragments of a continuous text, it immediately occurred that they must record either obituary notices, or more probably the offerings and presents of votaries, as is known to be the present custom … ‘Of so and so the gift’ must then be the form of each brief sentence; … [this] led to the speedy recognition of the word danam (gift), teaching me the very two letters d and n, most different from known forms. … My acquaintance with ancient alphabets had become so familiar that most of the remaining letters in the present examples could be named at once on re-inspection. In the course of a few minutes I became possessed of the whole alphabet, which I tested by applying it to the inscription on the Delhi column.” Thus was deciphered the earliest Brahmi script, now known to be the most ancient post-Indus-Valley Indian script and the precursor of all Indian scripts in use today. So what did the inscription on the Delhi Pillar reveal? Prinsep read the first line as:
Devanampiya Piyadasi laja evam aha
Now that these inscriptions could be read, they still had to be understood. Prinsep – a Sanskrit scholar himself – along with a distinguished pundit set about the task. The language turned out to be one of the Prakrit languages, vernacular derivations of classical Sanskrit, which made translation a little difficult. But in a few weeks the translation of the “Delhi no 1” was ready:
Thus spake King Devanampiya Piyadasi. In the twenty-seventh year of my annointment I have caused this religious edict to be published in writing, I
acknowledge and confess the faults that have been cherished in my heart … Let stone pillars be prepared and let this edict of religion be engraven thereon, that it may endure into the remotest ages.
The question now was, who was this person Devanampiya Piyadasi? Prinsep initially thought it could be the Buddha himself, for, so far as scholars then knew, no single Indian monarch had ruled over such a vast territory as was covered by the pillars and rock inscriptions. This explanation, however, had soon to be given up because the inscriptions referred to ‘such and such year of my reign’, and the Buddha had never been a monarch. Unfortunately, wrote Prinsep, “in all the Hindu genealogical tables with which I am acquainted, no prince can be discovered possessing this very remarkable name”.
The mystery was solved within a few short months, with information gleaned, not from archeological sites in India, but from distant Sri Lanka. George Turnour, a member of the Ceylon Civil Service, had taken upon himself the task of translating Sri Lankan Buddhist texts in Pali into English – a rather daunting task, since “no dictionaries then existed … and no teacher could be found capable of rendering them into English”. Turnour persisted, however, and his work threw light not only on the history of Sri Lanka but also on the history of Buddhism in India. Around August 1837 while going through a major work of Pali Buddhist literature, the Dipowanso, he came across one passage, which read:
Two hundred and eighteen years after the beatitude of Buddha, was the inauguration of Piyadassi … who, the grandson of Chandragupta, and own son of Bindusara, was at that time viceroy at Ujjayani.
So finally, the mystery was solved. King Devanampiya Piyadasi was none other than Ashoka, already known from the Sanskrit king lists as a descendent of Chandragupta Maurya and, from Himalayan Buddhist sources, as a patron of early Buddhism. Now, his historicity was dramatically established. With the discovery of Ashoka as the righteous ruler of a vast empire, a glorious chapter in the history of India was thrown open. Of course, much work still remained to be done. More and more evidence would be found over the years confirming Ashoka as King Devanampiya Piyadasi – but it would not be until 1915 that the matter was settled beyond all doubt when a rock edict referring to Ashoka explicitly as “Ashoka” was found in Maski in Raichur district in Karnataka.
A Lankan Buddhis propogating Ashoka as a Buddhist–hmm! Rather convenient I would think!
There could be many reasons for leaving freedom. At the height of Nazi atrocities in Germany, some people actually went there. Anomolies happen. Personal choices are made on personal agendas.
April 15, 2010
Respected Sir,
The UPA Govt. appointed the Ranganath Misra Commission which made several recommendations including caste based reservation for Christian minority. Several Christian leaders and Bishops have expressed great joy on this report. But will it real help Christians in India or it will provide ground for religious conversion.
Two grassroots Christian organizations Poor Christian Liberation Movement (PCLM) and Forum-ICRA did some research and have produced a critique of the Ranganath Commission Report which suggests that the implementation of this report would not remove the discrimination with the Dalit Christians within the Church structure.
Besides this the report has intruded the area which is out of its jurisdiction deciding about caste in Christianity. In Christianity there is no distinction on the basis of caste as per the documents and teachings of Catholic Church and the Vatican. But the Ranganath Report brings caste into our religion which is no acceptable.
The Ranganath Report says that large number of Christians particularly from Dalit background are lagging behind in education and poor Christian children suffer form malnutrition. Now the Church in India run nearly 40,000 schools and colleges and nearly 7,000 medical centers. Why then they are not giving education to their own community. Who has prevented them from doing so?
Ranganath report is a “satanic verses” for any sensible Christian as it is against the teachings of Jesus Christ. The problem of discrimination within the Church cannot be removed by giving jobs in government departments. This is an internal problem of the Church and its institutions and is linked with the ‘mentality” within the Catholic Church.
Neither judiciary nor any legislative action can remove this but only Vatican and the World Council of Churches can take decision action.
For last one decade conversion have practically stopped. The Raganath Misra Report would help in conversion because till now converted dalit are not given reservations. What is needed is internal reform in the Church governance and not caste based reservation for Christians.
We are forwarding the report to your good self with a request to give space to in your esteemed newspaper so that the people of India would know the real purpose of this report.
Yours Sincerely in Christ,
R L Francis
President, PCLM
PRESS RELEASE
Christian org bats for poverty based reservations for the community
Ranganath Misra Report: A Boon or Bane for Christians in India
New Delhi: 12 April, 2010: Much acclaimed Ranganath Misra Commission Report on minorities may pove to be double edged sword according to a critique prepared by two Christian organizations: Poor Christian Liberation Movement (PCLM) and Indian Christian Righteous Action Forum (ICRA) released in the capital today.
One of the main recommendations of the Ranganath Misra Commission is to give reservation to Christians on the basis of caste. The PCLM and Forum ICRA after survey in many parts of country among poor Christians found out that such provisions are volatile of the teachings of Jesus Christ and Christian belief. ”It seems that Ranganath Misra Commission has not consultated Vatican before making caste base reservation for Christians “, the critique stated. The Two organizations have urged the Vatican and World Council of Churches to appoint a world wide religious committee to determine the “caste question for Christians “till then the Govt. of India may hold on the recommendations of the Ranganath Commission on hold ate last for the Christians, the press release mentioned.
The president of PCLM, RL Francis stated that” the church in India is run according to the Cannon laws and without bringing change into that such recommendations are “satanic verses ” for any sensible Christians.
“The discrimination within the Church is internal matter and no amount of legislations and reservations would remove it” JG Anthony of Forum ICRA stated clarifying that the Church runs 40,000 educational and 6,000 medical centers in India then how come Christians of Dalit background have not received education and health care.” The discrimination problem is related to the “mentality” within the Church”Antony said.
The Church in India needs internal reforms and to reservations the critique report released b y the two Christians organizations stated.” The government could help the poor Christians on the basis of Below Poverty Line family formula and we are not opposed to such reservations ” the two organizations suggested.
In the current forms any implementation of the Ranganath Misra report would be considered an indirect ‘inducement” for religious conversion to Dalit Hindus which eventually would bring down their percentage in India population, the critique hinted.
For last one decade conversion from Dalit Hindus to Christians has practically come to stand still and moreover, in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Punjab the “third generation converted are quietly deserting the Church in the absence of any tangible benefit. ” We wish real change of heart of any body who wishes to adopt Christianity and not on the basis of any allurement in the form of reservations” the press release stated.
The critique cautioned that Ranganath Misra report recommendation in the long run would prove to be bane rather than a boon for the Christians in India.
R L Francis
President- PCLM
Note: – Full repot may please see on our website: http://www.Dalitchristian.com
Ranganath Misra Commission Report
A Brief Description and A Critique
From Christian Perspective
English & Hindi
R L Francis
Joseph G Anthony
RANGANATH MISRA COMMISSION REPORT
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION
AND
A CRITIQUE
From Christian Perspective
March 18, 2010
Published by: Poor Christians Liberation Movement (PCLM)
A 262, D D A Flats, Gazipur, Delhi – 110 096
Email: pclmfrancis@gmail.com
http://www.dalitchristian.com
Contribution: Rs. 30. 00
PREFACE
Dear Friends,
In the light of controversies surrounding the Ranganath Misra Commission Report the Poor Christian Liberation Movement (PCLM) and Indian Christian Righteous Action Forum (Forum – ICRA) have brought out a joint report for public awareness. This report contains main recommendations and critique of National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities (NCRLM). Will the recommendations of the Commission bring liberation and equality among the downtrodden section of the Indian Christian Community or will it compartmentalize them as lower category for ever? This is a moot question.
Both the PCLM and the Forum-ICRA started consulting the people at the ground level in December 2007 when portion of the Ranganath Misra Commission were leaked in the section of the media. In December 2009 when more details came forth we decided that the time has come to make the citizens of India in general and the Christians community in particular aware about the long term implications of this report.
Our concern is based on our Christian faith and what our Mother Church has been teaching for the centuries. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself told us to be aware of the designs that would be harmful for us.
We do believe that this report would generate ground level debate among the Christians and the theologians across the globe.
We thank Shri P.B. Lomeo (Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh), P Naresh Ambedkar,( Tamil Nadu) Mrs. B. Garvin ( Nagpur, Maharashtra) Arvind Kumar (Bihar), C. Kujiur ( Jharkhand), T. Yacob Advocate ( Andhra Pradesh), Rev. M.M Luther ( Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh) Noel David (Gujarat) Rev. Fr. Anthony Fernandes sj (Goa), PN Benjamin ( Karnataka), Meharban James (Uttar Pradesh) Ram Bharti Massey (Delhi) Iqbual Masih (Punjab), Rev. Fr. William Premdass Chaudhary ( Delhi) and others.
New Delhi, March 2010 R L Francis
President
Poor Christian Liberation Movement
MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD
I prayed to the Holy Spirit several times before venturing in writing this report. The purpose of this report is neither to belittles Church leadership nor to insult clergies and hierarchy but to raise some basic questions which are bothering the faithful in India. The Ranganath Misra Commission Report has recommended reservations for minorities – Christians and Muslim – on the basis on their caste background. On the face of it seems an “affirmative action”. But is it so?
The special appeal of Christianity come from the fact that it is a voluntary religion of those who adored its founder – Jesus Christi. It is a religion whose members have chosen to put their faith in a new savior. Christianity believes all men are equal and made in the image of God.
Contrary to this the Hinduism is an ethnic religion among people not free to reject its claims, and the priesthood is inherited. The Hinduism believes that all men are not created equal therefore can never claim dignity and equality.
In Christianity there is no bar of birth, caste, or blood to joining faith. It is universal. Any body can become a priest .The priestly order is not hereditary. All these features made Christianity pre-eminently a religion to chose.
I am a Christian dedicated to the teachings rooted in the Good News of Jesus Christ. Guided by the Holy Spirit, our effort is to create awareness among Christian community about the disadvantages of NCRLM in the long run.
I am not against reservations for Christians in India. The Govt can make such provisions for the poor Christian families living Below Poverty Line and the church structure in India can identify these families easily. The “discrimination” within the Church in India with a section of Christians because of their caste background is an internal matter of the faithful and no amount of legal reservations can remove it. Only the initiative from the Vatican and the World Council of Churches can change the situation.
Has reservations for Hindu Untouchables been able to remove discriminations with them? Again, any aid you can offer in my search for understanding on this matter I would consider invaluable. If the enclosed material could be reviewed and a response to the contained questions offered, it would be greatly appreciated.
Our Christian Faith is the foundation of all that we do. Blessed are we, O Lord, because we have known you! Blessed are we, because we have believed in you! Blessed are we, because you are our great hope! Blessed are we, because you are our God forever!
Amen.
New Delhi, March 2010
JG Anthony
President
INDIAN CHRISTIANS RIGHTEOUS ACTION FORUM
RANGANATH MISHRA COMMISSION REPORT
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION AND A CRITIQUE
INRODUCTION
The Report of the National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities (NCRLM) also known as Ranganath Misra Commission after its chairman Justice Ranganath Misra has triggered of biter controversy in general and fear among the Hindu Scheduled Castes. The Ranganath Misra Commission has recommended reservation for Muslims and Christians on the basis of religion and deletion of Para 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 which restricted the reservation to the Hindus and later opened it to Sikhs and Buddhists. As these steps are likely to have far reaching consequences for India’s emerging egalitarian ethos, fragile social fabric and façade of caste and communal harmony, particularly on the egalitarian faiths like Christianity and Islam. A critique of the Report in the context of the Constitutional provisions for reservation, and the related reservation politics will be in order. In our opinion implementation of the Ranganath Misra Report would have serious repercussion for the egalitarian faith like Christianity and Islam. Also the implementation of the Report would serious impact the growth and survival of Christianity in India.
The Constitutional Provisions for reservation, understood as a package of protective, preferential and developmental practices, are intended to create conditions for the social advancement of the historically disadvantaged groups, their integration into mainstream society, and participation in its opportunity structure on equal terms with the advanced groups.
In the report of the Karnataka Third Backward Classes Commission, Justice Chinnappa Reddy has rightly emphasized the need for the continuation of these provisions for calling attention to India’s despairingly vast socio economic inequalities.
While the justification for reservation is thus self evident, it is mainly in Article 15 (4), on special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward class of citizens’, and Article 16(4), on reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any ’backward class of citizen’ which, in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in its services, that the other Backward Classes (OBCs) figure as a category apart from the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes.
The provision in Article 340 for the appointment of a Commission to investigate the conditions of the ‘socially and educationally backward classes’ should mean that it is the task of this commission to identify the OBCs and recommend measures for their social and educational advancement. It is in pursuance of this provision that the Government of India had set up several commissions so far.
The first, appointed in January 1953 with kaka Kalelkar as Chairman and ten members, used four criteria for identifying OBCs (a low social position in the traditional caste hierarchy (b) lack of general educational advancement among the majority of a caste /community (c) inadequate or lack of representation in government service and (d) inadequate representation in trade, commerce and industry. However, the Commission ran into trouble. The government in May 1961 decided not to draw up all India list of OBCs and extend reservation in its services to any group other than SCs and STs. Consequently, in August 1961 it informed the state governments that while they had the discretion to apply heir own criteria for defining backwardness, it would be better to apply economic tests rather than go by caste.
The second Commission was appointed by the Janata Party. Set up in January 1979 with B.P. Mandal as chairman. The Commission’s general recommendations for the advancement of OBCs are two fold: First, reservation of 27 per cent job in Central services, public sector undertakings under the Central and State governments, nationalized banks, universities and affiliated colleges, government aided firms in the private sector and state governments and in promotions at all levels. For the general economic and occupational development of the OBCs, the Commission has made a number of recommendations.
When the Mandal Commission submitted its Report in December 1990, the Janata Party was out of power, and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was unwilling to act on is lest she should incur the displeasure of lested interest within her party. When Rajiv Gandhi became the Prime Minster, as he admitted in an interview, he too avoided ‘having a ball with Mandal’, apparently as a stand against castes, a stand for the far fetched Constructional perception of ‘a classless and casteless society (See the Times of India, Bombay, and 2 September 1990) Prime Minister V.P. Singh’s announcement in Parliament on 7 August 1990 of his government’s resolve to implement the Mandal Report, beginning with a reservation of 27 per cent jobs in the Central services and public sector undertakings came soon after the first assault on his ministry by its irrepressible and unpredictable Deputy Prime Minster Devi Lal, and just on the eve of Devi Lal’s much publicised ‘farmers’ rally to be held in Delhi.
THEORIZING OF RESERVATIONS
The Constitution of India guarantees equality of opportunity as a fundamental right in matters of employment under the state. It was, however, perceived that the enforcement of the right of equality based on merit would perpetuate existing inequalities in society instead of eradicating them. Therefore the founding-fathers envisaged special provisions for the reservation of appointments in favour of the backward classes. These were extended to seats in professional courses like medicine, engineering in favour of the socially and Educational Backward classes, and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
J.W. Nickel, in the context of affirmative action programmers in the US, referred to three principles, namely, the compensatory principle, the distributive justice principle and the utility or welfare or principles.
Today empowerment is considered to be the basis of any reservation. However, the theory of empowerment gives rise to some basic questions. First , given the diversity of the country and the vastness of its population , and the large number of caste groups identified as backward , whether the small number of positions in the Central services will empower the deprived sections. Second, as pointed our by Andre Beteille, the judicial process is concerned with authority, that is to say, the legitimate exercise of poor, while the empowerment of groups is within the people who, in terms of social, economic and political power, constitute a most deprived section of the population, namely women.
Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India provides for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which in the opinion of state is not adequately represented in the services under the State.
Ranganath Misra Report: A Brief Description
The National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities (NCRLM) also known as Ranganath Misra Commission after its chairman Justice Ranganath Misra was constituted in October 2004 by the Government of India to recommend practical measures for the welfare of socially and economically backward sections among religious and linguistic minorities and to include the modalities of implementations for the same.
The final report of the Ranganath Misra Commission (NCRLM) was submitted to the government in May 2007 but it was not tabled in the Parliament until it got leaked to the media. Amidst sustained pressure from Members of Parliament the NCRLM Report was finally tabled in the Lok Sabha on Friday, Dec 18, 2009 by Minority Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid.
The Ranganath Report recommendations and contentions are given below in brief:
Contending that caste is a totally social concept in India and does not have any religious basis, it is understood to have said that appropriate action should be taken so as to completely delink the scheduled caste status from religion and make the scheduled castes net fully religion-neutral like that of the scheduled tribes.
The Commission has recommended that Muslims and Christians of whose counterparts among the Hindus, Sikhs or Buddhists are included in the Central or state scheduled castes list should also be covered by the scheduled castes net.
If any such group or class among the Muslims and Christians etc. is now included in an OBC list, it should also be deleted from there while transferring it to the Scheduled Castes. Placing the same persons in the scheduled caste list if they are Hindus, Sikhs or Buddhist but in the OBC list if they follow any other religion–which is the case in many states- -clearly amounts to religion-based discrimination, the report said.
