A Critical Review
of Romila Thapar’s
By Kalavai
Venkat
21 July 2003
The first striking feature of this revised edition of Thapar’s A History of India is that barring rare exceptions, none of the claims and sweeping generalizations she makes in this book, as in the earlier edition, is annotated by any references. Thapar calls such historians of stature as K. A. Nilakanta Sastri and R. C. Majumdar “nationalistic” and whose interpretations she claims “were biased by nationalistic sentiments”.[1] The reader wishes that Thapar had at least meticulously backed her arguments with references to primary sources, as those historians did. For a serious student of history, this book would indeed be a disappointment because there is no way the reader could validate the often outlandish claims, by referring to the primary sources. For the historical neophyte, this book could be dangerous, as students consume it unquestioningly. Ultimately, it is not difficult to understand why Thapar hasn’t bothered to provide corroborating references for her claims: many of her claims have no basis.
The very first chapter “Perceptions of the Past” reads like a political pamphlet where she sets up the BJP[2] as her political rivals, and uses her supposed historical tomb as if it were an op-ed piece, to lambaste the Sangh Parivar.[3] She even falsely claims that in the Hindutva[4] worldview the Christians and the Muslims are not regarded as the inheritors of India.[5] It is bad enough to settle contemporary political scores in a book on Ancient Indian History, it is worse to resort to lies and hate-speech as the means to achieve that. On the same page, she claims that the Hindus of the 1920s accepted AIT[6] because that helped the upper-caste Hindus to identify themselves with the British. It is not surprising that sections of colonized Indians accepted AIT, as it was the prevailing theory then. It would have been nearly impossible for most Indian academics to oppose AIT in a colonial India because many British academics didn’t tolerate any opposition to AIT. At times, they even resorted to no-holds barred attack on the Indian scholars who challenged the imperialistic paradigms.[7]
What Thapar fails to mention, rather conveniently, is that large sections of very influential Hindus of that period, Swami Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo for example, as well as several academics like A. C. Das, had opposed AIT. Ironically, it was one of Thapar’s mentors, A. L. Basham, who continued to support AIT even in the 1960s. Today, several archeological excavations[8] have established that there has been no Aryan invasion or break in India’s civilization. Yet, it is the historians of the Marxist school of India,[9] like Thapar, who still continue to propagate the myth of AIT.
Her discussion of IVC/SSC[10] is no more accurate and up to date than it would have been three decades ago in the original version of this book, for in this much heralded revised edition she does not even take cognizance of the numerous archeological and satellite imaging discoveries of the past two decades. The discovery of numerous archeological sites on the banks of the erstwhile Sarasvati, about which the Vedas talk in glorious terms doesn’t merit any attention in her book. There is no mention about such things as the mapping of the paleo channels of the Vedic Sarasvati. Instead, Thapar objects to calling the civilization SSC and argues that even though far more numerous sites have been found on the banks of the Sarasvati than the Indus, they had not reached the threshold of quality to rename the civilization![11]
Thapar argues that the signs of urbanization were less noticeable at these sites. She doesn’t tell us what qualifies a site as urban. If it is size then the number of sites to the east of the Indus that were about a hundred hectares was no less numerous than those to its west.[12] More importantly, the sites on the eastern side, such as Kalibangan, reveal utilization of advanced techniques in crop cultivation.[13] The techniques from these ancient times are still in use in Punjab today. Likewise, excavations at Kalibangan reveal that its residents not only fortified their Lower Town,[14] a feature unknown in Mohenjo-daro, but also showed ingenuity by making their houses termite-proof.[15] In fact, Lothal, a port to the east of the Indus, was not matched by anything similar to the west of the Indus.[16] Stone statues have been found in Dholavira,[17] a rarity among the Harappan sites.
If diversity were the factor, then one should acknowledge the importance of the Sarasvati side of the civilization as it had more to offer. If the size of the urban centers were the factor, then the ones on the banks of the Sarasvati were comparable to those on the banks of the Indus. If sheer number of sites unearthed were the factor, then we have more on the banks of the Sarasvati than the Indus.[18] Gregory Possehl points out[19] that most of the agricultural produce of IVC/SSC came from the Sarasvati system. Jane McIntosh, pointing to the density of the clusters of sites even declares[20] that calling that civilization IVC is actually a misnomer, as the Sarasvati played a far greater role in nourishing it.
McIntosh[21] says that though some of the sites like Lothal were smaller than Mohenjo-daro, internally they were very complex structures. The same author also draws our attention[22] to the finds by the leading archeologist J. P. Joshi of huge settlements varying between 100 and 225 hectares in size on the Sarasvati part of the civilization. The sites identified - Dhalewan, Gurni Kalan I, Hasanpur II, Lakhmirwala, and Baglian Da Theh - are all located within a small area along the Sirhind stream [a tributary of the Ghaggar] within 30 km of each other.
Thapar vigorously opposes the renaming of Indus Valley Civilization to Sarasvati Sindhu Civilization, but fails to tell us the reasons for her opposition. Instead of objectively receiving the archeological evidence, she accuses the archeologists, both Indian and foreign, of projecting an Indian home of the Aryans[23]. Negation at its best! It is indeed sad that Thapar should without question or even a modicum of academic objectivity, stick to AIT or AMT[24] and shy away from discussing contrary evidence. Ironically, though Thapar is on the defensive these days in her public lectures and vehemently denies that she ever subscribed to AIT, she still replaces it with the equally baseless AMT.
In this book itself, she unmistakably argues in favor of AIT.[25] Here, Thapar argues that there is archeological evidence at Kot Diji[26] to support AIT. She even implies, on the same page, that the supposed destruction finds mention in the Rig Veda, but as is often her ploy, fails to specify the verses. Which verses, Professor Historian? Ironically, Thapar doesn’t realize that the example of Kot Diji that she cites, actually demolishes her case for AIT/AMT.
Kot Diji belonged to the Regionalization Era[27] of IVC/SSC. This phase was the final critical one that led to the formation of urban centers. This phase thrived between 3300 BCE and 2600 BCE.[28] The ash layer present at this site is indicative of destruction by fire. Assuming that the invading Aryans were the destroyers, as Thapar implies, one must then accept the presence of the Aryans in IVC/SSC even before its Mature [i.e. urban] Phase had started. The Marxist historians defiantly claim that the Aryans invaded India only towards the end of the Mature Phase of IVC, which is around 1900 BCE.[29] If that were the case, how could the Aryans have been the destroyers of the Kot Diji settlement? This brings up another interesting question: Was there really an intentional hostile destruction[30] at Kot Diji? Kenoyer[31] tells us that the fire at Kot Diji needn’t have been intentional [and hostile], that the settlement was rebuilt at once and that there was strong continuity in ceramics and other artifacts suggesting that the inhabitants were not replaced by a new culture. Thus, Thapar falsely portrays a non-hostile fire at Kot Diji as wanton destruction by the Aryans, even before they are supposed to have arrived at IVC/SSC! She conveniently suppresses the facts regarding the continuity of the culture before and after the fire.
Thapar claims[32] that the horse was unknown to the people of IVC/SSC and says that it was irrelevant to them ritualistically. The obvious implication being that for the Aryans, the horse was very important, as it supposedly finds several mentions in the Vedas, and hence the Aryans couldn’t have been the architects of IVC/SSC. This claim is contrary to the facts. Lal has summarized evidence that unequivocally points to the presence of the horse.[33] Apart from the terracotta figurine from Lothal, he lists the finding of a second upper molar. He also lists the findings of horse bones from Surkotada and Kachcha, an identification that has been endorsed by Sandor Bokonyi.[34] Lal also draws[35] the reader’s attention to Jarrige’s find of terracotta horse figurines from Nausharo. It is certainly true that horse remains and artifacts depicting the horse from IVC/SSC have not been numerous, but they definitely belie Thapar’s claims that the horse was non-existent in IVC/SSC.
Even pretending that Thapar is correct, it is simplistic to argue on this basis alone that IVC/SSC was a non-Aryan civilization. If we are to assume literal meaning for the use of the word asva in the Rig Veda and that the Aryans introduced the horse to IVC/SSC during the Pirak phase,[36] then we are faced with a more interesting question: Is there a quantum jump in the finds of horse remains during and after the period the Aryans are supposed to have invaded the IVC/SSC? The answer is a clear no. We find such a jump only posterior to the end of the Pirak phase. Likewise, if the Aryans had indeed invaded IVC/SSC between 1900 BCE and 1400 BCE, one would expect to see several horse remains in such potential staging points as BMAC,[37] in the period just anterior to this. Much to the disappointment of the proponents of AIT, such evidence doesn’t exist either. So, far from strengthening the claims that the lack of horse remains in IVC/SSC points to the Aryan invasion, the lack of such remains in BMAC and other potential staging spots, a pre-condition for any invasion to have occurred, weakens the proposition of AIT.