The commission has further recommended that as the constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and religious freedom as a fundamental right, once a person has been included in a Scheduled Caste list a willful change of religion on his part should not affect adversely his or her scheduled caste status.
These recommendations have come as part of the additional terms of reference put forward by the commission.
Indian social setup is based upon caste system from cradle to grave irrespective of the religious faith, caste considerations rule the roost. Dalits of all religions live in the same society ruled by caste values. A change of religion does not alter the socio-economic status of Dalits [Gandhi ji says so in ‘Harijan’ December 26th, 1936]. The social stigma and stracism in society continue to haunt them wherever they go. A Dalit is considered untouchable, irrespective of the religious faith he or she may profess. As for atrocities, there is no discrimination between a Hindu Dalit and a Muslim / Christian Dalit.
The commission has recommended certain measures for the educational backwardness for the religious minorities, including earmarking 15 per cent seats in the non-minority educational institutions for the minorities. The commission, in its report submitted to Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, recommended that the break up within the 15 per cent should be 10 per cent for the Muslims and the rest five per cent for the remaining minority communities.
”We have said that 10 per cent of jobs should be earmarked for Muslim minorities and another 5 per cent for Christians in non minority institutions,” said Tahir Mehmood, Member NCRLM.
As in the case with the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes at present those minority communities’ candidates who can compete with others and secure admissions on their own merit shall not be included in these 15 per cent seats.
With regard to linguistic minorities, the report is understood to have recommended that the law relating to the Linguistic Minorities Commissioner should be amended so as to make his office responsible for ensuring full implementation of the Constitutional provisions.
The report has also suggested that the three language formula be implemented everywhere in the country making it compulsory for authorities to include in it the mother tongue of every child.
Among the economic measures recommended, are 15 per cent share be earmarked for the minorities in all government schemes like the rural employment generation programme, Prime Minister’s Rozgar Yojna and Gramin Rozgar Yojna.
The commission has suggested that Para 3 of the Constitution (scheduled castes) Order 1950 should be wholly deleted. This provision gives reservation to scheduled caste Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhist.
The report titled “Dalits in the Muslim and Christian Communities: A Status Report on Current Social Scientific Knowledge” reveals that economically and educationally, the condition of Dalit Muslims is generally poorer than other Dalits, and Dalit Christians too lag behind upper caste Christians on that front. The NCM thinks that the report is an important development, especially when the courts have been repeatedly asking for objective data for providing constitutional facilities to Dalit Muslims and Dalit Christians. And it rightly thinks so.
BACKGROUND OF RELIGIOUS CONVERSION
A dictionary gives the meaning of the word `religion’ as “monastic condition, monastic order, practice of sacred rites, one of the prevalent systems of faith and worship” etc. All these definitions would fit well to describe Hinduism as a religion. The concept of an organized religion arose, as far as India is concerned, from the time Buddhism and Jainism came into existence with religious philosophies distinct from those of Hinduism – or that which existed at the time of their birth. Basically the philosophy of pre- Buddhist and Jainism times was based on the Vedas and the Upanishads and the concepts and teachings conveyed by the great seers and saints.
It would be inadequate to say that Hindu society is nothing more than the caste system, whose foundations rest on the earliest Vedic sources. Nevertheless, the social ethics of the Hindu religion is certainly governed by Jati or caste.
The caste system is fundamental to Hinduism. According to Hinduism the Brahman was born of creator’s mouth, the Rajput from arms, the Vaisya from thighs and the Sudra sprang from his feet.
Apart from its religious justification, the caste system is a complex phenomenon which it is hard to define. However, there are certain characteristics that stand out to distinguish it from any comparable structure in other religions. Each caste may be considered a closed social group, theoretically based on heredity, so that a person belongs to the caste in which he is born.
The evolution of caste system postulating hereditary orders functioning within rigid system spheres of social intercourse is a phenomenon peculiar to the organization of Hindu society. In other communities the principal factor determining class and status are wealth, pedigree, or profession. In case of Hindus, however, membership of a caste is determined by birth. The hereditary classes into which the Hindu community is divided still refrain from eating and intermarrying with those not of their caste. Their differences are taken to be innate, such as cannot be annulled. A Shurdra can never become a priest.
Contrary to this Christianity propagates that all men are equal and made in the image of God. A Christian from any background can choose to become a priest or a nun. This distinction must be remembered while suggesting the caste based reserved for Christians.
What is so great about Christianity?
The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church published recently explains that
The name of Christ is the way of salvation. The Book of Genesis says that ‘man’ was created in the image of God. Christianity also propagates equality and human dignity. created in such salvation is not only achieved in the new life after death, “but it also permeates this world in the realities of the economy and labour, of technology and communications, of society and politics, of the international community and the relations among cultures and peoples,” the Compendium says in part No. 1.
The salvation offered by Christ is of the whole person in all dimensions, personal, social, spiritual and corporeal. This salvation is also universal. Thus, there is a link “between the relationship that the person is called to have with God and the responsibility he has towards his neighbour in the concrete circumstances of history” (No. 40).
The Compendium also defends the Church’s right to proclaim its teaching on social matters. This proclamation is part of the role of the Church as a teacher and the truths in its content stem from human nature itself and from the Gospel. The Church has a right, and a duty, to proclaim “the liberating word of the Gospel” (No. 70), to the world.
The Compendium observes that the Church’s social doctrine has gradually been formed over time, through a series of statements on diverse issues. This helps to understand that over time some changes have taken place regarding its nature and structure.
This process is still under way. In No. 86 the Compendium refers to social doctrine as a “work site,” in which “perennial truth penetrates and permeates new circumstances, indicating paths of justice and peace.”
But this teaching cannot be reduced to a socioeconomic level. Social doctrine is theological in nature and has its foundation in biblical Revelation and in the Tradition of the Church (Nos. 72-4). In this sense faith interacts with reason in a process whereby “the mystery of Christ illuminates the mystery of man” (No. 75). Along with Revelation and Tradition, social doctrine is also enriched by philosophy and the social sciences.
“In all its activities the Church seeks to preach and act in ways that lead to greater justice for all people. Its ministry cannot neglect the violations of human rights resulting from racism, poverty, poor housing, inadequate education and health care, widespread apathy and indifference, and a lack of freedom. These realities are fundamentally incompatible with our faith, and the Church is required to oppose them.”
Many Dalit Catholics have spoken out against discrimination against them by the Church. A famous Dalit activist Bama has written books that are critical of the discrimination by the nuns and priests in Churches in South India. Pope John Paul II also criticized the caste discrimination in the Roman Catholic Church of India when addressing the bishops of: Madras, Mylapore, Madurai, Cuddalore, and Puducherry in late 2003. He went on to say “It is the Church’s obligation to work unceasingly to change hearts, helping all people to see every human being as a child of God, a brother or sister of Christ, and therefore a member of our own family”
It is in the light of these facts that the Ranganath Commission Report needs to be understood. What is the nature or problem and where is the problem. The Times of India reported (20 July 2007 ) that the campaign of Dalit Christians for Scheduled Caste status took an interesting turn when the Supreme Court asked the petitioners whether Christians also practiced caste system.
“Would the Christians admit that they practice caste system and that Dalits (among them) face social discrimination requiring reservation to uplift their cause? This is not all that easy,” a Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan said.
Resisting demand for instant recognition, SC’s poser can put the Christian leaders in a quandary. They have been demanding SC status for Dalit Christians saying that the change of faith does not improve social status, but may find it difficult to admit that Dalits in the fold faced the same sort of discrimination as their counterparts in the Hindu community.
Christians claim to be a casteless society. Dalit Christian activists, who have agitated for Dalit status for long, recently got a shot in arm when the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission endorsed their case.
The petitioner’s lawyer stated that previously the Congress government had brought in a Bill in 1996 with the objective of giving Dalits equal rights irrespective of the religion they profess.
Additional solicitor said the government is seeking the opinion of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes on the report of the Misra Commission and sought time for this purpose.
The bill presented by the congress party in 1996 was nothing but “VOTE POLITICS”. When the Bhartiya Janta Party came to power at the centre the minority communities receiving overseas support and funding got worried. On 25th Nov, 1995 the Christian leaders organized a huge rally demanding reservation to Christians of Dalit background. Even Mother Teresa participated in the dharma at New Delhi.
In their long struggle for equality, India’s Dalits, or “untouchables,” have often exchanged their Hinduism for Islam, Christianity, Sikhism or Buddhism, believing that they will better their lives by doing so. They have been persuaded that Hinduism, with its varna ashramas (caste distinctions), has been solely responsible for all their ills. But when they switch to other religious faiths and experience the same distinctions–albeit in different forms–they realize that such a change neither improves their social status nor remedies their economic problems of unemployment and poverty–the real source of their social discrimination.
A letter written by M. Mary John, president of the Dalit Christian Liberation Movement, to Pope John Paul II during his 1999 visit to India speaks volumes about the treatment meted out to dalit Christians within the churches of India. The dalits are oppressed and persecuted by “the hierarchy, the congregation, the authorities and the institutions of the Catholic Church.” Despite the condemnation of such practices by the Catholic Bishops Conference of India (CBCI), casteism still persists among Christian communities. A state commission on Dalits has pointed out that they are “twice discriminated against”–in society and within the church. At the time of conversion, they are assured that they are being inducted into a religious fold that is egalitarian and free from the twin curses of caste and untouchability. But the reality is altogether different.
Sikh places of worship have separate quarters for Dalit Sikhs. High-caste Muslims do not marry Dalit Muslims. Dalit Christians can hardly hope to reach any high position within the church. (They are not even allowed to occupy the pews meant for higher-caste Christians.) And Buddhist monasteries have not been able to prevent their converts from continuing their earlier caste practices.
At the same time, in breaking away from Hinduism, dalits lose out on the basic safeguards provided to them in the Indian Constitution. In 1981, thousands of Dalits in southern India converted to Islam to escape social victimization–only to find that they had forfeited whatever state privileges they enjoyed earlier as Scheduled Caste Hindus. Converted Dalits are now fighting for these privileges, having perceived the age-old caste system still dogging their footsteps. The very fact that they still have to label themselves as “Dalits” even after conversion in order to seek special privileges exposes the futility of that exercise.
A mass conversion of Dalits to Buddhism in recent months in India poses the question once again whether religious conversion alone can improve the social and economic status of people who have been marginalized for centuries. Some 50,000 Dalits assembled in New Delhi in November 2000 to embrace Buddhism. In January another 25,000 followed suit in the southern state of Kerala. Such conversions expose the hypocrisy of the religious and political leaders who exploit the socially and economically backward groups for their own ends.
DISCRIMINATION WITHIN THE CHURCH
There is discrimination against Dalits within the Church itself .A study titled Discrimination Against Dalit Christians in Tamil Naidu, in Tamil Naidu, says a study conduced by Fr Antony Raj sj, a Dalit Jesuit and sociologist was published in 1992, by the Institute of Development, Education, Action and Studies (IDEAS) Centre Madurai.
This study was an attempt at assessing the existence and the extent of the practice of untouchability within Christian Church (principally, the Roman Catholic Church in Tamil Nadu). It intended to persuade the government of India to make the necessary constitutional amendments to list Dalit Christians in the schedule caste category so that they too benefit from the policy of protective or favored discrimination. It was hoped that the findings of this study would enlighten the authorities in the Church to correct and rectify archaic and regressive caste practices.
The sampling involved 9,000 respondents, which roughly works out to 1.2 per cent of the total Christian population in the Tamil Nadu.
The following discriminatory practices were found from the data collected
Construction of two chapels, one for non-Dalits and the other for the Dalits. In some parishes liturgical services are conducted separately.
Separate seating arrangements within the same chapel. Dalits are usually seated at the two aisles. Even if there are benches or chairs, dalits are required only to be seated on the floor. The existence of two separate cemeteries and two separate hearses to carry the dead.
The operation of two separate queues to receive the sacrament or Christ. In some places, Dalits are required to receive communion only after the non-Dalits. Dalit boys are not allowed to be altar boys and lectors at the sacred liturgy.
Non-dalits restrict the Corpus Christi procession, Palm Sunday procession and other processions to the limits of their streets. Dalits are not invited to participate in the washing of feet ceremony on Maundy Thursday.
For fear of claiming equal participation in the celebration of the feast of the parish patron saint, Parish Councils decide not to collect financial contribution from Dalits. The feast of the village patron saint is celebrated separately.
Using various statistical computations, namely, combined frequency technique, ratio technique, average and dispersion technique, Fr Antony Raj has tried to gauge the nature and extent of discrimination. Questions relating to the nature and extent of discrimination as practiced by high caste Hindus, caste Christians, caste nuns and caste priests are: Do they visit your home? Do they drink water in your home when offered? Do they eat in your home when invited? Are you able to have them as your close friends? Do they accept you as colleagues? Do they admit you into their homes? Do they expect submissive forms of address and body postures when you speak to them? Do they address your elders respectfully? Do they speak about your caste mentality? Do they call you by your caste appellation?
Economic discrimination: The plight of the Dalits’ economic position has been to the issue of landlessness. In an agricultural society like India, land is an important consideration. The landed high caste had deprived the dalits of owning land or property of any kind. This is intended to ensure the supply of a stream of continuous and permanent labour force. Landless and dependent, the lower castes lead an economical unfree and penurious life.
The Church has under its control vast land property, medical and educational institutions, and developmental organs like multi-purpose society. These various departments are largely manned by non-Dalits. In fact, the authority of the Church is in the hands of non-Dalit priests. Non-Dalit priests occupy 92.3 per cent of the offices in the five Catholic dioceses. The lack of Dalit representation in the administrative and consultative bodies means lack of opportunity to present their cause at the decision-making level. This is crucial factor. For example, out of the 9,000 respondents, 5,766 (64 per cent) said they were not consulted by their priests on parish activities. Only 305 (9.43 per cent) said that they had been consulted. That too not in any significant way.
Finally, the ennui of powerlessness faced by the Dalit Christians in the Church is a matter of deep concern. Out of despair, frustration and confusion, the powerless dalits may garner and muster enough strength and conviction to fight back. If they do, the struggle could be violent. When violence is the end product, the outcome will be uncertain.
All these, prime facie, are evidences to substantiate the stand taken by the pro reservation Christians According to the Parliamentary Assurances Committee’s rules and regulations, the assurances are the positive cogent authoritative evidences to prove Dalit Christians’ social, educational, economical and cultural backwardness.
ANALYSIS
CASTE AND HINDUISM
It is well known that traditionally the ideology justifying the caste system came form Hindu scriptures. According to Rig Veda hymn, the different classes sprang from the four different parts of the Creator: the Brahmins from mouth, the Chatriyas from chest, and the Vaishyas from stomach and the Sudras from feet. It was top show that the four classes stood in relation to the social organization in the same relation as the different organs of the Primordial man to his body.
Both the cognitive categories of jatis and varnas on the one hand and the associated concepts of jatidharma and varnadhrma on the other, were defined and interpreted in terms of the theological doctrines of Hinduism .So much so that Hinduism and the caste system came to be regarded as inextricably intertwined .It is because of this that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar advocated quitting Hinduism as a prerequisite for the emancipation of the scheduled castes from the inhuman clutches of the caste system.
Curiously enough, instead of the caste system deriving operational justification from Hindu theology any more it is Hinduism which seems to be deriving functional support from the caste system. As an institutional, caste oeprationalizes several; concepts and ideas axial to Hinduism such as purity–impurity (pollution) dharma (duty) karma (action) rebirth, moksha, (release from rebirth) samsara (mundane existence) hierarchy, immutable division of labour, etc. and thereby provides the connecting thread to the integration of Hindu culture
Caste is a hereditary, endogamous, usually localized group, having a traditional association with an occupation, and a particular position in the hierarchy of castes. Relations between castes are governed, among other things by the concepts of pollution, and purity and generally, maximum commensality occurs within the caste
The following features become evident from this definition. First, membership in a caste is by birth. Second, a caste is an endogamous unit. Third, members of each caste traditionally had an occupation or trade to pursue. Fourth, castes are graded in a local hierarchy. Fifth, notions of pollution and purity govern the nature an extent of the relationship between castes.
Caste and Christians in India
Caste among Christians in India has survived many missionary onslaughts however, the condemnation of caste as unchristian has always been in the theological perspective of Christianity. Although such condemnation have generally not been accompanied by any action that disturbs the status quo within the churches, there is increasing pressure today from rising on movements of Christians from Dalit background. Many campaigners from this background claim that the word ‘Dalit’ has occurred several times in the Bible. The term Dalit in India is used to refer to ex- Untouchables known also in the literature as Harijans. However, the world Dalit in the Old Testament reefers to all poor, marginalized and persecuted people and not to caste base group.
Christianity is one of the prominent religions in India. At present there are about 24 million Christians in India. It is interesting to note that the Christian population in India is more than the entire population of Australia and New Zealand.
India’s 24 million Christians now account for 2.34 percent of the country’s population– up from 2.32 percent at the last previous census in 1991. The rate of population growth among the country’s Christians also rose slightly, from 21.5 percent to 22.6 percent.
About 73% of the Christians in India are Catholics. To revert to the Christian Data: The average Christian population in India is 2.3 per cent. The North East India traditionally has considerable Christian presence. Nagaland 90; Mizoram 87; Meghalaya 70.3; Manipur 34; Goa 26.7; Andaman 21.7; Kerala 19; Arunachal Pradesh 18.7; Pondicherry 6.9; Sikkim 6.7; Tamil Nadu 6.1; Jharkhand 4.1; Assam 3.7; Tripura 3.2; Dadra & Nagar 2.7; Orissa 2.4; Daman Diu 2.1; Karnataka 1.9; Chattisgarh 1.9; Andhra Pradesh 1.6; Punjab 1.2; Maharashtra 1.1; Lakshwandeep 1; Delhi 0.9; Chandigarh 0.8; Gujarat 0.6; West Bengal 0.6; Madhya Pradesh 0.3; Uttranchal 0.3; Jammu & Kashmir 0.2; Bihar 0.1; Uttar Pradesh 0.1; Rajasthan 0.1; Haryana 0.1; Himachal Pradesh 0.1. Of the total number of Christians: 24 080 016 of which Urban Christians are 8 186 058 while rural Christians are 15 893 958.
Data indicates that some 63 per cent of the country’s Christian population are in the four southern states with about 32 percent being in Kerala alone. Nevertheless, the Christian community reflects the general heterogeneity of the people of this vast country. Christian differs greatly not only in their theological, denominational and ritual traditions, but in ethnic social and caste origin. The upper caste Christians are probably not more than 25 per cent. The earliest Christian community in India is that of the Syrian Christians of kerala whose origin goes back to early centuries of the Christian era. They made no conversion and were closed community located only in Kerala. The conversion started wit h the arrival of Portuguese missionaries in fifteenth century. In the second half of the ninetieth century both Catholics and protestant missionaries experienced considerable success in converting tribal population of India .Tribal areas such as the North East hill region, the Santhal Parganas and Chotanagpur have become important Christian centers.
Christians in general made considerable gain in education and health. The 2001 Census shows that female literacy among Christian Women is 76 per cent and male female ratio among Christian is 996, highest comparing the all India average of 936. But it so happened that the considerable opportunities provided by the Christian missions were disproportionately taken advantage by the few section of Christians. One is surprised to note that there is not a single medical or engineering colleges in India run by Catholic Church. North Indian Catholics have suffered due to the lack of higher education facilities (Gathia 2000). Only Protestant has one medical college at Ludhiana. Why? We would venture the guess that the failure of the churches to improve the economic and job conditions is directly co-related with the dominance of few. Also with the departure of the foreign missionaries there was ‘mad- rush ‘to capture the position and power within the church in India. This also led to discrimination of services to the poor Christians particularly who were neo converts from Dalit background.
Unfortunately, contrary to the belief of Christianity, there are discriminatory practices among Christians in India. There are reports that Dalit Christians are physically segregated in their quarters .Caste Christians do not visit these quarters , dine with the Dalits or drink water form them. In Tamil Nadu OBC Christians do not enter in the colonies of their coreligionist Adi Dravida for fear of pollutions. Even the priests do this. In Kerala despite high literacy Christians practice discrimination among themselves. But this is breaking down. The socio economic status is predominantly governing the behavior among Christians and is rarely governed by the notion of pollution today as their counterpart Hindus suffer.
It is therefore important to note that caste is retreating in the context of modern urban life. With the growth of information technology awareness is increasing and local Christians are increasingly connecting themselves with the world Christian’s community. The evidence suggests that situation among educated Christians is better than counter part Dalit Hindu.
The issue of pollution among Christians is not as problematic as among Hindus. There are no specific practices and much less their conceptions among Christians in general in India. Syrian Christians who accord them high caste status freely eat beef, pork and fish and work as fish and leather dealers and butchers. In the North India nearly 90 per cent convert Christians do not consume beef or pork and follow what is refereed as a ‘secular Indian values’. They are not discriminated by the local people. It is also worth noting that many Christians in North India are in favour of banning cow slaughtering. They (North Indian Christians) are at paint to learn that a section of Christian leaders campaigned with a Hindu Dalit intellectual from Andhra Pradesh that eating beef was Dalit Hindu’s “human rights” and in that contexture converted Christians too must follow this practice. Such absurd campaign has created much bad feeling and in fact has diverted the attention from the real problems of poor Christians. The experience is that North Indian Christians are not discriminated when they follow ‘secular Indian values’ in their daily life.
Today once again the caste – based treatment is recommended for Christians in India. Some writers point out that with the departure of cosmopolitan missionaries, and the arrival of the sons (and daughters) of the soil, caste is back with a bang. The aspirations of neo convert for equality and dignity is frustrated by legal arguments. Those who adopted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour want all the Churches in India (Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox) condemn caste with one voice as unchristian.
The Poor Christians Liberation Movement (PCLM) has been fighting for the rights of the poor Christians for along time. The PCLM wrote the Prime Minister of India Dr. man Mohan Singh in January 2008 explaining the situation and opposing the caste base reservation for the Christians. The letter is available on http//www.nationalfreepress.org/An-open-Letter-to-Hon-Prime-Minister-of-India and http://www.Dalitchristian.com On the whole the concept of un-touch ability as practices in Hinduism is not prevalent among Christians of India.
Conclusions
The Ranganath Misra Commission Report has once again has raised the issue of caste among Christians in India. On theological ground all Christians are equal and made in the image of God. The creation of ‘man’ is different from Hinduism which believes origin from different part of the body. In 1939 Bishop Azariah wrote:” We do not wish to call our Christians Harijan (read Dalit here) for the sake of concessions.” It is worth recalling that in Travencore State the Dalit women were not allowed to cover their breast. The Women from Christian families defied this. When the princely state objected the missionaries argued that these women are no more Dalits hence this rule does not apply to them. Protestant missionaries aggressively and consistently attacked caste and carried on a relentless onslaught against it as being inconsistent with Christianity .Caste was in the world of a preacher, as ‘ the most cursed invention of the devil that ever existed…and masterpiece of hell ( Forrester 1979:27). An Anglican bishop of Calcutta declared that” the distinction of caste must be abandoned decidedly, immediately and finally…”.The statement issued by the Catholic bishops Conference of India in 1982 is representative of all church discourse:” We state categorically that caste, with its consequent effects on discrimination and “caste mentality”, has no place in Christianity…It violates the God-given dignity and we quality of the human person.” CBCI, 1982:148 quoted by J Tharamangalam).
Christianity is unique. Downtrodden people adopt it for equality, human dignity and liberty and not for bread alone. Even one gives million rupees a true Christian will not change the side except few who are ‘rice and curry Christians, ‘chapatti Christian’ and so on, but the majority wants to be identified as Christians and not as Dalit Christians. Once they adopted Christianity they are no more Dalits.
They have a new birth. And what ever ‘evil’ has followed them must be removed within the Church. Let us see this remark in the light of conversion. Conversion is a deliberate, definite, conscious, positive turning over to someone for something. Conversion is an individual affirmation essentially an independent action. Conversion at the root is an inward movement but it gets manifested in the outward life.
It is true that in India there are many violations of human rights of minorities but the constitution of India provides several protections and in real sense offers a balance between the national unity and the cultural as well as social diversity. Nevertheless, the tension is increasing between minority and majority. The unfortunate incidents of Rev. Graham Stein, nuns’ rape in Jhabua, attack on tribal Christians in Dang and persecution of Christians (including day light rape of a nun in the presence of police force) in Kandhmal are a clear proof. But the people have not left their faith. Even the poor Christians witnessed Christ.
In such a situation the Ranganath Misra Commission has submitted ‘controversial’ recommendations. Many Christian groups are rejoicing but we prayed to the Holy Spirit before venturing this report. An inner voice told us that while it is duty to emphasize on social concern but it should not be at cost of our basic belief: that all man are created equal and are made in the image of God.
We pray to Our Lord Jesus, our Savior and to the Holy Spirit to guide our leaders to rethink about the caste- religion based reservations for Christians. The Ranganath Misra Commission Report is a satanic versus and would do a great harm to the Christianity in India in the long run.
Resolutions
Based on our deliberations, understanding, field visits and above all path; guidance by the Holy Spirit we suggest following steps for the future:
-1. Convinced that the ‘National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities’ (NCRLM) will bring great harm to the growth of Church in India in future we oppose the implementation of this report .It is also contrary to the principles of Christianity and will “legalize” caste system in Christianity. Reservation is being given on the basis of “religion” which is unconstitutional as the caste is not recognized under the Canon laws.
-2. It is deeply regretful that the commission has totally rejected and condemned the views and suggestions given by the member secretary Mrs. Asha Das, which was based on historical evidences and social root ground.
-3. We appeal to the World Council of Churches and the Vatican to appoint a religious commission to determine whether ‘caste’ system is applicable in the Christianity or not. We also appeal to the Islamic intellectuals around the world to examine the recommendations of the Ranganath Misra Report in the light of the teachings of the Holy Quran. If the world wide religious leaders and theologians agree with the recommendations of the Ranganath Commission Report then we have no objections to accept it. Currently not all Christians are in faovur of clubbing Christians (from whatever previous caste background) under the Dalit Christians.
-4. In view that the Church in India runs largest number of schools and hospitals we urge the church authorities in India to implement the main recommendations of the NCRLM (Ranganath Misra report) in the Church institutions.
-5. We urge the Hindu Dalit intellectuals to carefully examine the recommendations. We are in favour of reservations to Christians on the basis of poverty not on the basis of their caste background. The government may identify Below Poverty Line (BPL) Christian families and give them all the facilities.
-6. All over the country the Christian public properties are being sold. We demand that the Government of India nationalize the public institutions like hospitals, colleges and church land which are being sold to private parties due to various reasons. We oppose the sale of Christian hospital, church land of Barely, Jaipur, Jhansi, Jabalpur, Ranchi, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Kolkatta, Mumbai, Delhi and other places.
In fact the problems related to the Christians of Dalit background is more within the Church structure and not outside. There is a strong need for internal reform which no legal provisions can bring. Can we really expect that reservations based on ‘caste ‘tag would remove the problems? The experience shows that it would rather further strengthen it. Because after getting reservations no one would like to do away with the caste tag in order to get the benefits. Church in India must help and design a long term rehabilitation plan to remove the Christians form “polluted jobs” .Today technology is available.
Today the Christians are employed in the private sector in good numbers this is due to their sincerity, honesty and dedication to their jobs. This is a Christian value. Once the reservation on the basis of caste is accepted the jobs in private sector would dry up even for deserving Christians. These are reflections on the current situation which regrettably sound negative. But the very fact that we are aware and concerned about th4ese matter is cause for optimism. Our sole motivation is the honour of God and the well being of God’s people. We continue to pray.”Thy Kingdom Come’”
===================================
Main Point of the report
1. “The special appeal of Christianity come from the fact that it is a voluntary religion of those who adored its founder – Jesus Christi. It is a religion whose members have chosen to put their faith in a new savior. Christianity believes all men are equal and made in the image of God. “
2 “ The Ranganath Misra Commission has recommended reservation for Muslims and Christians on the basis of religion and deletion of Para 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 which restricted the reservation to the Hindus and later opened it to Sikhs and Buddhists.”
3 “In our opinion implementation of the Ranganath Misra Report would have serious repercussion for the egalitarian faith like Christianity and Islam. Also the implementation of the Report would serious impact the growth and survival of Christianity in India.”
4 “India’s 24 million Christians now account for 2.34 percent of the country’s population– up from 2.32 percent at the last previous census in 1991. The rate of population growth among the country’s Christians also rose slightly, from 21.5 percent to 22.6 percent. About 73% of the Christians in India are Catholics.”
5 “Data indicates that some 63 per cent of the country’s Christian populations are in the four southern states with about 32 percent being in Kerala alone.”
6 “The 2001 Census shows that female literacy among Christian Women is 76 per cent and male female ratio among Christian is 996, highest comparing the all India average of 936.”
7 “On theological ground all Christians are equal and made in the image of God. The creation of ‘man’ is different from Hinduism which believes origin from different part of the body. In 1939 Bishop Azariah wrote:” We do not wish to call our Christians Harijan (read Dalit here) forth sake of concessions.”
8. “An Anglican bishop of Calcutta declared that” the distinction of caste must be abandoned decidedly, immediately and finally…”.
9 “The statement issued by the Catholic bishops Conference of India in 1982 is representative of all church discourse:” We state categorically that caste, with its consequent effects on discrimination and “caste mentality”, has no place in Christianity…It violates the God-given dignity and we quality of the human person.” CBCI
10 “We are in favour of reservations to Poor Christians on the basis of poverty but not on the basis of their caste background. The government may identify Below Poverty Line (BPL) Christian families and give them all the facilities.” 11. “Would the Christians admit that they practice caste system and that Dalits (among them) face social discrimination requiring reservation to uplift their cause?
By Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan
12.”There is discrimination against Dalits within the Church itself .A study titled Discrimination Against Dalit Christians in Tamil Naidu, in Tamil Naidu, says a study conduced by Fr Antony Raj SJ, a Dalit Jesuit and sociologist was published in 1992, by the Institute of Development, Education, Action and Studies (IDEAS) Centre Madurai.”
13 “Christianity is unique. Downtrodden people adopt it for equality, human dignity and liberty and not for bread alone. Even one gives million rupees a true Christian will not change the side except few who are ‘rice and curry Christians, ‘chapatti Christian’ and so on, but the majority wants to be identified as Christians and not as Dalit Christians. Once they adopted Christianity they are no more Dalits.”
There is proof throughout the Indian subcontinent and beyond that Ashoka existed – how did the spread of Buddhism thousands of miles beyond India occur? It is known that he had sent messsengers to far away regions.
Just propoganda. Anyone who believes it is incompetent.
And you quite “wiki” to prove your point.
Without Ashoka Buddhism could not spread?Wow what a thesis. Did Askoha also spread Christianity?
Buddhism was exterminated in South Asia by Brahman cruelty and it survived far and wide because the marauding hordes could not reach and destroy them–as they tried to do in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and Bali
MYTHS of ASHOKA, JESUS,SOLOMON,DAVID ,RAMA etc;
The real historical records reveals that “all these
personlities ” have NO EVIDENCE; stories created for politics;
Moin has clearly shown that on Asoka’ pillars there in no name; WHY learned Brahmins did not even know as to “what/who was/is even PIYADASI”?; they waited 2ooo
yrs for British to decipher; Name Ashoka seems to be
made up; but piya dasi perhaps did spread his dharma.WHO was he; was he chinese or what ?
Bleeding heart christianity: considers all non
christian as ” sinners”; Such an oxymoronic idea; Interestingly some muslims ( wrongly) too have same opinion abt non muslims but their holy book Qoran says ” all are entitled for salvation– ( Allah says) i will judge them according to their AMMl/deeds/karma; Many christians dont even know that their ” trinity” imacculate mary, son/ father , crusifixtion and rebith after day3 ” had existed in Egyptian theology 2000 yrs before jesus;AND greeks
had adopted these festivities ( of easter) after Alexader;
Some how/somebody converted Egyptian Horus the son of ISIS into Jesus story. Very interestingly also all christian believe that
man is a borne sinner and ” belief in jesus story” only can give salvation; THAT only means that billions of
people who had died before jesus will also burn in hell
; it is that interesting?
As to biblical Solomon/David/Moses all jewish/christian preachers even know that ” there is no
evidence in history; RAMA is also pure myth;
WE need to look at human’s evolution from Africa
100,000 yrs ago at least and forget abt world’s creation on oct 4th 4004 BC at
9am as taught in holy sermons; History of high
christian ideals is not rooted in biblical creation or in
biblical prophets BUT in egypt,/ mesopotamia and China. Seminaries teach these only to dis credit and keep the ” flock ignorant and faithfull”;
I do see missionarie’s good work as very laudable
but they intend to save man from the hell based on
a story/fiction, borrowed from Egypt.
Many of the artifacts attributed to “Ashoka” have proven to be absolute and total forgeries. The stories from Lankan priests have all be disavowed. As the article clearly points out, John Princep himself had totally repudiated the Piyadasi hypothesis.
One of the so called “Ashoka’s” pillars discovered in 1919 mentions Payadasi—Many of Ashoka’s pillar pre-date Ashoka, and pre-date Buddhism too. The entire story was conjured up by John Princep–before that there was no mention of Ashoka in Bharati or Greek texts. The Greeks were great chroniclers of events. Their records have long been consecrated in mythical stories, fictional writings, and even factual narratives. In fact the contemporary Greeks living in the area ascribed to be Ashoka’s birthplace and kingdom never mention Ashoka in their historical records. It is as if he never existed. In fact he didn’t.
The Gupta and Muyara dynesty cannot be proven and there is much conjecture on who lived where and who owned what. Even Bharati historians doubt the veracity of the Gupta dynesty.
What does all this mean?
The Britishers gave this lollypop to the Hindu Mahasabah–that if they sided with the British–they would help get rid of the Muslim rule for them and restore their “glorious past”. The Mahasabah didn’t know about any glorious past–so the Brits helped them manufacture a “past tense” for them. If they British were leaving South Asia they should have returned it to the Muhal Emperors or the 570 states and sailed away.
The nation of shopkeepers were up to no good. After 1939, they dug up another phenomenon to justify the giving South Asia to Non-Muslim. They conjured up the word “democracy”–a word that did not exist in the US constitution or the Magna Carta. In fact Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton had written reams against it, and Socrates had to drink hemlock because he opposed it for Athens. “Democracy” was used to justify handing over Muslim lands in South Asia to the Hindus.
Nehru immediately set about confiscating all the lands which were in the hands of the landowners–in the name of land reforms. Muslims who had been made illiterate by the introduction of the Devanagri script, and discriminated against for two centuries, had to face the trauma of losing all their lands for a stack of paper called “zamindari abolition bonds”. The state simply took over all the lands, and nationalized the gold–making the entire Muslim population penury stricken.
Hindu Colleges set up all over South Asia would not admit Muslims ’till the formation of Aligarh. thus the most creative section of South Asia was reduced to become the poorest. Haldiram, Golwalker, and Sarvakar were on ly a few of those that wanted to emulate the Spanish Inquisiton in Bharat eliminating all Muslims. They did try in some areas like Gurdaspur in 1947 and again in 2008 in Gujarat. A Muslim revolt against the ghastly “shuddi” and sangatham was later called Pakistan–where they saved their religion.
Good…after the Mauryas the rupeesnews has taken over the Guptas too. They were also myths..no doubt!!
Sad the world doesnot recognise the gems sprakling in this website and still pay more heed to Will Durant to Akbar Dani. Hmmmm…..
Pillars pre-dating Ashoka and Buddhism is also good fun..some vague cavemen in the jungle ganges must have propped this up when a ship full of thesse pillar sailing from Arabia to China shipwrecked on the sea.
Much has been written about the false histiography of the Durants. here is as example ( J. H. Plumb, New York Review of Books; quoted in Arnold Beichman, “Is History Only for the Historians?” The Christian Science Monitor, 28 October 1965.—Peter Gay, New York Herald Tribune Book Week; quoted in Beichman.).