This leaves the question of horse a vexed one. Did the word asva[38] necessarily always mean the horse in the Rig Veda? Sri Aurobindo convincingly argues[39] that the words go [40] and asva are constantly associated in the Vedas, as in gomati[41] or asvavati[42]. So, they can’t refer merely to the physical steed. Instead, he says, that they symbolically refer to light and energy respectively. He draws our attention to the conception of vyahrtis and ritam in the Vedas. It is also worth mentioning that the Rig Veda itself explicitly states that its words are metaphors and not literal.[43] It is ironical that Thapar, who negates all explicit and graphic descriptions of atrocities by the Islamic invaders against the Hindus, despite the contemporary epigraphs and chronicles detailing them, reads literal meaning into the Vedas regardless the Vedas cautioning against such. A classic case of bending the evidences to fit the theory?
[1] Romila Thapar, Early India, University of California
Press, February 2003. ISBN 0-520-23899-0 cloth [here after referred to as EI]
pp. 16
[2] BJP - Bharatiya Janata
Party, the largest constituent of India’s multi-party National Democratic
Alliance [NDA].
[3] Sangh Parivar - All
socio-political organizations sharing the same Hindutva ideology.
[4] Jagmohan, Hinduism and Hindutva: What Supreme Court
says?, The Hindustan Times, January 8, 1996. Available at: http://www.hvk.org/articles/0103/352.html. Paraphrase:
The Supreme Court of India has defined Hindutva as a way of life based on
traditional practices from every walk of life, and has declared that it can’t
be equated with sectarian religious practices alone. Hindutva is also the ideology of a cohesive
group of social and political organizations in India that are concerned about
safeguarding Indian traditions and providing a sense of common identity to all
Indians, irrespective of their religious affiliations. The Hindutva
organizations are opposed to
discrimination based on one’s religious affiliation that has been the bane of
Nehruvian India. It is to be noted that India has separate civil laws based on the
Islamic Sharia’t for the Muslims,
even allowing such obscurantist practices as polygamy and denial of alimony to
the divorced Muslim destitute women.
[5] EI pp. 14
[6] AIT - Aryan Invasion
Theory, which proposes that the Aryans originated outside of India and invaded
India. There is no unanimity on their point of origin or their date of entry
into India, nor is there any archeological evidence for any such invasion,
though the theory itself has become mainstream due to mere repetition.
[7] A. C. Das, Rig Vedic India [1920] had
proposed a greater antiquity and Indian home for the Vedas, presenting
geological and geographical evidences. Instead of objectively reviewing the
evidences, A. B. Keith dismissed the work in the following words [letter quoted
Ibid pp. 47]: “…The fact that for many generations no one has felt the
difficulties you have raised and most of them do not appreciate them as and
argument of considerable weight against their validity.”
[8] B. B. Lal, India 1947 - 1997: New Light on the Indus Civilization
J. M.
Kenoyer, Ancient Cities of the Indus
Valley Civilization.
[9] JNU - Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi, where Thapar taught, is the bastion of Marxism. A
handful of historians, Thapar included, had colluded for well over 4 decades to
present a distorted version of India’s history. This cabal had also indulged in
several financial irregularities, as Arun Shourie demonstrated in his book Eminent Historians: Their Technology, their
Line, their Fraud. Though adept at politicking, these historians often
lacked knowledge of India’s Classical languages [Appointment of Professor Romila Thapar to the Kluge Chair at the
Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
An Open Letter of Protest http://www.bharatvani.org/klugethapar.html
see “A. Prof. Thapar’s Lack of Required Skills”] and shied away from public
debates over their methods of history writing. On one occasion, an associate of
Thapar, K. M. Shrimali, made the cardinal error of appearing on a television
debate. Much to the chagrin of the Marxist historians, he was shown completely
lacking in knowledge of the Vedas and other old Sanskrit texts, which are key
to understanding India’s past. It was indeed a pathetic day for the Marxist
historians, as one of their ilks couldn’t present a line of evidence for the
false claims regards beef eating in ancient India that he made, and was exposed
in the full view of the television audience. A member of the audience even
brought forth copies of the Vedas and read verses from the Vedas condemning
beef eating, thus falsifying the Marxist claim. The audience demanded that K.
M. Shrimali point to the verses to substantiate his claims. The Marxist
historian couldn’t. [Ibid pp. 40 - 43]. These Marxist historians have perfected
suppressio veri suggestio falsi into
an art!
[10] IVC/SSC - Indus Valley
Civilization or Sarasvati Sindhu Civilization.
[11] EI pp. 78
[12] Kalibangan, Banawali,
Lothal, Surkotada, Rakhigarhi and Dholavira were some of the major urban centers
on the Sarasvati side of the civilization, while Harappa and Mohenjo-daro were
on the Indus side.
[13] B. B. Lal, India 1947 - 1997: New Light on the Indus
Civilization, pp. 57, for details regarding the oldest agricultural field
in the world unearthed at Kalibangan.
[14] Ibid pp. 19
[15] Ibid pp. 21
[16] Ibid pp. 67, for a
discussion on Lothal, “The Earliest
Dockyard Known To Humanity”. This site served as the conduit for sea
trade. The boats plied through a river that connected the dockyard to the Sabarmati,
which in turn flowed into the Arabian Sea.
[17] Ibid pp. 40
[18] A total of 2600 sites have
been identified so far, a large number of them on the Sarasvati plains.
[19] Gregory L. Possehl, Indus Age, the Beginnings, pp. 53
[20] Jane R. McIntosh, A Peaceful Realm - The Rise and Fall of the
Indus Civilization, pp. 24
[21] Ibid pp. 88 - 89
[22] Ibid pp. 104
[23] EI pp. 69
[24] AMT - Aryan Migration
Theory is the new avatar of AIT. Ever since archeological and other evidences discounted
the probability of AIT, its dogmatic adherents like Thapar have switched over
to propounding AMT. As per this theory, the Aryans still came from outside, but
in trickles, without leaving any archeological trace. Now with AMT, it is not
even necessary to present any archeological evidence, as pastoral immigrants
supposedly leave no traces. So, the hypothesis itself becomes proof too!
[25] EI pp. 88
[26] Kot Diji - An IVC/SSC
settlement from the North West.
[27] J. G. Shaffer, The Indus Valley, Baluchistan and Helmand
Traditions: Neolithic Through Bronze Age for a discussion on this.
[28] J. M. Kenoyer, Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley
Civilization, pp. 40
[29] B. B. Lal, India 1947 - 1997: New Light on the Indus
Civilization, pp. 113 - 115 for dating.
[30] There could have been
intentional non-hostile destruction
too. Burning settlements to get rid of pestilence was a known practice.
[31] J. M. Kenoyer, Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley
Civilization, pp. 42
[32] EI pp. 85
[33] B. B. Lal, India 1947 - 1997: New Light on the Indus
Civilization, pp. 109 - 113.
[34] Ibid pp. 111 quoting Sandor
Bokonyi: “Through a thorough study of the equid remains of the pre-historic
settlement of Surkotada, Kachcha, excavated under the direction of Dr. J. P.
Joshi, I can state the following: The occurrence of true horse [Equus Caballus
L.] was evidenced by the enamel pattern of the upper and lower cheek and teeth
and by the size and form of incisors and phalanges [toe bones]. Since no wild
horses lived in India in post-Pleistocene times, the domestic nature of the
Surkotada horses is undoubtful. This is also supported by an inter-maxilla
fragment whose incisor tooth shows clear signs of crib biting, a bad habit only
existing among domestic horses which are not extensively used for war.”
[35] Ibid pp. 112
[36] Dated 1800 BCE - 800 BCE,
J. M. Kenoyer, Ancient Cities of the
Indus Valley Civilization, pp. 177
[37] BMAC - Bactria Margiana
Archeological Complex.
[38] Asva - Horse, when literally translated, but also means [spiritual]
energy in the metaphoric constructs of the Rg Veda.
[39] Sri Aurobindo, The Secret of the Veda, pp. 44
[40] Go - Cow, when literally translated, but also means [accompanying]
light or knowledge in the metaphoric constructs of the Rg Veda.
[41] Gomati - Accompanied by
[the] light [of knowledge].
[42] Asvavati - The manifestation of knowledge in the mind of the seer
as spiritual energy.
[43] Rig Veda 1:164:45
[44] EI pp. 85
[45] B. B. Lal, India 1947 - 1997: New Light on the Indus
Civilization, pp. 92 - 99
[46] Parsis - Followers of
Zoroastrianism. They fled Persia under Islamic persecution and took refuge in
India, which welcomed and embraced them with open arms, just as it had embraced
the Jews and the Christians at an earlier time. The Avesta of the Parsis has
some similarities with the Vedic texts. Since the Parsis are fire worshippers,
fire altars were a feature in their worship too, though these altars were
structurally different from the Vedic.