His (Will) knowledge about South Asia is limited by geography, archeology, and information that has now been unearthed. Durant could not have carbon dated Ashoka’s pillars. He had no information about Mehargarh. Durant had no clue about the finds in Central Asia, or Lothal. He however could base his information on what was available–John Pincep, Marshall and others who were busy cooking up stories. Durant simply reflected on what was available to him. We all know you love Duran’t Islamphobia–that is the nature of Bharatis
One should read “Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World Through Islamic Eyes by Tamim Ansary” to balance Durant out.
Durant began the research for his first volume in 1929, which he named Our Oriental Heritage (1935)
William James Durant was born on November 5, 1885 in North Adams, Massachusetts. His parents, of French-Canadian decent, were fierce Catholics who aspired for him to become a priest.
Beginning his formal education in parochial schools, Durant was accepted by scholarship into St. Peters College, a Jesuit Catholic school. After a few years of intense study and reflection he began to question religion.
As a well-read student he familiarized himself with the works of “infidels” including Charles Darwin, Upton Sinclair, and Edward Bellamy
The Jesuits were merciful and offered him a job teaching Latin, French, and Geometry at Seton Hall College.
Will Durant is part of the problem of the fake industry of manufacturing history. He didn’t write the Bible–he wrote a “The Story of Western Civilization” based on the racist perceptions of the White man. His entire thesis is Eurocentric. Of course his narrative ends at “The Age of Napoleon”.
The Durants themselves write:
“Every chapter, every paragraph in this book will offend or amuse some patriotic or esoteric soul: the orthodox Jew will need all his ancestral patience to forgive the pages on Yahveh; the metaphysical Hindu will mourn this superficial scratching of Indian philosophy; The Chinese or Japanese sage will smile indulgently at these brief and inadequate selections from the wealth of Far Eastern literature and thought. … Meanwhile a weary author may sympathize with Tai T’ung, who in the thirteenth century issued his ‘’History of Chinese Writing’‘ with these words: ‘Were I to await perfection, my book would never be finished.’” (p.ix)
Durant’s “The Story of Civilization” has been criticized by many as “Orientalist”. Dr. Edward Said has taken exception to Duran’s simplifications, rash judgments colored by personal convictions (in Christianity and superiority of the white Europeans). Many Western and Eastern authors have accused Durant of and story-telling, and have described his magnus opus as a careless dabbling in historical scholarship. Professor J. H. Plumb’s opinion on the series was that “historical truth… can rarely be achieved outside the professional world of historians.
“Vague cavemen”?—200 BC was beyond the hunter gatherer phase. There were many civilizations before 200 BC.
This fraudulent history had been lapped up by north Indians, and by south Indian Brahmins, as their racial passport to Europe. Such was the demoralization of the Hindu mind, which we have to shake off through a new factual account of our past.
Falsification of Chronology in India’s History
The fabrication of our History begins with the falsification of chronology.
The customary dates quoted for composition of the Rig Veda (circa 1300 B.C.), Mahabharat (600 B.C.), Buddha’s Nirvana (483 B.C.), Maurya Chandragupta’s coronation (324 B.C.), and Asoka (c.268 B.C.) are entirely wrong. Those dates are directly or indirectly based on a selected reading of Megasthenes’ account of India. In fact, so much so that eminent historians have called if the “sheet anchor of Indian chronology”. The account of Megasthenes and the derived chronology of Indian history have also an important bearing on related derivations such as the two-race (Aryan-Dravidian) theory, and on the pre-Vedic character of the so called Indus Valley Civilization. (Pakistani Civilization)
Megasthenes was the Greek ambassador sent by Seleucus Nicator in c. 302 B.C. to the court of the Indian king whom he and the Greek called “Sandrocottus”. He was stationed in “Palimbothra”, the capital city of the kingdom. It is not clear how many years Megasthenes stayed in India, but he did write an account of his stay, titled Indika. The manuscript Indika is lost, and there is no copy of it available. However, during the time it was available, many other Greek writers quoted passages from it in their own works. These quotations were meticulously collected by Dr. Schwanbeck in the nineteenth century, and this compilation is also available to us in English (J.M. McCrindle: Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian).
When European indologists were groping to date Indian history during the nineteenth century (after having arbitrarily rejected the various Puranas), the Megasthenes account came in very useful. These scholars simply identified “Sandrocottus” with Chandragupta, and “Palimbothra” with Pataliputra. Since Megasthenes talks of Sandrocottus as being a man not of “noble” birth who essentially usurped the throne from Xandrames and founded a new dynasty, the western writers took it as enough evidence to suggest that Sandrocottus was Maurya Chandragupta, who deposed the Nanda (=Xandrames) dynasty, and founded the Maurya dynasty. This identification, thus places Maurya Chandragupta circa 302 B.C.
However, Megasthenes also notes that Sandrocottus was a contemporary of Alexander, and came to the throne soon after Alexander’s departure. With a little arithmetic on how many days it would have taken Alexander to cross the Indus, etc., the scholars arrive at c.324 B.C. as the date of Chandragupta Maurya’s coronation. It is on this date that every other date of Indian history has been constructed.
The western writers constructed other dates of Indian history by using the data on the number of years between kings given in the Puranas, even though they have generally discredited this source. For instance, the Puranas give the number of years for the reign of Chandgragupta and Bindusara as 62 years. Using this period, Asoka’s coronation year is calculated by them as 324-62 =c 262 B.C. This estimated year is then cross-checked and adjusted with other indicators, such as from the Ceylonese Pali tradition. The point that is being made here is that some of the important dates of Indian history have been directly determined by the identification of Megasthenes’ Sandrocottus with Maurya Chandragupta, and Xandremes with Nanda.
The founder of the Mauryas, however, is not the only Chandragupta in Indian history, who was a king of Magadh and founder of a dynasty. In particular, there is Gupta Chandragupta, a Magadh king and founder of the Gupta dynasty at Patliputra. Chandragupta Gupta was also not of “noble” birth and, in fact, came to power by deposing the Andhra king Chandrasri. That is, Megasthenes’ Sandrocottus may well be Gupta Chandragupta instead of Maurya Chandgragupta (and Xandremes the same as Chandrasri, and Sandrocryptus as Samudragupta) .
In order to determine which Chandragupta it is, we need to look further. It is, of course, a trifle silly to build one’s history on this kind of tongue-gymnastics, but I am afraid we have no choice but to pursue the Megasthenes evidence to its end, since the currently acceptable history is based on it.
In order to determine at which Chandragupta’s court Megasthenes was ambassador, we have to look further into his account of India. We find he was at Pataliputra (i.e. Palimbothra in Megasthenes’ account). We know from the Puranas (which are unanimous on this point) that all the Chandravamsa king of Magadh (including the Mauryas) prior to the Guptas, had their capital at Girivraja (or equivalently Rajgrha) and not at Pataliputra. Gupta Chandragupta was the first king to have his capital in Patliputra. This alone should identify Sandrocottos with Gupta Chandragupta. However some 6-11th century A.D. sources call Pataliputra the Maurya capital, e.g., Vishakdatta in Mudrarakshasa, but these are based on secondary sources and not on the Puranas.
Pursuing Megasthenes’ account further, we find most of it impossible to believe. He appears to be quite vague about details and is obviously given to the Greek writers’ weakness in letting his imagination get out of control. For example, “Near a mountain which is called Nulo there live men whose fee are turned back-wards and have eight toes on each foot.” (Solinus 52.36-30 XXX.B.) “Megasthenes says a race of men (exist in India) who neither eat or drink, and in fact have not even mouths, set on fire and burn like incense in order to sustain their existence with odorous fumes…..” (Plutarch, Frag. XXXI). However, Megasthenes appears to have made one precise statement of possible application which was picked up later by Pliny, Solinus, and Arrian. As summarized by Professor K.D. Sethna of Pondicherry, it reads:
“Dionysus was the first who invaded India and was the first of all who triumphed over the vanished Indians. From the days of Dionysus to Alexander the Great, 6451 years reckoned with 3 months additional. From the time of Dionysus to Sandrocottus the Indians reckoned 6452 years, the calculation being made by counting the kings who reigned in the intermediate period to number 153 or 154 years. But among these a republic was thrice established, one extending…..years, another to 300 and another to 120. The Indians also tell us that Dionysus was earlier than Heracles by fifteen generations, and that except for him no one made a hostile invasion of India but that Alexander indeed came and overthrew in war all whom he attacked.”
While there a number of issues raised by this statement including the concoction that Alexander was victorious in battle across the Indus, the exactness with which he states his numbers should lead us to believe that Megasthenes could have received his chronological matters from none else than the Puranic pundits of his time. To be conclusive, we need to determine who are the “Dionysus” and “Heracles” of Megasthenes’ account.
Traditionally, Dionysus (or Father Bachhus) was a Greek God of wine who was created from Zeus’s thigh. Dionysus was also a great king, and was recognized as the first among all kings, a conqueror and constructive leader. Could there be an Indian equivalent of Dionysus whom Megasthenes quickly equated with his God of wine? Looking through the Puranas, one does indeed find such a person. His name is Prithu.
Prithu was the son of King Vena. The latter was considered a wicked man whom the great sages could not tolerate, especially after he told them that the elixir soma should be offered to him in prayer and not to the gods (Bhagavata Purana IV.14.28). The great sages thereafter performed certain rites and killed Vena. But since this could lead immediately to lawlessness and chaos, the rshis decided to rectify it by coronating a strong and honest person. The rshis therefore churned the right arm (or thigh; descriptions vary) of the dead body (of Vena) to give birth to a fully grown Prithu. It was Prithu, under counsel from rshi Atri (father of Soma), who reconstructed society and brought about economic prosperity. Since he became such a great ruler, the Puranas have called him adi-raja (first king) of the world. So did the Satpatha Brahmana (v.3.5 4.).
In the absence of a cult of soma in India, it is perhaps inevitable that Megasthenes and the other Greeks, in translating Indian experiences for Greek audiences, should pick on adi-raja Prithu who is “tinged with Soma” in a number of ways and bears such a close resemblance to Dionysus in the circumstances of his birth, and identify him as Dionysus. If we accept identifying Dionysus with Prithu, then indeed by a calculation based on the Puranas (done by D.R. Mankad, Koti Venkatachelam, K.D. Sethna, and others), it can be conclusively shown that indeed 6451 years had elapsed between Prithu and a famous Chandragupta. This calculation exactly identifies Sandrocottus with Gupta Chandragupta and not with Maurya Chandragupta. The calculation also identifies Heracles with Hari Krishna (Srikrishna) of Dwarka.
This calculation must be necessarily long and tedious to counter the uninformed general feeling first sponsored by Western scholars, that the Puranas spin only fair tales and are therefore quite unreliable. However, most of these people do not realize that most Puranas have six parts, and the Vamsanucharita sections (especially of Vishnu, Matsya, and Vagu) are a systematic presentation of Indian history especially of the Chandravamsa kings of Magadha.
In order to establish these dates the concept of time according to Aryabhatta, and various other systems, and also the reconciliation of various minor discrepancies that occur in the Puranas. Constraints of space and time however, prevent me from presenting these calculations here.
However, on the basis of these calculations we can say that Gupta Chandragupta was “Sandrocottus” c.327 B.C. His son, Samudragupta, was the great king who established a unified kingdom all over India, and obtained from the Cholas, Pandyas, and Cheras their recognition of him. He also had defeated Seleucus Nicator, while his father Chandragupta was king. On this calculation we can also place Prithu at 6777 B.C. and Lord Rama before that. Derivation of other dates without discussion may also be briefly mentioned here: Buddha’s Nirvana 1807 B.C., Maurya Chandragupta c. 1534 B.C., Harsha Vikramaditya (Parmar) c. 82 B.C.
The European scholars have thus constructed an enormous edifice of contemporary foreign dates to suit their dating. A number of them are based on misidentification. For instance, the Rock Edict XIII, the famous Kalinga edict, is identified as Asoka’s. It was, however, Samudragupta’s (Samudragupta was a great conqueror and a devout admirer of Asoka. He imitated Asoka in many ways and also took the name Asokaditya. In his later life, he became a sanyasi). Some other facts, which directly contradict their theories, they have rather flippantly cast aside.
We state here only a few examples – such facts as (1) Fa-hsien was in India and at Patliputra c. 410 A.D. He mentions a number of kings, but makes not even a fleeting reference to the Gupta, even though according to European scholars he came during the height of their reign. He also dates Buddha at 1100 B.C.. (2) A number of Tibetan documents place Buddha at 2100 B.C. (3) The Ceylonese Pali traditions leave out the Cholas, Pandyas, and Cheras from the list of Asoka’s kingdoms, whereas Rock Edict XIII includes them. In fact, as many scholars have noted, the character of Asoka from Ceylonese and other traditions is precisely (as R.K. Mukherjee has said) what does not appear in the principal edicts.
The accepted history of no country can however be structured on foreign accounts of it. But Nehru and his Leftist cronies did just that, and thus generations of Indians have been brainwashed by this falsified history of India.
The time has come for us to take seriously our Puranic sources and to re-construct a realistic well-founded history of ancient India, a history written by Indians about Indians. Such a history should bring out the amazing continuity of a Hindu nation which asserts its identity again and again. It should focus on the fact that at the centre of our political thought is the concept of the Chakravartin ideal – to defend the nation from external aggression while giving maximum internal autonomy to the janapadas.
A correct, defalsified history would record that Hindustan was one nation in the art of governance, in the style of royal courts, in the methods of warfare, in the maintenance of its agrarian base, and in the dissemination of information. Sanskrit was the language of national communication and discourse.
An accurate history should not only record the periods of glory but the moments of degeneration, of the missed opportunities, and of the failure to forge national unity at crucial junctures in time. It should draw lessons for the future generations from costly errors in the past.
In particular, it was not Hindu submission as alleged by JNU historians that was responsible for our subjugation but lack of unity and effective military strategy.
Without an accurate history, Hindustan cannot develop on its correct identity. And without a clearly defined identity, Indians will continue to flounder. Defalsification of Indian history is …
=============
We do not find the word “Hindu” in any ancient Hindu (Aryan) literature. Even then the Hindu Nazis propagate the falsehood that 85% of the Indians are the Hindus and India is a Hindu nation.
But what is the evidence to prove that the Rigveda is anterior to Buddhism? Do they have any archeological evidences of Aryans? Do they have any literary evidence that Sanskrit is anterior to Buddhism? Do they have any writings of any foreigners anterior to Buddhism? The answer to these questions is in the negative. Then what is the basis for calling the Rigveda the oldest document in the world?
The Brahminical Social Order (BSO) comprises the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas, the Vaishyas and the Sudras. This is Chaturvarna. According to Brahminical literature, all the Kshatriyas were exterminated by the Brahmin leader, Parasuram. The Brahmin sacred text, the Gita, says the Vaishyas, Sudras and women belong to papyoni (Gita 9/32). That means the Vaishyas, Sudras and women (including Brahmin women) also automatically become non-Hindus.
Even the famous Muslim historian of the 11th century AD Alberuni says that up to the Muslim Period, the Vaishyas had no right of hearing and reciting the Vedas. If charges were proved against them they were liable to capital punishment as the Sudras were, He writes:
The Brahmins teach the Vedas to the Kshatriyas. The latter learn it but are not allowed to teach it, even to the Brahmins. The Vaishyas and Sudras are allowed to hear it, much less to pronounce and recite it. If such a thing can be proved against one of them, the Brahmin may drag him before the magistrate and get him punished by having his tongue cut off. (History of Sikhs, Vol.1.p 22, Hari Ram Gupta).
VAIDIKS AS MYTH-MAKERS
Keeping in view the above evidence we can safely conclude that only the Brahmins are Hindus, since they are the descendants of Brahma and Brahma himself is an illusion. Therefore, Brahmin is a person who creates illusion.
The Vaidik Brahmins create a myth in the society to appear as a majority in the name of Hinduism. If we go through the Brahminical literature we find nothing except myths and illusions all through.
The Hindus, therefore,have no history.The Muslim historian Alberuni rightly comments:
The Hindu historians do not care about the historical sequence of incidents. They are careless in producing date-wise chronological order of historical evidences. Whenever they are forced to produce evidences they become confused and do not know what to say. Then they start telling the stories (MBD History BA-II, KU,p. 39.)
The question is how the propaganda gained currency without any archeological and literary evidence that the Rigveda and the Hindu culture are anterior to Buddhism. Do they have any carbon dating of the Rigveda? The Rigveda is written in Sanskrit. Do they have any archeological and literary evidence that Sanskrit is anterior to Buddhism?
PRAKRIT, MOTHER OF SANSKRIT
In spite of having no archeological and literary evidence, Vaidik historians inserted “Aryan civilization” and “Vedic period” in historical sequence anterior to Buddhism while the truth is that there is nothing like Aryan civilisation and Vedic period in Indian history anterior to Buddhism.
Sanskrit is the language of the Vaidiks. It was synthesized from Prakrit by Panini who was the contemporary of Patanjali. Patanjali was the Guru of Pushya Mitra Sung who killed the Buddhist (Mayuran) emperor in 185 BC in broad day-light while taking the salute of a parade.
RIGVEDA MANUFACTURED AFTER BUDDHISM
According to the myth the insertion of the “Aryan culture” and the “Vedic period” in the historial sequence anterior to Buddhism is a part of the Vaidik racist designs. The Vaidiks who occupied the apex of the social pyramid could not tolerate their historical inferiority because they knew that if the people came to know that the Brahminical culture came after Buddhism, their Vedas, gods and goddesses would become a bundle of lies.
Even Ayurveda, the science of medicine, was not written by the Aryans, because medical profession was a dirty profession to the Vaidiks. It was a profession of the Sudras.
Charak (1st century AD) who wrote the Charak Samhita was the father of Ayurveda. (Biology NCERT Class XI. p. 160, 1997 Education).
Charak was a Buddhist and was the physician of the Buddhist emperor Kanishka.
The Hindu Nazis usually boast that their Rigveda is the oldest literature in the whole world. They say it is a treasure house of morality, knowledge and science. But the Rigveda itself is the best evidence to contradict all that is claimed above.
(1) It contains references to Prakrit language:
In ancient time the Prakrit language was associated with Buddhism. (MBD History Class XI, P. A-15, 1997).
(2) It contains the Vaidik prayer to their god Indra to kill Dasas and destroy their property:
According to Dr.Ambedkar, Dasas and Nagas were the one and same people. (Untouchables, p, 66, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar).
(3) In the Rigveda, we find the names of some Rishis like Bharadwaj, Vasistha, Bhrigu, Viswamitra etc. (History Sr.Sec.Courses, Open School Class XI, Neeraj Publication p, 29).
According to the Buddhist literature Bharadwaj, Bhrigu and Vasistha were contemporary to Buddha. (Buddha and His Dhamma, Dr.Ambedkar).
(4) The Hindu Nazis boast that their Vedas are the treasure house of all knowledge and sciences. Dr.Ambedkar during a debate on the Draft Indian Constitution asked the Brahmin intellectuals to produce any mantra which could produce gold if their Vedas are treasure houses of sciences. But none came forward. (Twenty years with Ambedkar, Hindi, Sohanlal Shastri).
NO MORALITY IN RIGVEDA
The above evidences from the Vedas prove that:
(1) Dasas (Nagas) were the rulers of this country when the Rigveda was written.
(2) Prakrit was the language of the people which was associated with Buddhism. That means Prakrit was Buddhist.
(3) Vedic rishis like Bharadwaj, Bhrigu etc. were the contemporaries of Buddha. Thus the Rigveda could not be the oldest document of the world.
(4) The Rigveda is written in Sanskrit. But Prakrit is the mother of Sanskrit.
From this we can safely conclude that:
(i) There was no “Hindu civilization” before Buddhism.
(ii) There was nothing like “Vedic period” before Buddhism because Sanskrit developed after Buddhism.
(iii) The Vedas were manufacatured after the Buddhist period.
What type of knowledge the Rigveda contains is proved by the following reference. In the Rigveda there is a reference to Yama and Yami, the brother and sister.
“…According to this episode Yami, the sister, invites her brother, Yama, to cohabit with her and becomes angry when he refuses to do so.” (W & S Vol. III, p. 165).
Babasaheb devotes several pages in Vol.3 to discuss the sexual immorality, drinking bouts and gambling habits of ancient Aryans.
To justify their claims that the Vedas are the oldest document they create confusion by saying that the Vedas were not in the written form during the ancient times. They have been passed on from generation to generation in the form of shruties (oral scriptures). This explanation of Vaidiks is again false:-
(i) The shruties of the Harappan culture are anterior to Hinduism. When that is the fact why are they not called the Vedas?
(ii) When there was no Sanskrit before Buddhism which language did they pass on from generation to generation? Without Sanskrit their claim does not prove correct.
RELATIONSHIP OF GUPTAS AND SHAKAS WITH HINDUS
The riddle which is to be solved yet is:
(i) The Shaka Era starts from Kanishka, a Buddhist emperor of Kushan dynasty. In reality it should be called Kushan Era. Why was it called Shaka Era rather than Kushan Era?
(ii) Why Vikram Era which was associated with Chandra Gupta Vikramaditya (Chandra Gupta-II) was made anterior to Shaka Era?
(iii) What is the relationship of the Hindus with the Shakas and Chandra Gupta Vikramaditya?
The reply to question no. (i) and (ii) is very simple. It appears to be racial. The Shaka Era is related to the killing of the Spirit of Buddhism by dividing it into Mahayan and Hinyan. The Vikram Era is related to extermination of Pali, the language of the Buddhists.
Kanishka was associated with Budhism while Chandra Gupta Vikramaditya was associated with Hinduism (Brahminism). So, to make Buddhism inferior to Hinduism was probably the reason for making the Vikram Era anterior to Shaka Era. Both are called Hindu Eras. Why did they make the Kushan Era? The association of Shaka with Vikramaditya must be examined.
The two are closely related with each other is proved by the following facts:-
(a) No archaeological evidence of Aryans is found anterior to Buddhism.
(b) The first archaeological evidence of Sanskrit, the language of the Brahmins, (Hinduism) called Rudra Danam inscription belongs to the Shaka period.
(c) Mathura, Nasik and Ujjain were the capital of Shaka rulers. They were also the important religious places of the Hindus.
(d) Four branches of Shakas came to India. The number of the Vedas are also four.
================
THE CONUNDRUM OF ASHOKA OF GUPTA AND ASHOKA OF MUYRA CANNOT BE RECONLCIED
These rock edicts mention five neighboring Greek and Egyptian kings ñ Antiochos, Ptolemy (second), Antigonos, Magas, Alexander (second). Since these kings are dated to 250-300 BC, this has been the date arrived for “Ashoka” (Mauryan). As per the Buddhist scriptures, Ashoka (Mauryan) was crowned two hundred and eighteen years after the demise of the Buddha. This would mean that Buddhaà s date is roughly 500 BC. And this date tallies perfectly with the date of 500 BC
The most troubling aspect with these date calculations is that there are two Chandragupts and two Ashokas in Indian history. And as per the writings of Greek traveler Megasthenes, the Gupta dynasty was ruling India at about 300 BC. And these writings of Megashtenes tally with the Puranic calculations as well. And Indian history does not talk about two Chandragupts or two Ashokas ruling India at the same time. While traditional Indian and Greek sources talk about Ashoka of Gupta dynasty ruling India at about 300 BC, mainstream historians have arrived at the conclusion that Ashoka of Mauryan dynasty was ruling India at around 300 BC. So we either have to discard the writings of Megashtenes as well as Puranic sources completely, or we have to see if mainstream historians have got the date of Ashoka wrong.
Several mainstream historians are not aware of this controversy. Even if they are aware, they dismiss Megasthenes as an unreliable writer and dismiss the Indian scriptures as pure mythology. They even easily shrug away the fact that other Greek accounts at the time of Megasthenes do not talk much about the presence of Buddhism in India. And almost all the mainstream historians are blissfully unaware of the presence of two Ashokas in Indian history. A handful of Indian historians are aware of this puzzle; they have suggested that the “Ashoka” of the Buddhist sources belongs to Gupta dynasty and he ruled India around 300 BC. However, the Buddhist scriptures clearly talk about the emperor (“Ashoka”) to be belonging to the Mauryan dynasty, completely negativating the arguments of the few handful Indian historians who try to wriggle out of the conundrum. This has been the biggest puzzle that has been haunting Indian historical calculations for more than a century, almost like a Sherlock Holmes and Hercules Poirot mystery.
Does this mean that the mainstream historians are completely happy and are not at all puzzled by their calculations? The answer is, surprisingly, no; they are still quite puzzled over the most important things
by Subbiah Alagumalaiyan
In modern times, bigoted Brahmins have projected Bharatavarsha as the
ancient Sanskrit name for the whole of India. This, however, has no
historical foundation. Bharatavarsha did not include the whole of
India and never did, but only denoted the kingdom of the Aryan invader
Bharata, who was a chieftain of one of the Aryan tribes that invaded
India. This small region comprised only a small part of the upper
Ganges valley.
Epigraphic Evidence
The epigraphic evidence confirms that Bharata originally did not mean
the whole of India. but only a small part of North India. Kharavela
who lived c.63 BC – c.23 BC ( C.R.Mishra, p.114 ), was one of the most
famous kings of the Kolarian-Dravidian kingdom of Kalinga. His
conquests ranged far and wide. They are celebrated in the Hathigumpha
inscription. The nineth and tenth lines of this inscription clearly
mention that he invaded Bharata from Kalingam thereby implying that
Bharata at that time did not include the whole of India -
Line 9-10 : “And, in the nineth year, (His Majesty) [ Kharavela ]
caused to be built the great victory place – royal residence at the
cost of thirty eight hundred thousand (coins).
” Then, in the 10th year (His Majesty) who embodied the principles of
politics, diplomacy and peace, caused (the army) to march towards
Bharatavarsha for conquest .”
– ( C.R.Mishra, p.128 )
Prof. C.R.Mishra notes that Bharata did not originally denote
India : ” Bharatavarsha, here is used in a general sense denoting the
regions of northern India ” (C.R.Mishra, p.121). Elaborating this, he
states that Bharata is mentioned for the first time in the Hatigumpha
inscription and that it denoted only a part of North India -
” In the epigraphic records of ancient India, the name `Bharatavarsha’
is mentioned for the first time in the Hatigumpha inscription. But the
name denoted North India at that time.”
– ( C.R.Mishra, p.130, n.79 )
A.L. Basham states that Bharatas was one of the invading Aryan tribes
which settled in the region between the Satlaj and Jamna, which later
became known as Brahmavarta (Basham, The Wonder that was India, p.30).
Thus, the first time that we have undisputed usage of the word
Bharatavarsha, it denoted only North India. There is no evidence of
Bharata’s kingdom extending beyond Northern India.
Historical Perspectives on Ancient India
M. G. S. Narayanan
Social Scientist, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Oct., 1975), pp. 3-11
(article consists of 9 pages)
Published by: Social Scientist
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516351
Writers have taken delight in demolishing the myth of the Buddhist phi- losopher king, Asoka, and the myth of the golden age of the Gupta empire
THE MATTER IS NOT THE FACT OF ASHOKA. WE KNOW THAT HE EXISTS,.,,..
REGARDS
JATIN
9023121016
@ Shukla
Did you meet him? Say hello to him. I heard he goes by “My name is Ken, and I am in Colorado–ding (head moves right side), ding (head moves left side)–doing (head moves right side)..Can I hhhhEAlp you ONLY”.
We were talking about the “Ashoka” concocted by Sir James Princep and Pandit Radhakantta in the 17th century. Princep got a knighted for inventing “Ashoka”. Before that there is no mention of “Ashoka” in Greek, Arab, contemporary Subcontinent literature. Princep himself clearly rejected “Piyadasa” as a contender to the throne—and the evidence that was manufactured clearly has been refuted by hundreds of indigenous historians and archaeologists. Some of the pillars which supposedly belonged to “Ashoka” actually predate his manufactured timeline and in fact pre-date Buddha too.
Say hello to Ashoka he goes by Ken these days! He works in a call center in Banglore.
people who question about the existance of Budha and Ashoka, are stupid. you should understand that we are talking something about which happened thousands of years back. There was also not much technology to preserve the facts to the future generations. But still they left numurous evidences. you should also understand that india was invaded by several foreign rules including muslims who “destroyed” no. of temples, monoments, historical sites and also our culture and welath. Still we are left with some proofs. If you want you go to Anuradhapura in Sri Linka where Ashoka’s daughter Sangamithra stayed and spread Bhudha’s teachings. The evidence for this still exists!. You people have dirty history and presence, thats why you people feel jealose about indian history.
[Editors] pakistan is the land of defeated hindus who were deprived of their mother land by surrendering their self dignity . you are self made champion of dalit cause while in pakistan their are muslim dalits who are called as kami kamins while dalits in india are due to barbaric looters . the set examples are ‘kanjars sansis and pardis who dared to fight but reduced to do do menial jobs .they all were rajputs and now they are declared as criminal tribes
@ Umesh
There is no evidence that “Ashoka” existed. There is no mention of him by the great Greek historians who lived in the vicinity of the areas he resided in . No local historian mentions him. One pillar dicovered in 1915 mentions Piyadasa–and that used to link him to Ashika. James Princep had already refuted the fact that Ashoka had any link to Piyadasa.
Some of the pillars attributed to “Ashokas timeline” predated the composite figure and ever pre-dated Buddha.
This debate is very tedious as the same point gets made again and again….but i ask the editorial board to read their own post before pasting..or use quotation marks…in one paragraph you actually mention Asoka of the Mauryas to be around in 1587 BC.
The same source says The kalinga pillars are done by Samudragupta of Gupta who was a great admirer of Ashoka.
The the myth seems to be building around then too…..or maybe Princep had a time machine.
There is a great columnist called Hasan Nissar in Pakistan who says Pakistan must teach about Chandragupta mAURYA and Ashoka in the history books.
I am not sure whether ashoka is taught or not .
[Editors] knows better than me.
Hasan Nisar is a corrupt ex-politicians and an entertainer. Calling him a journalist is a joke. He says many things. He is not a historian. One cannot take him very seriously.
The Muyriyas and Guptas are taught in Pakistani history. Depends on which subject you are majoring in.
Dirt–if you had read the detailed article, this is exactly what the author is saying–were there two Ashokas’, because the current timeline doesn’t jive
This is what we call pseudo-history?
Somebody may ask whether Prophet Muhammad( PBUH) existed or not. Jesus too don’t have any material evidence to prove his existence.
Vishal
There is material evidence and documented proof that Prophet Muhammad existed. We also have actual artifacts.
Ashoka was never mentioned in any history book till John Princep actually conjured him up.
@Editors
The things you call material evidence; writings are also available for ashoka. A vast amount of pali, buddhist and sanskrit literature. As per artifacts, India’s national emblem is adapted from ashok stambh.. As a student of anthropology I’ve personally visited many museums and sites related to ashoka.
Besides, I just came to this page accidentally. Seems like a propaganda page. Not much substance from academic point of you. Better put your energies in constructive things… there are many good things to be done in our respective countries
Great Article Moin jee.
Hindus nurture a inferiority complex, the British saw this and gave their ego a boost, by teaching them about Ashoka.
Based around this countles of many other mythological kings and kingdom emerge and make their way into Indian History.
The only real early historians of the land beyond the Indus were Arabs and there was no mention of Ashoka until say under a century and a half ago.
Based around this nonsense their whole idea of a Mythological Akhand Bharat survives.
They marginalise muslims, christians, sikhs and dalits to give themselves special status and priviledges with better access to anything they want unlike the non hindus and dalits who suffer enormous prejudices.
Better rights to education, better housing, better sanitation, better living, better opportunities to find better jobs.
How is it within a little less thana century Muslims the most educated elite of India today are among the most impoverished, marginalised in the very lands that their ancestors left a great legacy for.
India is a fascist nazi regime and they live by a Aryan (Nazi) ideology where non upper caste Hindus are a hidden society within India with second class rights.
Why Gandhi referred to all non hindus as minorities ,this was his and Nehru’s idea of a united India – where muslims would be forced to live as second class citizens.
Moin sahib they suffer from a compulsive inferiority complex. They write so much nonsense about their mythological past with nothing substantive.
One has to look everywhere and see the legacy of The Muslims.
In 63 years while we were busy creating our nation fromt he grass root up – they wer ebusy stealing our history and have hijacked the Indus Valley also as being “their” past.
The vedics are a shizo – compulsive people nurturing a huge inferiority complex which will be the end of Nehru’s India one day.
Also do not cal us the same as Indians we are a different ethnicity and people to you, the British forges our lands witht he rest of the sub continent but we are nothing like you.
We find it abhorrent and disgusting to be called Indian or related to your kind.
Pakistan is the name we give our land today and it has existed in one for or another and we have lived here for 9000 years.
We are the Indus Valley Civilisation, we were Islamic Khorasan, we were Mughalistan and we are Pakistan today.
Our history and destiny is tied to Central Asia not east of the Indus.
We can co-exist as neighbours but you better begin treating us as your equals.
Hindu history is unsubstantiated and unverified their is no conclusive original text let alone preserved early manuscript to verify from.
There is missing credibility?
It is common knowledge that Hindu faith is legends – the stuff that is mad eout of folklore.
All historic figures have been repeserved in come form of authentic historic account or text “traced” back tot he time of it’s origin thousands of years back.
For instance Islamic history, Islamic Empires their acheiements carefully recorded in accounts and historic people also accounted for and their last resting place preserved. The same for Judaeo – Christian world, the same for Pre Islamic Persian History, The Romans, The Greeks (Although much of Greek history was destroyed and burnt by The Romans but revised by Arab scholars) – you can go as far back in history as you like – there is credible “authentic” historic account of people, their acheivements. All the great old cvilisations, Indus (Pakistan) Nile (Egypt) Mesopotamia (Baghdad/Iraq) and also China.
Indian re-writes begin 200 years ago which precipitate into a snowball effect over the last century and especially 63 years.
Greek mythology is describedas mythology even though it was their faith at one point in their timeline.
Hindoo history and faith is spurious to say the least.
Vague, ambigous and totally unverified.
The way Hindoos get the world to recognise their history or point of view generally is a common trait in India – shout loud and repeat over and over over until it precipitates into the mainstream.
But ask any historian / Academic and he will tear them to shred.
This is the same for their history, their faith and the way they promote their nation as a rising economic power, military power and the same goes for the way they marketed sympathy for Mumbai.
Bottom line you lack credibility and authenticity.
Vishal:
Greek contemporaries have reams of data on Greek kings and even Indian ones. Nothing is written on “Ashoka”.
Why?
Because he did not exist! Strange but true.
No evidence for Ashoka exists in any book–prior to James Princep’s false historiography. As a student of temple indoctrinated anthropology, kindly let us know the exact details with authenticated translation of places where the moniker “Ashoka” is mentioned.
Some of the pillars pre-date the so called timeline of “Ashoka”, and some even pre-date Buddhism. Ashoka was a farce created by the British.
Kindly present the evidence from contemporary Bharati or Greek literature which mentions “Ashoka”—prior to the claptrap of Pandit Radhakantta and James Princep.
Investigating history is a constructive enterprise–just like studying anthropology.
We do not accept free advice from strangers. When we need advice we pay for it.
Account by the Chinese Monk Fa-Hsien
of his Travels in India and Ceylon(A.D. 399-414)
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2124/2124-h/2124-h.htm
Sanskrit source
http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_sa/ashoka_sa.html
Greek have no mention of new world civilizations. Does it make them non-existent?
Unlike organic material, dating of stone artifacts can’t be done with much accuracy. It’s usually done by accompanying things in the layer they are found. So more reliable method is to match with script and language associated with the time in consideration.
Vsiahl:
Thank you for proving my point. Fa-Hsien visited South Asia hundreds of years after the so called existence of a conjured up entity called “Ashoka”. The non-entity was supposedly born in 304 BC and supposedly died in 232 BC, about six hundred years before the arrival of Fa-Hsien.