[47] V. H. Sonawane and R. N. Mehta, Vagad - A Rural Harappan Settlement in Gujarat: Man and Environment, Vol. IX, pp. 38 - 44
[48] Jane R. McIntosh, A Peaceful Realm - The Rise and Fall of the
Indus Civilization, pp. 121
[49] EI pp. 107, pp. 113.
[50] David Frawley, A Reply To Michael Witzel’s Article “A Maritime
Rigveda? How not to read the Ancient Texts”, The Hindu, 25th
June 2002 available at: http://www.bharatvani.org/davidfrawley/ReplytoWitzel.html.
[51] Rig Veda 10:95
Satapatha Brahmana [Madhyandina] 11:5:1:1
Baudhayana Srautasutra 18:44 - 45
[52] Willem Caland, Eene Nieuwe Versie van de Urvasi-Mythe. Album-Kern, Opstellen Geschreven Ter Eere van Dr. H. Kern, pp. 57 - 60. Translated from the original Dutch by Koenraad Elst, and compiled by Vishal Agarwal.
[53] Chintamani Ganesh Kashikar, Baudhayana Srautasutra [Ed., with an English translation, 3 volumes, volume III, pp. 1235: “Ayu moved towards the east. Kuru - Pancala and Kasi - Videha were his regions. This is the realm of Ayu. Amavasu proceeded towards the west. The Gandharis, Sparsus and Arattas were his regions. This is the realm of Amavasu.”
D.
S. Triveda, The Original home of the
Aryans, ABORI volume XX, pp. 49 - 68: “The Kalpasutra asserts that Pururavas
had two sons by Urvasi - Ayus and Amavasu. Ayu went eastwards and founded Kuru
- Pancala and Kasi - Videha nations, while Amavasu went westwards and founded
Gandhara, Sprsava and Aratta.”
[54] Baudhayana Dharmasutra 1:1:2:10
[55] Kalakavana is modern day
Allahabad.
[56] Adarsana - the spot where the Sarasvati disappears in
the desert
[57] Baudhayana Dharmasutra 1:1:2:11
[58] Ibid 1:1:2:14
[59] Ibid 1:1:12:15
[60] Baudhayana Srautasutra 18:13
[61] EI pp. 107
[62] J. P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo Europeans, pp. 37:
The Mittani Treaty was signed between the
Hittites and the Mittani. The king of the latter invokes both the Hurrian Gods
as well as a few others whose names are cognate with that of the Vedic deities
Mitra, Indra, Varuna and Nasatya.
The Kikkuli Horse training manual, which goes by the name of
its Mittani author, is a Hittite text on horse training and chariotry. It
deploys numerals that are cognate with the Indic numerals eka, tri, pancha,
sapta and nava.
A Hurrian text from Yorgan Tepe employs a few words cognate
with those in Indo-Aryan to describe the color of the horses - babhru, palita and pingala.
[63] IA - Indo Aryan.
[64] Around 250 BCE, when Ashoka
ruled.
[65] Kshatriyas - Kings and
warriors among the Aryans.
[66] J. P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo Europeans, pp. 38
[67] EI pp. 114
[68] EI pp. 106. Here, Thapar
claims that IA incorporated elements of Dravidian and Munda and states that
these languages [what she means is language
families!] were known only to India. This naturally means that the
Dravidians, in her opinion, were the original residents, and the Aryans, the
invaders. Other Marxist historians like Irfan Habib have been more vocal about
the Dravidian authorship of IVC/SSC, while Thapar just alludes to it.
[69] R. Thapar, The Aryan Question Revisited, hosted by
the web page of the Academic Staff College, JNU: http://members.tripod.com/adm/popup/roadmap.shtml?member_name=ascjnu&path=aryan.html&client_ip=198.81.26.45&ts=1058079070&ad_type=POPUP&category=teens&search_string=asc+cjnu+cnew+delhi&id=b4758c95dc3e6602e7263ad00a45ad05.
Here Thapar argues: "There has been a lot said about for example words for
flora and fauna, animals particularly. Why is it that the elephant is called
not by any other generic name but is called "mrga hastin", "the
animal with a hand". It is because these people [the Aryans] were unfamiliar with
elephants, and the elephant is of course is a very familiar animal from the
Harappan seals."
R.
Thapar, [Ed.] K. N. Panikkar, T. J. Byres, U. Patnaik, The Making of History, Essays Presented to Irfan Habib, “The Rg Veda: Encapsulating Social Change”, pp. 21
[70] Kamil Zvelebil, The Smile of Murugan On Tamil Literature of
South India, pp. 23 - 45, for a discussion on these dates. The dates
assigned by Zvelebil are reasonable, though not always correct. There are other
estimates.