Fa-Hsien of his Travels in India and Ceylon (A.D. 399-414) does not contain the world “Ashoka”. It is pedagogical to note that When —Dr. Eitel’s “Handbook for the Student of Chinese Buddhism” appeared in 1870–
Any research done post Princep begins to count on the disinformation created by James Princep. What is needed is work on “Ashoka” during the 300BC era–and that does not exist. Tons of work on Alexander and all the kinds he interacted with or did not interact with–and no mention of “Ashoka” in any contemporary writing. What gives?
Are you proving my point or providing arguments against it. So far you have supported our claim.
It is true that the Greeks did not mention America–they did not know about it. However Greeks were present in South Asia at the time. In fact there were Greeks present in the areas supposedly ruled by “Ashoka”–even present in the city of his supposed birth—and no one noticed “Ashoka” either as a young man or a King. Why? because he did not exist and was in fact conjured by up Pandit Randhakantta and Sir James Princep. They did it for political reasons.
I am sorry, I don’t read Sanskrit, so I cannot comment on your “Sanskrit documents”. We have researched this for over two decades and have copious pictures and actual documents–once you begin to learn your real history, we will continue to educate you. Another expert in the area is Dr. Naveed Tajammal. He is an encyclopedia on the subject.
None of the Greek authors mention “Ashoka”:
Xenophon, Greek general, historian and essayist (c. 430 BC – after 357 BC)
Plato (originally Aristocles}, Greek philosopher (c. 427 BC – 347 BC)
Aristippus, Greek philosopher and founder of the Cyrenaic school (425? BC – 366? BC)
Ezra (Esdras), Hebrew scribe and priest (5th century BC)
Brennus, Celtic leader of the Senonian Gauls (fl. 390 BC)
Iphicrates, Athenian general (419 BC – 348 BC)
Diogenes (“The Cynic”), Greek philosopher (412 BC – 323 BC)
Phocion, Athenian general and patriot (402? BC – 317 BC)
Anaxandrides, Greek comic poet (fl. 370 BC)
Scopas, Greek sculptor and architect (400 BC – 320 BC)
Antipater, Macedonian general and statesman (398? BC – 319 BC)
Xenocrates, Greek philosopher (396 BC – 314 BC) -
Dionysius the Younger, Syracusan tyrant (c. 367 BC – 356 BC)
Antiphanes of Macedonia, Greek comic poet (fl. 360 BC)
Aeschines, Greek statesman and orator (389 BC – 314 BC)
Aristotle, Greek philosopher (384 BC – 322 BC)
Antigonus I (“The Cyclops”) (Antigonius), Phrygian ruler and one of Alexander’s generals (382? BC – 301 BC)
Demosthenes, Greek orator and statesman (382 BC – 322 BC)
Philip of Macedon, Macedonian king, father of Alexander the Great (382 BC – 336 BC)
Archidamus III, Greek king of Sparta (fl. 350 BC)
Demades, Greek orator and politician (fl. 350 BC)
Phryne, Athenian courtesan (fl. 350 BC)
Tachos, Egyptian king (c. 350 BC)
Pyrrho, Greek philosopher and skeptic (c. 376 BC – 270 BC)
Demodocus, Greek epigrammatist (4th century BC)
Mencius, Chinese philosopher (371 BC – 289 BC)
Theodorus of Cyrene, Greek philosopher (fl. 340 BC)
Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi), Chinese philosopher (369 BC – 286 BC)
Parmenio, Macedonian general under Alexander (fl. 335 BC)
Archestratus, Greek naturalistic poet (fl. 330 BC)
Philemon, Greek poet of new comedy (360? BC – 262? BC)
Pytheas, Greek mariner of Marseilles (c. 330 BC)
Alexander, the Great, Macedonian general and ruler (356 BC – 323 BC)
Apelles, Greek painter (fl. 325 BC)
Cercidas of Crete, Greek epigrammatist (c. 325 BC)
Menedemus, Greek philosopher (350 BC? – 276 BC?)
Appius Caecus Claudius (“The Censor”), Roman censor, dictator and poet, started building of Appian Way (fl. 312 BC)
Epicurus, Greek philosopher (341 BC – 271 BC)
Menander, Greek dramatic poet (c. 341 BC – c. 293 BC)
Qu Yuan, Chinese poet and patriot (340 BC – 278 BC)
Amphis, Greek playwright (4th century BC)
Bion of Smyrna, Greek popular philosopher and poet (c. 325 BC – c. 255 BC)
Euclid, Greek geometer (c. 323 BC – 283 BC)
Pyrrhus, Epirus king (318? BC – 272 BC)
Arcesilaus, Greek philosopher (c. 316 BC – c. 241 BC)
Appius Claudius Caecus, Roman orator (c. 312 BC – 278 BC)
Callimachus, Greek poet and grammarian (310 BC – 240 BC)
Vishal,
Does the tooth fairy exist also?
Even Father Christmas has more legitimacy as a real historic figure – agreed no where near the sensationalised idea of Father Christmas / Santa Claus as loved in the modern sense.
Santa Claus atleast stems from a real person or should we say the idea of Santa Claus came from the ideals of one man regardless of how accurate the assumption. We know a St. Nicholas did exist and is accounted for in the the great reel of history.
But Vishal is eager to join the dots based around legends, folk lore and a unwrit history, an unheard accurate history but sadly the source dot is not there.
The source is missing – because your idea lacks credibility as well as authenticity. it does wonders to galvanise the Hindu Imperial ideas that when mixed into an equally Imperial foreign policy does mobilise the masses in India.
Ask yourself if your history is wrong and you have no such destiny galvanising a people to support a archaic foreign policy – ask yourself for all the good you wish to come out of it, it will end up in misery.
India may loose it’s current embodiment also.
If we go by the kind of proof you are asking for..greek writings, even Jesus has no proof to his credit. New testament was written after 50-200 years of death of Jesus. That too, being a religious book(temple indoctrinated type to quote the editors) does not meet your criteria of concrete evidence. Oldest greek manuscripts are of 400 AD.
Chandragupta Maurya, grandfather of ashoka and contemporary of Seleucus is well documented in greek accounts. Mauryan Empire, empire at its peak was gratest of its time. Most concrete proofs are Asoka’s edicts. Asoka’s edicts are to be found scattered in more than thirty places throughout India, Nepal, Pakistan and Afghanistan. What else on the earth will convince you of his existence.
If Nobel prizes would have been instituted for history, I am sure your great discovery of proving asoka a myth would have won you one for sure.
Vishal:
>>New testament was written after 50-200 years of death of Jesus.
We will take 50 or even 200 years–but it must be authenticated. However you may understand that 2000 years later is a bit much! Why would it take twenty centuries to come up with a name, and a biography. Why was he ignored in any/all writings for hundreds of years?–because he did not exist!!!!
To your point—-The Four gospels of Luke, Mathew, Paul and John describe the life of Jesus in detail. The diaries of Ponchus Pilot is a matter of history. The Council of Nicea in 328, under the auspices of Emperor Constantine held lengthy discussion about Jesus. Additionally there is copious discussion of Jesus in Roman and Jewish records. The Talmud discusses Jesus at length as do the Gnostic Gospels as well as the Quran. The Dead Sea Scrolls discuss various versions of his “death”.
If you had the article you would have read the issues raised in the thesis. Ashoka’s name does not exist in any contemporary writing, Indian or Greek–even though Greeks were present in the towns “Ashoka” supposedly lived in. The Greeks were very meticulous in writing history–how could they miss one of the so called greatest emperors of Ancient South Asia?
The reason they did not mention “Ashoka” because he was not a real person–in all probability he was a composite figure, a character of fiction that looked good–one that could be used for the British agenda.
Obvioulsy you are incapable of reading, either the original article or the response to your comments–maybe you were busy planning other rapes—or else you would have seen the detailed discussion of the edicts of Ashoka. Some of the edicts of “Ashoka” preceded the time-line attributed to “Ashoka”–and some even precede Buddhism.
James Princep invented “Ashoka”. Thats a fact Jack. “Ashoka” did not exist before he conjured him up.
PS: Please read the article–it answers all the questions you could possible have–and does discuss the Muyras.
Why do you have double standards for historical proofs? Gospels are anyway religious writings and written at least many decades after death of Jesus, so can’t be taken as eyewitness account. Diary of Pilate is a psuedepigrapha created out of gospels and nobody takes it seriously. Pilate’s historicity can’t be verified by any primary sources.
“The difficulty for historians was that Rome was one of the most bureaucratic civilizations in history. The Romans kept records about every detail of life—births, marriages, adoptions, taxes, olive production, and legal documents. Along with the Roman legions, the official government records were a means to control the lands and peoples they conquered. So why is there a total absence of official Roman records concerning Pilate?”
The holy Koran was written centuries after jesus and I can’t see any logic in putting it as evidence by editors who have such strict standards for proofs. If religious scriptures are taken as proof then whole shelves of buddhist and sanskrit books can be counted to support asoka.
The article states that “new carbon dating methods have cast doubts over timeline of edicts.” I don’t know where from this scholastically writer got these studies. Even a child in archeology knows that carbon dating can’t be applied to stones, its scope is limited to organic remains. Just writing junk again and again won’t prove your points.
Absence of religious writing and buddha in edicts are natural for a king who believed equality of religions. Its usual in indian traditions, many kings (Like Harsha in later periods) have shown secular tradition of welfare state where King’s personal religious views were not imposed on public and all streams of indian philosophy including jainism, buddhism got patronage from state. Asoka was more concerned about duties and rights of citizen and the edicts show the same.
History can be easily distorted by selective reading to suit propaganda but that won’t help. All we know about past is in bits and pieces, and one needs to take things in context to make sense of it. Past is difficult to decipher and the task becomes impossible if you presume that you know it even before you investigate. Historical research is both an art and a science. Someone said it rightly
“Science is dispassionate”. Hope it helps
Vishal:
You have yet to provide any written proof of the existence of “Ashoka”–before James Princep conjured him up. You cannot provide this proof, because none exists. The article clearly lists the methodology used to date the pillars some of which predated “Ashoka” and some predated Buddhism itself. You cant have your cake and eat it too. On the one hand you say edicts/pillars were built by Ashoka, and when proof is given that some of them predated the so called “Ashoka timeline” you say the pillars cannot be dated.
Most of your discussion is based on conjecture and is your personal opinion. The article uses an overwhelmng body f evidence, artifacts, pictures, and references to prove the thesis.
I wonder where from this scholar has got the evidences datings etc. Ask anybody who has little knowledge of archeology, nobody even thinks of applying carbon dating to stone. If you can devise a method, it’ll be biggest enabler in understanding pre-history. So writing about such evidences and studies only dilutes the credibility of writer. It’s just like beating around bush.
I am tired of writing same points again and again. Proof in your sense means greek writings which are not there, other things you won’t believe. But that doesn’t make difference, the world believes. I retire from this discussion as I know it’s not going to get us anywhere. You are free to believe what you like.
Vishal:
You have not given us an iota of evidence of his existence. Your knowledge about the pillars and the edits is very limited.
“Ashoka” is a mythical figure (probably a composite figure) who did not exist before James Princep conjured him up.
Although he is a major historical figure, little definitive information was known as there were no available records of his reign until the 19th century.
These many edicts contain little personal detail about his life. The edicts are to be found scattered in more than thirty places throughout India, Nepal, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Some edicts in Afghanistan are written in Aramaic and Greek. Only ten with inscriptions still survive. Each pillar was originally capped by a capital, sometimes a roaring lion, a noble bull or a spirited horse, and the few capitals that survive. Scholars are skeptical about attaching any meaning to the pillars because the edicts say nothing about the philosophical aspects of Buddhism and some even pre-date Buddhism.
All these can be carbon dated:
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00routesdata/bce_299_200/ashoka/lioncapital/lioncapital.html
“All these can be carbon dated”
You cannot carbon date stone. Carbon dating is based on carbon-14 and stone has no carbon! Learn something before posting such rubbish.
Many of the pillars are not made of “stone”
Do you want the real truth? Here it is.
King Devanampiyathissa of Sri Lanka had extended reciprocal assistance to great Indian King Darmasoka, and had become the symbolic king in India
Introduction
We were taught to believe for thousands of years by our chronicles that Indian King Asoka came to power 18 years before Devanampiyathissa, and was so superior to the other kings in that period. According to that view when Devanampiyathissa of Lanka got priceless treasures on the day of his coronation thought those were too valuable for him and it only suits the great Indian king and had sent them to Asoka as a gift of respect. Aritta our chief minister and three others had accompanied them.
Further on they say King Asoka was very pleased to receive them and after counseling with his ministers Asoka bestowed on Aritta the rank of a commander in his army, and then sent his regalia, (the things which use for the ceremony of consecrating a king) to King Devanampiyathissa and informed him, that King Asoka had been converted to a Buddhist, and soon he would send Buddhism to Sri Lanka and until then asked King Devanampiyathissa to have a 2nd coronation using these Indian regalia. (Geiger, 2003, pp.79-80)
Our history scholars who believe in this story try to give us the impression that Asoka had the power to order our king to go for a 2nd coronation.
This paper shows that there is no evidence to prove such a view and actually the king of Lanka was the most powerful king in that period.
When did the Parinibbana of Lord Buddha take place?
There were two main opinions about the year of Parinibbana. First one was that the Parinibbana happened in 543 B.C. On the other hand Geiger and some scholars express that the parinibbana happened in 483 B.C.
U.N.O. also commemorated 2550th wesak in 2007 confirming the year 543 B.C. as the Parinibbana of the Lord Buddha. According to Sangarajawatha (Keerthiratne, 1893, ola leaves) the king Keerthi Shree Rajasinge ascended to the throne in 2290 Buddhist Era.
The difference between 2290 and 2551 is 261 years. And the 2008 A.D. tallies with the year 2551 B.E. When you subtract 261 from 2008 A.D. it comes the year 1747 A.D. We accept this year as the year Keerthi Sree Rajasinghe had ascended to the throne.
This mean our authors had counted the years by confirming 543 B.C. as the year of parinibbana of Lord Buddha.
Another fact in favors of the year 543B.C as the year of parinibbana of Lord Buddha is that a report about sending of an embassy by Lanka king Mo-ho-nan (Mahanama) to China in the year 428A.D.(Geiger, 2003. p.xl). But Geiger seem to prefer 483B.C. as the year of parinibbana and argues that Mahanama was not on the throne during this period only his elder brother Upathissa ii was ruling. Geiger’s first mistake was about Mahanama’s elder brother. He was not Upathissa ii but Upathissa i. (It could be a printing mistake)
The second mistake of Geiger was he strictly believed in 483B.C. as the parinibbana, and did not bother to calculate the years taking 543B.C. as the year of parinibbana. If so Mahanama’s period would be 410A.D.-432A.D. and that Chinese sources were correct.
According to Chinese sources another embassy came from Lanka to China, sent by king Kia-che in the year 527A.D. Geiger interpreted the name of the king as Kasyapa and was very happy to accept this year (Ibid,2003.p.xl).
I suggest this king Kia-che was not Kasyapa(477A.D.-495A.D.) but Keerthisena who came to the power in 520 A.D., 43 years after Kasyapa. From these Chinese sources it proves the year 543B.C as the year of parinibbana.
According to Epigraphia Zeylanica Vol. 1, king Mahasena died when 844 years 9 months and 25 days had elapsed since the demise of the Buddha. From King Devanampiyathissa to the death of Mahasena was 609 years. Therefore former came to the throne after 236 years (845-609) is equivalent to 247B.C. taking 483B.C. as the year of the demise of the Lord Buddha (Wickramasinghe and Codrinton, 1928, p.143).
Let’s calculate the dates in this way. The historians accept that the period of Mahasena was 276A.D.-303A.D. (Seneviratne, 1995, p.329). From 0 A.D. to 303A.D. there were 303 years. When we subtract these years from (Devanampiyathissa to Mahanama) 609-303, balance will be 306. These 306 years, we have to add to the 0 B.C. Then it comes the year when Devanampiyathissa came to the throne. That was 0+306=306 B.C. As King Devanampiyathissa came to the throne 236 years after the Parinibbana of the Lord Buddha we have to add that 236 to 306 then it comes the year 542 B.C. According to these calculations we have to accept that the Parinibbana of Lord Buddha happened in 542 B.C.,(This 1 year different we cannot take seriously as our chronicles used round figures for the period of kings.)
The history of Astrology seems to go beyond 3000 B.C. Sri Lanka astrologers as well as Indian astrologers confirm the year 543 B.C. as the year of parinibbana. According to them the year 2008 tallies with 2551 B.E.(Sisirakumara, 2008)
Our sources say exactly on this day prince Vijaya landed in Lanka from India. According to that:-
The list of the Ancient Kings of Lanka
No Name Length of Reign Buddh. Christian
Years Era Era
543 B.C.
1 Vijaya 38 1- 38 543-505
Interregnum 1 38- 39 505-504
2 Panduvasudeva 30 39- 69 504-474
3 Abhaya 20 69- 89 474-454
Interregnum 17 89-106 454-437
4 Pandukabhaya 70 106-176 437-367
5 Mutasiva 60 176-236 367-307
6 Devanampiyathissa 40 236-276 307-267
Some scholars say this 543B.C. was the year that king Bimbisara had the coronation and the correct method to calculate the parinibbana is to use the Dotted Record of Canton. According to that the parinibbana happened in 486 B.C. (Allahkoon,2006).
The Landmark in the History of Lanka
King Dutugamunu’s period was a land-mark in our history, because for the first time in our history, historical sources indicate the exact year of the accession to the throne of a king. Earlier the sources indicated the period of ruler ship of the previous kings, from Vijaya to Elara. According to them King Dutugamunu’s period was from 161B.C.-137B.C.
The list of the kings from king Devanampiyathissa
Name Length of Reign Buddh. Years Era
Devanampiyathissa 40 236-276
Uththiya 10 276-286
Mahasiva 10 286-296
Surasena 10 296-306
Sena & Guththika 22 306-328
(Indian usurpers)
Asela 10 328-338
Elara 44 338-382
(Rajawaliya, Ola leaves).
King Elara was killed in the war by Prince Dutugamunu and he unified the country in 161 B.C. (Seneviratne, 1995, p.329).
The period of King Dutugamunu was solidly proved by his brother’s son, king Vattagaminiabhaya(Walagambha). At Gal-vihara of Polonnaruwa, the king Vattagaminiabhaya had made an edict saying that he was making this after 454B.D. When you subtract these years out of 543 B.D. comes 89 years. The history scholars say that king Walagamba came to the throne in 89 B.C. for the second time.
Some scholars in Sri Lanka attempted to indicate that Asoka ascended to the throne before king Thissa. So they had pushed King Devanampiyathissa’s period to 250 B.C.-210 B.C. They also argue that the Parinibbana of Lord Buddha was in 483 B.C. According to it:-
The list of the Ancient Kings of Lanka
Name Length of Reign Buddh. Christian
Years Era Era
483 B.C.
Devanampiyathissa 40 236-276 250-210
Uththiya 10 276-286 210-200
Mahasiva 10 286-296 200-190
Surasena 10 296-306 190-180
Sena & Guththika 22 306-328 180-158
(Indian usurpers)
Asela 10 328-338 158-148
Elara 44 338-382 148-104
Dutugamunu 24 382-406 161-137
If you push King Devanampiyathissa’s period to 250 B.C.-210 B.C., then the periods of King Elara and King Dutugamunu will overlap, because king Elara who had been killed by King Dutugamunu will die in the year 104 B.C., after 33 years of Dutugamunu’s death which occurred in 137 B.C.
This shows that you can’t push Devanampiyathissa’s period as you wish.
Beginning of Mauryan Empire and King Chandragupta
Now we will turn to the period of Alexander the Great. He tried to invade whole India in 326 B.C.-323 B.C. When he was near the territory of King Danananda(the last of the Nanda dynasty) King Alexander had to give up his determination due to the exhaustion, infections and the starvations of his army. During this period Alexander the Great met a subordinate king Sandrakuptos, the grand-father of King Asoka, in Panjab. Sandrakuptos, was the name given to Chandraguptha by Greeks. He reigned from 325B.C.-301B.C. (Wikipedia, free Encyclopedia).
If we accept 543B.C. as the year of parinibbana, Chandragupta came to power 218 years after the parinibbana. He was a believer in Jainism.
Visakadatha in his Mudrakshasa says Chandragupta was known as ‘Piyadansana’ (Saranankara Thero,1963,p.34).
I agree to that. Chandra means moon. Chandragupta would have had a pleasant face similar to the moon. If so he would have had a pleasant appearance which means ‘Piyadansana’.
About 323 B.C. Chandraguptha killed King Danananda and ascended to the throne in Magadha. He was the first emperor of India. 49 years after this incident Prince Asoka succeeded his father king Bindusara, the son of King Chandragupta. That was in 274 B.C.
Now you see that Devanampiyathissa of Sri Lanka had become the king, 33 years before King Asoka.
The Edicts of Asoka
The archeologists found 33 of Asoka’s edicts and divided them into 2 categories such as Asoka’s earlier period edicts and later period edicts.
In the earlier period of edicts the letters were not accurate as those in the later period. In Neegrodha rock edict and Kahalatika rock edict say ‘lajina piyadasina dva dasaya vasabhithena iddan nigoha kuba dina aajivikehi’ after 12 years of his coronation Piyadassano had given this Nigrodha rock to aajeevaka(the priests of Jainism)
Another Kahalathika rock edict says after 19 years from the coronation it was given to ‘aajeevaka’ by Piyadassano to protect them from the rain.
In Bairath and Baraber rock edicts it only carried the name ‘piyadashi laja magadho. Who was this?
In the copy of Muski and Gujra minor rock edict says ‘Devanampiya piyadashi laja’. 5th rock edict it says about the consorts of Suseema and Vigathasoka who were Asoka’s brothers. In Alhabadh piller edict says about his 2nd consort Karuvaki and her dowry. I accept without doubt those later edicts belong to Asoka.
History scholars had found out that in xiii rock edict there were 5 names of the kings of other countries in that period which had been proved. They were Antiochos who was refered to Antiochus 11 Theos of Syria (261B.C.-246 B.C.), Ptoleny who was refered to Ptolmy 11 Philadephos of Egypt (285 B.C.- 247 B.C.), Antigonos who was refered to Antigonus 11 Gontas of Macedon (278 B.C. – 239 B.C.), Magas who was refered to Magas of Cyrene (300 B.C. – 258 B.C.), Alexander who was refered to Alexander 11 of Epirus (272 B.C. – 258 B.C.) (Wikipedia free Encyclopedia).
This rock edict must have been inscribed before 258 B.C., because out of those 5 kings Magas died in 258 B.C.(Allahkoon,2006)
King Asoka’s proselytism also expanded to the south of the Indian subcontinent such as Cholas, Pandya and Tamraparni name of a river in Thirunelveli district in southern part of India. The Chinese monk Hiyun-Siyan had seen Asoka’s ‘stupa’ in Pundawardana near Thamrapani(North Bengoal) but archeologists couldn’t find out them still(Saranankara Thero, 1963,p.).
The encyclopedia, Wikipedia says the name Tamraparni can also be interpreted as Tamrabane, an old name of Sri Lanka.
According to our chronicles King Devanampiyathissa of Sri Lanka was a great friend of King Asoka. Deepawamsa says ‘’Deve sathani ka vassani attarasa vassani ka sambudde parinibbuthe abhisitho piyadassano’’ which means 218 years after the parinibbana of Lord Buddha, there was the coronation of Piyadassano.
Who is referring here, as Piyadassana? Why didn’t it bother to mention the name Asoka?
Our chronicles say because of the friendship King Asoka sent his own son Thero Mahinda and daughter Theri Sangmitha who was accompanied by 8 brothers of Thero Mahinda’s mother and many other families. Even Theri Sangmitha’s son Sumana came to Sri Lanka with his uncle Thero Mahinda.
Yet why was not King Devanampiyathissa’s name mention in his inscriptions? Once a scholar, James Princeff had found a method to read the inscriptions of King Asoka. First he thought these inscriptions were made by King Devanampiyathissa of Sri Lanka. But a person from Sri Lanka had informed him that the name of Devanampiya was a title of honor given by King Asoka to king of Sri Lanka. (If it was so, that means King Asoka was much attached to king of Sri Lanka.)
Another surprising thing is there was not a word about 3rd council in Asoka’s edicts. Kern’s opinion was, there could be only a conference of Vibajji Sanga. While B.C.Lawe and E.J.Thomas also agree (Saranankara Thero, 1963,p,94).
Only Deepawamsa, Mahawamsa, Maha Bodhiwamsa and Samantha Pasadika mentioned about the 3rd council. In Chulla Wagga it mentioned only about 1st and 2nd councils (Ibid,p.94).
None of his edicts had mentioned about Thero Mahinda or Theri Sangamitta.
Though we believe that Asoka had converted to a loyal Buddhist, in his edicts he always mention the Brahmana first and then Sanga, as -‘brahmana samananan’. It couldn’t be a mistake, which took all over the places.
The International Relationship of Our Ancient Kings
Now we will come again to the period of Alexander the Great. Selucas Nicator of Syria was the ruler of the invaded areas of Alexander the Great after his death. Nicator appointed Megasthenes as his ambassador to King Chandraguptha Maurya’s court. There, ambassador Megasthenes reported that Sri Lanka had exported by crafts, elephants which were bigger and stronger than Indian elephants, Sri Lanka’s precious pearls were bigger than Indian ones and that Sri Lanka has much gold than India (Antoney, 2006, p.203).
Not only ambassador Megasthenes, but Onissicriters, King Alexander’s commander in chief, a Greek writer Plutarch, a Greek sailor Justin also had mentioned that Sri Lanka had flourished in international trade (Wikipedia free Encyclopedia).
These reports which proved that our kings were in the field of international trade before the period of King Asoka were made nine hundred years before we started to write our chronicles such as Deepawansa and Mahawansa.
Even King Pandukabhaya, the grand-father of King Devanampiyathissa who reigned from 437 B.C.-367 B.C., laid out near the west gate the ground set apart for Yonas (Geiger, 2003 p.74). They must be traveler traders from Greek or Arab.
I suggest that not only the kings, but their queens also had engaged in international trade. When Thero Mahinda came to Sri Lanka, on the second day he preached ‘Damma’ in the elephant stall. He preached ‘Chulla Haththi Padopama Suththa’. This Suththa show how to find out the best elephant.
By hearing this suththa, queen Anula who understood it well, approached to the first step of ‘Nirvana’.(Sothapathi). She was the first person in Sri Lanka to gain that success. How could she understand that? Because she was very interest in elephants and she knew every details about elephants. I think she personally engaged in elephant trade.
So then why did international trader King Devanampiyathissa send those valuables to King Asoka, instead of selling them?
The procedure of Coronation Ceremony
When someone goes for a coronation in a country he has to use that country’s own regalia. Otherwise he will not be recognized as the king of that country. I can give you a good example for that from India itself.
According to Mahawansa king Dappula iv in 924 A.D.-935 A.D. was the king of Sri Lanka. In this period, the king of Chola invaded another territory in India called Pandya. Then the king of Pandya who had no powers to face his rival, took his regalia and fled to Sri Lanka for political asylum. But because of the difficult situation in our country in that period, the king of Pandya handed over his regalia to our king for safety and had gone to Kerala, another territory in India. (Wethamuni, 2002, p.193)
Kingdom of Pandya has no king now. King of Chola could easily be the king of Pandya, because even the people of Pandya knew that the king of Chola defeated their king. Then could there be any other objections to prevent him to get on to the throne? Of course, there was.
The king of Chola couldn’t be the king there, as there were no regalia of Pandya. The king waited patiently for about 13 years. After the periods of 2 other kings, king Udaya iv came to the throne in Sri Lanka. He was a weak ruler. Then king of Chola, who wanted to be the king of Pandya, demanded for the regalia of Pandya from king Udaya of Sri Lanka. But though he was a weak character king Udaya, seeing his responsibilities refused to give them away. As a result king of Chola invaded Sri Lanka and took the regalia of Pandya with him. (ibid, p.194)
According to this example it is clear, by those Indian regalia, Devanampiyathissa had risen to the throne of India. No matter if it is 1st time or 2nd time if you want to become a king in a country, you have to use that country’s own regalia. If King Asoka was so powerful as we were taught to believe, if he wanted to show-off his supremacy, he must ask King Devanampiyathissa to go for a 2nd coronation, using Sri Lanka’s own regalia under the supervision of an ambassador of King Asoka.
Asoka and his Regalia
If Asoka had sent his regalia away out of his country it means he had very good purpose to do so. Because when there were no regalia in the country, it means the country was anarchical during that period. We consider the tooth relic as our regalia. We protect it and never let it be taken away out of the country even for the purpose of an exhibition.
King Asoka had sent his own regalia under the care of minister Aritta. The Indian regalia were the fly whisk made of the hair of a Yak’s tail, the royal sword, the white parasol, the pair of shoes, the turban, the golden chain, the pitcher, red sandalwood, yellow sandalwood, and a set of garments that had no need for cleansing. Even the water from river Ganges and red-colored earth and some royal virgins had been sent. (Geiger, 1912, pp79-80)
Asoka and Neegrodha Samanera
When king Bindusara was alive there was an uprising in Thakshila, where prince Suseema, Asoka’s elder brother ruled. As Suseema couldn’t sought out the matter Bindusara sent Asoka there. This only proves Asoka was the most powerful son among the weak sons of Bindusara.
Asoka who wanted to seize his brothers’ territories conquered those immediately after his father’s death. His father king Bindusara was fond of his elder son Suseema and wanted him to be the king. Asoka murdered his 99 brothers and his father’s ministers cruelly. Because of that he was known as Chandasoka which mean wicked Asoka among the people. King Asoka due to his power hunger waged war against Kalinga unlike our great kings who made the country self sufficient before engaging in a war.
It took him 8 years to conquer Kalinga. It is said about one hundred fifty thousand people died, around three hundred thousand people suffered and faced many disasters.
I believe that Asoka couldn’t go beyond Kalinga to face strong south Indian kings including our king. After the Kalinga war he was so helpless exhausted.
Our chronicles didn’t want to accept this fact say after the Kalinga war he was contemplating the evils of the war and one day when he was looking out of the window saw 12 year Neegroda samanera walking by. The king was very pleased by his walk invited the small samanera to the palace. After listening to the sermon of the samanera and being convinced by the Buddha Damma he became a Buddhist.
Do you know who Neegroda samanera was? He was the only son of Asoka’s eldest brother, Suseema, who had been murdered by Asoka himself. This period he was known as Chandasoka(wicked Asoka). Is it possible to believe that 12 year old samanera would walk by Chandasoka’s palace?
Writers have attempted to make the reader believe that Asoka gave up ‘Dig vijaya’ because he became a Buddhist, hiding the fact that by this time he had become exhausted and weak and was unable to face the powerful rulers of the south including the king of Sri Lanka.
The Actual Relationship between Asoka and Devanampiyathissa
I suggest that we must look analytically and logically at the relationship between King Asoka of India and King Devanampiyathissa of Sri Lanka.
Our chronicles say that King Devanampiyathissa had sent horse pearls, elephants pearls wagon pearls, myrobalan pearls, bracelet pearls, ring pearls, kakuda fruit pearls, Common pearls, Saphires, Beryls Rubies and Jewels in heaps. At the foot of Chata-mountain there grew up three bamboo stems in girth ever as a wagon pole. One was Creeper-stem(Latha), one was Flower-stem(Kusuma), and the other one was Bird-stem(Sakuna) (Geiger, 2003, p.78).
Why did our king send so many bamboos like Latha, Sakuna, Kusuma? May be you will suggest that the king had sent these bamboos because the stick stands for the symbol of the kingdom. For that purpose one stick would do.
I suggest that Devanampiyathissa had donated all these to King Asoka who needed it very badly. After the Kalinga war Asoka and his country was so helpless. To his surprise King Devanampiyathissa came to his rescue, with precious pearls worth billions, which Asoka could sell to Greek merchants and could, rebuild the country. Those many different kinds of bamboo sticks lead us to think that those were for many purposes such as for constructions of buildings, to use for orthopedic treatment for the wounded soldiers of Asoka, etc.
But he was not sure whether King Devanampiyathissa gave this reciprocal assistance in bonafide. Anyway he must get into good terms with King of Sri Lanka, because King Asoka wanted to make sure that one day king Devanampiyathissa will not pose a challenge to him.
I suggest that after counseling with his ministers King Asoka made a plan. According to that King Asoka would send his own regalia, the earth from his kingdom and the water from river Gangi to the king of Sri Lanka and would ask him to be the symbolic king of India. Further King Asoka wanted to show that he was faithful to King Devanampiyathissa. So he made Sri Lanka’s minister Aritta, a ranker in his army. Otherwise there was no other reason to give kingdom powers to complete outsider.
Why did King Asoka send earth and water? To solve this problem first we have to go to the period of King Darious the Great of Perssia. After conquering the Egypt, in 522B.C. King Darious declared a war against king Periclease of Athens. When he understood that Periclese couldn’t fight furthermore, he sent his ambassadors to Athens and demand for water and earth of the country to show their defeat. But the arrogant people of Athens threw them into a well, to seek the water and soil.
Secondly we have to come back to South India, to the period of King Rajendra 1 (1012/14 – 1044A.D) of Chola. According to the literature of ‘Sangam’, he was the only southern king who conquered North India. One of his captains took water from river Gangi and poured it to reservoir in Chola as a symbol of their winnings. Then king Rajendra 1 was known as ‘Gangei Kondaye’, which means he had conquered the kingdom which has the river Gangi.
This mean with Indian regalia, water from river Gangi and the soil from the kingdom of Magadha, King Devanampiyathissa had a 2nd coronation and had become the symbolic king of India by the invitation of King Asoka.
Otherwise there was no other reason for our king to go for a 2nd coronation. Did Indian king Ajasatha, who killed his own father; go for a 2nd coronation after he became a loyal Buddhist? That means there is no relationship between the conversion to Buddhism and the kingship of a country.
Why did King Asoka send his regalia out of India? Why didn’t he invite King Devanampiyathissa to India? That was because at that period King Devanampiyathissa was too old to travel to India.
Devanampiyathissa’s grandfather King Pandukabhaya got married in his twenties and ascended to the throne when he was 37 years. And he ruled the country for 70 years. That means he lived for 107 years. Though we don’t know his successor son Mutasiva’s age when he rose to the throne, he could have being over 60 years. (The Crown Prince Charles of Great Britain, who is 63 years, is still waiting for the throne)
King Mutasiva ruled the country 60 years. It means when Mutasiva dies prince Devanampiyathissa must be over 60 years, and he came to the power 33 years before Asoka. Considering the years of Kalinga war this must be king Thissa’s last year.
Thero Mahinda came to Lanka after the death of Devanampiyathissa. It proves by the parinibbana of Thero mahinda and Theri Sangamitta. Pali Mahawamsa says clearly that Thero was 60 years when he attained the ‘nirvana’ at the 8th year of king Uththiya.
If Thero had come in the year of Devanampiyathissa’s coronation he would have lived here 48 years. It means he had to come to Lanka when he was 12 years old. That’s not impossible to believe, but with Thero there was Sumana samanera(the son of Theri Sangamitta) who was 12 years old.
Though the history scholars tried to interpret the Pali-verse by saying that chronicles show the rainy seasons which he had spent, after converting to priest-hood, it is impossible to believe of such a custom. If we do believe that then Thero had come when he was 20 years old and Theri had come when she was in 18 years old. Then what about the age of Sumana saamanera. He was 12 years, that means Sangamitha had given birth to him when she was 5 years old.
I suggest Thero Mahinda came to Sri Lanka when he was 52 years old, in king Uththiya’s period as a state duty. That’s why there were no inscriptions of King Devanampiyathissa in Sri Lanka.