[71] Akananuru 211:7 - 8. Venkatam is modern Tirupati.
[72] Ibid 27:6 - 8
[73] Purananuru 389:9 - 11
[74] Akananuru 276:9 - 10
[75] Mullaippattu 35
[76] Vatamozhi, literally meaning the
Northern language, was the term used
to refer to Sanskrit.
[77] Malaipatukatam 326 - 327
[78] EI pp. 114
[79] Rig Veda 1:140:2, 8:33:8, 10:40:4
[80] Ibid 10:106:6
[81] Ibid 9:57:3
[82] Arun Shourie, Eminent Historians: Their Technology, their
Line, their Fraud, pp. 9. R.
Thapar is closely associated with the fundamentalist and highly obscurantist
Sunni Waqf Board, which is opposed to granting alimony to destitute Muslim
women, who have been arbitrarily divorced by their husbands. In the highly
politicized Ayodhya case, R. Thapar appeared as witness number 66 on behalf of
the Waqf Board.
[83] R. Thapar, Times of India, October 2, 1986. In her
letter, R. Thapar claimed that the Hindus had destroyed the Buddhist and the
Jaina monuments. Quoted: http://www.bharatvani.org/books/htemples2/app4.htm
[84] Arun Shourie, Eminent Historians: Their Technology, their
Line, their Fraud, pp. 99.
[85] Sita Ram Goel, Hindu Temples: What Happened to them? Volume
II, The Islamic Evidence, Appendix 4, available at: http://www.bharatvani.org/books/htemples2/app4.htm.
[86] RNI - Resident Non-Indians,
a term coined by Rajeev Srinivasan, a columnist with Rediff.com, Patriot Games and resident non-Indians http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/may/22rajeev.htm.
This refers to those born in India and of Indian descent, but hate its culture
and spare no attempt to distance themselves from the same or denigrate it
through means often foul. Brown on the outside, but white within [vicariously
fantasizing themselves to be the colonial masters whom they willingly serve],
they are also called coconuts!
[87] Light of Truth Award for Indians, http://headlines.sify.com/1546news3.html?headline=Richard%7EGere%27s%7E%27Light%7Eof%7ETruth%27%7Eaward%7Efor%7Eindians. Richard Gere said, "No
nation has helped the Tibetans more than India. Its contribution remains
unparalleled as the displaced people have not only been able to rebuild their
monastic institutions but have also prospered materially." One may note that the Tibetans came to India
as refugees, after the Communist China invaded Tibet, and created a blood bath.
It is worth noting that the Marxist historians of India have no harsh words for
such acts of genocide perpetuated by the Communists.
[88] EI pp. 102, pp. 277
[89] EI pp. 103 - 104
[90] EI pp. 160, pp. 217
[91] EI pp. 182
[92] EI pp. 223
[93] EI pp. 282
[94] Arun Shourie, Eminent Historians: Their Technology, their
Line, their Fraud, “Maybe perhaps,
probably mostly …. Therefore”, pp.157 - 177, for an excellent deconstruction of similar Marxist
chicanery in D. N. Jha, Ancient India, An
Introductory Outline
[95] Purananuru 2:13 - 16
[96] Bharatam Padiya Peruntevanar, Peruntevanar
who translated the Mahabharata, wrote the invocation hymns to a few Sangam
anthologies such as Akananuru, Purananuru, Kuruntokai, Narrinai and
Ainkurunuru. His translation of the Mahabharata has not come down to us, though
he has attained fame for that.
[97] Purananuru 378:16 - 21
[98] Kishkinda Kanda, Canto 6 depicts this scene differently. Here,
Sugriva presents the jewelry tied in a scarf to Rama, and tells Him that Sita
had dropped them. The narration of the monkeys wearing that jewelry is not
found in the original.
[99] Akananuru 70:15
[100] Koti, Dhanushkoti, a location in Southern coastal Tamilnadu.
[101] Akananuru 251:5, 265:4 - 6
K. A.
Nilakanta Sastri, Age of the Nandas and
Mauryas, pp. 12, draws our attention to the immense wealth of the Nandas
that Xenophon alludes to. So, it is reasonable to assume that the Tamil poets
were referring to a tradition that has its roots in history.
[102] Akananuru 69:10 talks of the roads that the Mauryas had laid for
their chariots to ply.
Ibid
281:8 talks of the expedition of the Mauryas to conquer the South.
Purananuru 175:6
[103] Thapar carefully uses the
terms legend and tradition, while
referring to this Christian myth, regardless the fact that this tradition is a 14th century
AD Portuguese concoction, while any
Hindu tradition, however well attested literarily, is invariably called a myth.
See,
Ishwar Sharan, The Myth of Saint Thomas
and the Mylapore Shiva Temple, available at http://hamsa.org/index.htm, for a very
systematic and thoroughly referenced deconstruction of the myth of St. Thomas.
[104] EI pp. 279
[105] An Islamic myth, as found
in the Fath al Bari, a collection of Hadiths. As per this myth, Prophet
Mohammad started from Mecca, traveled to Jerusalem and then to the seven
heavens where he had auditions with the previous prophets, all in the course of
a night!
[106] Mullaippattu 66
[107] EI pp. 387
[108] EI pp. 234
[109] Akananuru 211:7 - 8. Venkatam is modern Tirupati.
Panamparanar,
Tolkappiyam, Invocatory hymn, states that
the land where Tamil was spoken extended between Tirupati and Kumari.
[110] EI pp. 401
[111] EI pp. 356
[112] D. N. Jha, Ancient India, An Introductory Outline, pp.
66
[113] EI pp. 404
[114] D. N. Jha, Ancient India, An Introductory Outline, pp.
115 - 116
[115] EI pp. 280 - 282
[116] Silappadikaram, Lay of the
Anklet is one of the 5 epics from the Tamil country.
[117] EI pp. 345
[118] V. R. R. Dikshitar, The Silappadikaram
[119] Ibid Appendices I and II
[120] V. R. R. Dikshitar, The Silappadikaram pp. 350 - 353
[121] Tolkappiyam, Poruladikaram 186. A superficial reading of this verse
misleadingly suggests that the ideal education should be confined to 3 years of
studying. This is ridiculous because the wise grammarian couldn’t have been
restrictive about learning. Nacchinarkiniyar, the medieval commentator of the
grammatical treatise, gave the more meaningful interpretation that the
reference is to the realization as expounded in the Vedanta.
[122] V. R. R. Dikshitar, The Silappadikaram pp. 353 - 357
[123] Ibid pp. 14
[124] Ceremonial union of the
wife with her parted husband, in his funeral pyre or in burial.
[125] EI pp. 304
[126] J. P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo Europeans, pp. 93
[127] Ibid pp. 184
[128] H. L. Jones, The Geography of Strabo, 15:1:30, 62
[129] Purananuru 246
[130] Ibid 256
[131] Tolkappiyam, Poruladhikaram 77
[132] N. Subrahmanian, Sangam Polity, pp. 300. He draws the
attention of the readers to Kural 56, where the sage delineates the duties of
the wife towards her husband and the need for her to keep her honor. He almost
repeats the same message, a rarity in his pithy expression, in the next couplet
where he says that a prison is of no avail if a woman can’t keep her honor.
Subramanian argues that this is an allusion to the reality that a woman
choosing to lead the spartan life of a widow has none but herself to guard her.
In the very next couplet, the sage says that the woman who earns the
opportunity of serving [following] her husband shall earn the blessings of the
gods of the heaven. The author says that this could be construed as the sage
approving sati.
[133] Manimekhalai XVI
[134] Purananuru 250
[135] S. K. Aiyangar, Beginnings, pp. 145
[136] Manusmriti 156 - 160
[137] Purananuru 280
[138] G. L. Hart, The Poems of Ancient Tamil, Their Milieu and
Their Sanskrit Counterparts, pp. 115
[139] EI pp. 342
[140] Manusmriti 156 - 160
[141] K. A. N. Sastri, Foreign Notices of South India, From
Megasthenes to Ma Huan, pp. 203
[142] EI pp. 285
[143] V. R. R. Dikshitar, Gupta
Polity, pp. 44 - 52, lists them: Abhinavabharati XVIII, Sringaprakasha
XII, Natyadarpana, Natakalakshana Ratnakosha, and an Arabic work Mujmalu-t-Tawarikh.
[144] Ibid pp. 44
[145] Ibid pp. 45
[146] Ibid pp. 47, Dikshitar says
that according to some other sources, this king who fought Rama Gupta was
Rudrasena II.
[147] Mujmalu-t-Tawarikh
[148] V. R. R. Dikshitar, Gupta
Polity, pp. 48
[149] Ibid pp. 46, quoting Ep.
Ind., XVIII, pp. 235 ff
[150] Ibid pp. 46, quoting Ep.