From the request of Thero Mahinda, king Uththiya sponsered a scholarship. As result of that 220 families came to Sri Lanka. Theri Sangamitta brought the sacred Bo tree to show their gratitude for it.
The Title of Honour
What about the title of honor the name ‘Devanampiya’ which means beloved of Gods? Who gave this to whom? History scholars suggest this name was given to Devanampiyathissa by King Asoka. Then how could other kings of Lanka used this title of honor? The name Devanampiya was used by King Uththiya, King Dutugamunu, king Saddhathissa, King Walagamba and many other kings up to the king Upathissa ii who serve the country and the religion, till they changed to another title of honor ‘Sangabodhi’.
Dr. paranavithana suggests in his ‘Inscriptions of Ceylon’ that the title ‘Devanampiya’ was assumed by Thissa on the imitation of the Mayara Emperor and that he was first to do so. I agree to a part of his statement. That King Devanampiyathissa assumed this title of honor not because of the purpose to imitate, but he was going to be the king of India. As a mark of respect Asoka inscribed this title of honor in his inscriptions which means he was ruling the country on behalf of our king.
Conclusion
Though the history scholars tried very hard to impose an inferiority mentality in the nation of Sinhala, I have no fear to say among the kings in that period, our King Devanapiyathissa was the greatest.
According to the reasons I have discussed he was superior to so called King Asoka the Great of India.
Mrs.Thilaka Randeni,
145/2, Galle Road, Colombo 06, Sri Lanka.
T.P.011-5623850/ 0718-434566
thilakarandeni@yahoo.com
http://www.thilakarandeni.lk
References
Allahkoon,H.(2006) Buddha Jayanthiyada? Bimbisara Abhishekayada? Mavbima 29 Oct.p.29
Antony,J. (2006) Maha Sinhale Wansakathawa, M.D.Gunasena, Colombo.
Geiger,W. (2003) The Mahawansa, Buddhist Cultural Centre, Dehiwala.
Keerthiratne,S.(1893) Sangarajawatha AB13Ola leaves collection of Colombo Museum.
Rajavaliya, AP7Ola leaves collection of Colombo Museum.
Saranankara Thero, Ganegama(1956) Baudha Mahadiraja Asoka ha sellipi, Albert Edirisingha Seneviratne,A. (1995) Purana Anuradhapuraya Archaeology Department, Colombo.
Sisirakumar, R.K.R.(2008) Lanka Ephemeris &Almanac R.K.Agbo Ranjith Sisirakumar.
Weththamuni, W. (2002) Sarala Sinhala Mahawansaya, Sri Devi Printers, Dehiwala.
Wickramasinghe,D. M. De Z. & Codrinton,H.W. (1928) Epigraphia Zeylanica Vol. 1.
Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia, On line. Retrieved 2008.5.8. http/en wikipedia.org/wiki/Megasthenes.
Ibid, On Line. Retrieved 2008.5.8. , http/en wikipedia.org/wiki/ Chandragupta Maurya.
Ibid, On line. Retrieved, 2008.5.8. http/en Wikipedia.org/wiki/Asoka.
CHANDRA does not mean MOON;
MS thidaka, history of india and Lanka basically is all created after the facts; NO contemorary record exists neither in Lanka nor india. Akhbar navees has a “Provocative” point of view that needs serious consideration and research.
Ashoka is likes of Mythical SOLOMON,DAVID,SAUL etc; Records were created for these but Archealogy/ now written records disproves the biblical myths.
Chand/chandra, only means beautuful/good looking according to Dravidian etymological dictionary ( last word in Dravidian );It is a dravidian word. More recent miseast import is MAH for moon in persian in essence a sumeian adjective meaning great used all over in skt and arabic. We in india use ” Chandr-MAH ” beatifull moon, PURNI-MAH–full moon, and A-MAH-vasya, moonless night. MAH , sumerian adj is found in FATI-mah, great opener/conquerr in arabic.
Dr.Abdul Jamil Khan, thank you very much for your information about chandra.
In Sinhala chandra means moon. And some of our intellectuals think that in the era of King Rawana Lanka had given many things to the world.
Actually it is stupid of me to be a raciest and believe in it without having strong proofs to prove it.
But do you ever heard it was in a clay pillar in Iraq saying that Sinha people came out of sky had given them the culture.(This pillar and many valuable things has been destroy by lunatic Americans when they invaded Iraq.
But don’t you think Dr., what a coincident that from the Sinhala word chandra, I gave the meaning-pleasant appearance, and from the Dravidian word also give the meaning good looking.
It means Chandraguptha had a nice appearance.
Furthermore I want to say that I don’t agree there was any plot between Pandit Radhakantte and Princep. Because it was in Sri Lankan Chronicles many centuries ago. Deepawamsa in 4th century A.D., Mahawamsa 5th century A.D. and many oters such as Maha Bodhwamsa(Pali)(Sinhala)
Actually there was some sort of plot to show Chandraguptha Mauyra’s grand son was greatest king in that period.
May be his name Asoka, and after he came to the throne he took anoter name. This same custom is practice in Japan, and England also, isn’t it?
So please don’t be ina hurry to say Asoka is a myth. Though I am a fan of king Rawana, I always say to my people “Don’t waste your words. Wait, till we have more information about our most worshiped king Rawana. Thank you again.
Sinhala language.
Ms Thilaka, chand is moon, as a secondary meanings. As i said even Mah of persian is a secondary word for moon. Oldest word for moon is ” NANA” hinghest god of sumerian; Persian word is a compound of Mah ( great) and tab/tav/tap( heat); thus later Mahtab became MAH moon in persian. In skt moon is SOMA and we have SOM war for Mon day –day of moon god. Word month is also from mon.
Your idea abt clay pillar abt sinhala people in Babylon is new to me .Will appreciate a reference for it if possible.
I will not argue abt RAVANA etc as these are mythical personal belief likes of RAM/KRISHNA, MOSES, SOLOMON DAVID etc; NO historical evidence but part of DIVINE FAITH. BUT your country’s name itself , LANKA is from austric family e.g malaysian etc meaning simply an ISLAND. AS we have GANGA meaning just a river in the same language family.
YOUR language sinhali/singhali ( lion language) had evolved from Austric + Dravidian families and NOT from SKT; It is like urdu or hindi. This is detailed in my work on history of urdu/hindi etc.
ALL languages came from Africa via mideast all reached in varous regions after advent of farming in mideast , abt 12,000 yrs ago. THIS is the current state of art now.
Dr.Abdul Jamil Khan,
Sorry. I am stil serching for the clay tablet. Somebody infoemed me it was found in month of April in 1998. And it was telecast in American History Channel. I will let you know as soon as I got the correct information.
My Sinhala language is very rich and there so many similar words to one word.
I don’t believe about Africa for everything.I will tell you something to you. In Sri Lanka we have a mountain called Adam’s peak. Actually it is a matured than Himalaya. We worship this peak as we believe that Lord Buddha had his foot print there. Do you know Hindus and Muslims also come to worship this mountain. Hindus think their God Siva was standing on this mountain and had practiced ‘bavana’ and one of his foot went down the peak and had this foot print. Do you know what Muslims think about this foot-print?
When almighty god saw that Adam and Eva were eating the forbidden thing he threw them away and Adam’s foot had this foot print as it was a hard throw. So it means the God had created the man in the top of our mountain Sri Pada.(That is how Sinhala people call it)
Do you know even Iban Bathutha came to worship it? So how can we depend on Africa?
It is good Ms Thilaka ji that you have such an strong faith in Adam, Buddha, shiva etc. Faith is blind faith and never a substitute for history. I will really appreciate whenever you rediscover that Sighala tablet from Baghdad.
History means nothing except taking comfort over the source of your genes. India had the greatest rulers and emperors ruling it since Indus valley civilization times, and so did Ceylon and so did Nepal, Bhutan, China, etc…So what? Think of it, you fighting morons. What changes your lives because of these?
It is another matter that a sect amongst Indian race calles itself Pakistanis in the name of the islamic barbarism committed a 1000 years ago in Sindh and Punjab. For them it is a question of nationalistic pride which is required to be differentiated from India’s.
“India” is named after a river in Pakistan “the Indus”. You should call your country on the Ganges “Ghanghia” or Bharat “Bhanghia”.
I think not, that this mountain is worshipped by Muslims.
Before the British came there was NO INDIA and NO INDIAN RACE by your logic your dad is The British which is exactly what is being suggested by rupee news. Indian History begins with the British as does the beginning of India, thebeginning of Hinduism and thus they are your architects and they are your Siva.
What nonsense you write, one must repay your ilogic in the same way.
Emperor Sahib, it is not that we WANT to be different. The problem is we ARE different.
About 70% of Pakistanis are Caucasoid by race, 20% Australoid- Negroid, and 10% Mongoloid in their overall genetic composition. Majority of Pakistanis are tall with fair skin complexion, similar to Central Asians, Middle Eastern and Mediterranean peoples. While the racial features of each ethnic group are not uniform, Pashtuns are the most Caucasoid, followed by Kashmiris, Baluchis, north Punjabis, and then Sindhis, Seraikis, Urdu-speakers, etc.
Pakistanis consider themselves to be the descendants of the Ghauris, Mughals, Durranis, Suris, Lodhis, Ghazni who ruled the current Pakistani territory for close to a thousand years. The Pakistani population consists of mostly Indo-Aryans. A significant chunk of the population is Afghan/Pashtun and Irani/Baluchistanis. The Pashtun are an integral part of Pakistan’s establishment. It can be said there are two Pashtun countries in the world, Afghanistan and Pakistan. This ethnic group has contributed many of Pakistan’s presidents & prime ministers(Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zafarullah Khan, Liaqat Ali Khan, Feroz Khan). Their are more Pashtuns in Karachi than Kabul. Hamid Karzai, though critical of Pakistan, referred to Pakistan and Afghanistan as conjoined twins. This group also inflicted defeat after defeat on what is now republic of india. People of Iranian ancestry have that have taken leadership positions include Benazir Bhutto and the current prime minister Gilani who visited his ancestral homes on a trip to Iran. Arabs settled along the Indus and Omanis settled in the enclave of Gwadar. Still other Pakistanis are descendants of Mongols, Mughals and Turks in addition to Persians, Sakas, Parthians, Hephthalites and Greeks. The great Mughal emperor Akbar was born in Sind. Sher Shah Suri was born in Multan. Ayub Khan emir of Afghanistan and destroyer of Anglo/Indian army is buried in Peshawar a hero to both countries. His grandson fought for Pakistan leading a division in 1965. Although Pakistanis are proud of ancient civilizations such as the Indus and their South Asian heritage, Pakistanis the people consider Pakistan the state as a natural extension of the Southwest Asian Muslim experience of the last 1000 years.
About 50% of Indians are Australoid-Negroid by race, 35% Caucasoid, and 15% Mongoloid in their overall genetic composition. Majority of Indians are darker in their skin complexion, with wider noses, shorter heights, etc. The Australoid-Dravidoid racial element dominates among the lower caste Indians, South Indians, Eastern and Central Indians, etc. The Caucasoid racial element dominates in Northwest Indians and higher caste Indians. The Mongoloid racial element dominates in Northeast Indians and border regions with China.
Balgir (2004)[10] designates tribes as Australoid or Proto-Australoid according to language family:
It may be mentioned here that the major scheduled tribes of Orissa belong to three linguistic groups, namely, Indo-Aryan or Indo-Europeans, i.e. Non-Australoid, Austro-Asiatic (Mundari) speakers, i.e. Proto-Australoid, and Dravidian (Gondi or Kuvi) speakers, i.e. Australoid. Proto-Australoid racial group includes Bhumiz, Gadaba, Juang, Kharia, Koda, Kolha, Mahali, Mirdha, Munda, Santal and Saora tribes. Tribes like Bathudi, Bhatra, Binjhal, Bhuyan, Lodha and Saunti belong to non-Australoid racial stock while Australoid racial stock is represented by Gond, Kondh, Kissan, Oraon, Paraja and Pentia Halva tribes.
Kashyap (2006)[11] designates 23 out of 54 Indian populations studied as Australoid, of which one speaks an Indo-European language (Dhangar of Maharashtra), 4 speak Austro-Asiatic languages (Kurmi of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar Kurmi of Bihar, and Juang and Saora of Orissa), and 18 speak Dravidian languages. 7 populations were designated as Mongoloid, and the remaining 24 as Caucasoid. No Proto-Australoid category was used. Note: Som
Buddha was in Sri Lanka, mahavir was in India.., Indian influence always have revert the perfect history in sri lanka, they have started making Ram a hero and made Ravan an Evil, they have destoryed pure buddhism by messing the mahavansha and Buddhism by inserting their hindu gods…
Sri Lankans are not coming from Indians, they have their own 30,000 years of history. Truth will be revealed soon, of they honestly accept their own things and let Sri Lankans to rise up.
Thank you
pakistan didnt exist before 1947
america didnt exist before it was discovered
uk didnt exist until it came under a single rule
china didnt exist before it was referred to as china and neither did anyother modern day country so whats the hype?
Lets answer this flame bait anyway–so that the rest of us can see how barren the thinking of these Bharatis (Raj) is.
The country that makes up Pakistan, the Indus, the Himalayas, and the land has always existed since time immemorial. They used to call it Melhula, and Mekan–we call it Pakistan today–it has always existed.
History is not bound by Western discovery of lands. What do you mean America did not exist before Columbus discovered it. Arab and Chinese sailors visited it as far back as the 10th century. Thousands of Native American tribes lived there. It has existed for millions of years.
China has always existed in some form or the other–not sure what your point is
Ashoka never existed. No contemporary Greek or South Asian historian has any inkling about him–and he surely was not Payadasa. He was probably a composite figure conjured up by James Princep and Pandit Radhakantta-and thats a fact Jack
Here I have come again after a long time. Sorry Dr. I still couldn’t find that clay tablet which I believe.
But I thought I will make a small comment for harshad. It is very easy to understand what he says.
Columbus had discovered the land, which belong to Red Indians.(The name was given to them by Columbus) Now when we talk about America, are we refer to the one which Columbus found or are we refer to America which white people govern?
Duke of Mountbatten divided a vase land in Asia in 1947 and named one part of it as India and the other part as Pakistan. Again Mrs.Gandhi helped to divided Pakistan and here comes The Bangladesh.
Earlier U.K also parted to so many countries and now it is U,K.
Surely you understood that Mr.Akhbar So please don’t try to pull the legs of the commentators.
Please don’t think if the world war 111 begins that all the Muslims will survive. So don’t spread the hate, angry, evil to the world. We all will die. No Mighty God could help us.
Hi, I have come back again.Mr.Akhbar Navees I think I can understand, what Mr.Harshad meant.Though the geographical land exit the names of the countries had changed. Pakistan got her name after Duke of Mountbatten divided the land of Asian peninsula. Again she was divided into two with the support of Mrs.Indira Gandhi, and that was Bangladesh.Mrs.Gandhi tried to divide our country also like that, but we are more lucky than you.
Thus all the countries in this world sometimes known in very different names which do not exit now.America is not in that name before Columbus gone there.She was belong to Red Indians.
In any chance if America distroys do you think we will be able to survive? So the best thing is love each other. Please do not hate mankind.
Evidence for Asoka:
Dear Akhbar bhai,
Dr Romilla Thaper has dealt abt this subject in detail and is forthright in accepting that indian hsitory is british created for their own politics as has been Aryan semitic hokus pokus.Btw she too discards aryan/semites as fiction.
Writing abt Ashoka, she mantions a new inscription of 1915 in which Asoka identifies himslf as piadasi ( early india) Here is something challenging for us to investigate but meanwhile i will accept her as legitimate.
This has been discussed at length in the article–if you had read it.
“Asoka” didin’t identify himself as “Payadasa”. One of the pillars mentions “Payadasi”, other pillars pre-date Ashoka’s so called timeline, and other pillars even pre-date Buddhism tiself or Buddha’s timeline.
I am surprised you didn’t see this issue mentioned in the article.
None of the contemporary Bharati or Greek authors discuss “Ashoka”. Amazingly the Greek lviing the so the called home town of Ashoka fails to mention him!!!
You say that South Asia was divided into two? The British Indian Empire included Iraq, Somaila, Afghanistan, Aden, Burma, Nepal and Lanka during its ebbs and flows. Why isn’t any of independence given to those countries called “partition” of division. Would it not be true that South Asia was actually divided into several parts and the “Indian Union” (original and contitutional name) was a conglomeration of 560 states stitched together into a contraption that have never been consumated.
For the French “India” was Indo-China, for the Dutch “India” was Indo-nesia and for the Dansih, and other European East India companies various parts of Asia were called “India”. For Columbus America was “India” and other travelers saw “India” in the West Indies.
Churchil was right “India is as much a country as the equator”.
Not sure what you said. Can you say it in English please
the better question is did muhammad exist?
If he did not exist, you guys have nothing to worry about!!!!!!
BTW: Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. That must really hurt you guys!!!!!!
@ lonewolf
That is the reason you are a lonewolf of messed up kind.
The only personality that is historically proven by massive literature from both Muslims and Non-Muslims is Muhammad (pbuh).
Eat your heart out dumb STUPID.
No salaam to you.
the earliest sources of muhammad was created centuries after his death. read “did muhammad exist?” by robert spencer and prove it wrong
Robert Spencer never disputed the existence of prophet Muhammad.
Let facts intrude:
Prophet Muhammad is the most documented figure in religious history.
I guess the letter to King Negus, the Roman and Byzantine Emperor was written by a ghost!! I guess the prophets daughter’s did not exist, and Hasan and Husain were simply humans of someone’s imagination!!! I guess according to you the Quran did not appear in the 7th century. So the copies of the Quran written in the time of the prophet are all forgeries!!! The documents signed by the prophet in Medina and Mecca were signed by a apparition, and those who waged war against the prophet were waging war against an idea that was conjured up hundreds of years later. The grave of Muhammad in Medina where millions visit every year is the grave of someone who did not exist!!!!
http://www.kalamullah.com/Books/The%20letters%20of%20the%20Prophet%20Muhammad%20to%20the%20Kings%20beyond%20Arabia.pdf
Bravo!