Ind., VII, pp. 26 ff
[151] EI pp. 287
[152] V. R. R. Dikshitar, Gupta
Polity, pp. 58 - 65
[153] The terms Dravidian and Dravidianist must be distinguished. The former is a very benign
term used in the geographical sense. It was originally used to denote the
Brahmins of the South, the Pancha Dravidas, just as those of the North were
called Pancha Gaudas. Later on, during the medieval times, this term was used
to refer to all Southern people. In the mid 19th century, this term
acquired a linguistic connotation when Bishop Caldwell classified the Southern
languages as belonging to the Dravidian family. It was in the year 1886 AD that
the upper caste non-Brahmin students of the University of Madras were told by a
British governor, Mountstuart Grant-Duff that they belonged to the Dravidian
race. That was when this term acquired racial connotation. The next 2 decades
was spent in searching for a pedigree for this newborn race! V. Kanakasabhai Pillai proposed a
Tibetan Homeland of the Dravidian race! This race was to include only the upper
caste non-Brahmins and was to exclude the Brahmins, the Backwards and the
Harijans.
Blended
with the divisive AIT, the notions of the Dravidian race were used by E. V.
Ramaswami Naicker, to further his political career by spewing hatred on the
Brahmins. He often thundered that he would physically eliminate the Brahmins
from Tamilnadu. He declared that the Brahmins were outsiders. To date, the
Marxist historians feed such hate campaigns. So, the Dravidianists are those
who usurped the term Dravidian, gave
it a political and racist connotation, and used it for their hate agenda
against the original Dravidians!
[154] EI pp. 232
[155] EI pp. 231
[156] EI pp. 337
[157] EI pp. 381
[158] EI pp. 356
[159] EI pp. 350, 351, 355, 356,
362
[160] Purananuru 183:8 - 10
[161] Pazhamozhi 21. Pazhamozhi
means adage. It seems even in the early medieval times, this was considered a collection
of older proverbs.
[162] Ibid 310
[163] Tolkappiyam Poruladhikaram 28
[164] Ibid 29
[165] Ibid 31
[166] Ibid 615
[167] Ibid 627
[168] Ibid 616
[169] Ibid 622
[170] Ibid 625
[171] Tirukkural 133
[172] Ibid 134
[173] Ibid 351
[174] Ibid 543
[175] Perumpanarruppadai 300 - 301
[176] Silappadikaram 22:109 - 114
[177] Purananuru 9:1
[178] Akananuru 24:1
[179] Silappadikaram 13:38 - 40. Adiyarkkunallar, the medieval
commentator, says that even though music itself originated from Sama Veda, by the
time of the epic in discussion, the orthodox society considered it a deviation
on the path of the Brahmins if they turned away from Vaidiha lifestyle; and
hence the notion of such musician Brahmins having been inauspicious.
[180] Paripadal 8:51 - 55
[181] Purananuru 201:6 - 10
[182] Ibid 126:11 - 13
[183] Ibid 367:12 - 13
[184] Patirruppattu 64:3 - 5
[185] Panans were a jati of
people who played on their lute.
[186] Perumpanarruppadai 301 - 310
[187] Appar, Tevaram, “4th
Tirumurai”, “Namacchivayat Tiruppatigam”
[188] Appar, Tevaram, “4th
Tirumurai”
[189] Tirujnanasambantar, Tevaram, “Alavai Patigam”
[190] Tirumantiram 1721
[191] Paripadal 5:22 - 30
[192] Perumpanarruppadai 302 - 304
[193] Inna Narpatu 1 - 3
[194] For example, Sambantar, Sundarar,
Manickavasagar, Periyazhwar etc. were Brahmins.
Kamil
Zvelebil, The Smile of Murugan On Tamil
Literature of South India, pp. 192 estimates that thirty five percent of
the Bhakti saints were the Brahmins. Not everyone agrees with this estimate though;
but suffice to say that the Brahmins constituted a large number of the Bhakti
saints.
[195] EI pp. 386
[196] Nalayira Divya Prabhantam, “1st
Tiruvandadi”, 11, 63 - 64, 88,
94.
[197] EI pp. 231
[198] Purananuru 34
[199] Kurinchippattu 15 - 18
[200] EI pp. 231
[201] Dilip Chakrabarti, Colonial Indology – Sociopolitics of the
Ancient Indian Past, pp. 2 - 8
[202] In the jacket of EI, Thomas
R. Metcalf, hails Thapar as one of the
world’s most eminent historians of India!
[203] T. R. Metcalf and B. D.
Metcalf, A Concise History of India