Jump to content
Guest Jagsaw_Singh

Some more Home Truths

Recommended Posts

Guest Jagsaw_Singh

Re; the DNA Test' thread on the main page:

Quote

Persian would have influenced Punjabi because Punjab was under the control of Mughals

Come on now Ranjeet. Tut tut....I thought you would have been well aware that well before the Mughals arrived Punjab spent many centuries as the easternmost (and richest) province of Persia (iran).  Punjab's attachment with India is the new invention....It's attachment with Iran is the historic one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Guest Jagsaw_Singh said:

Re; the DNA Test' thread on the main page:

Come on now Ranjeet. Tut tut....I thought you would have been well aware that well before the Mughals arrived Punjab spent many centuries as the easternmost (and richest) province of Persia (iran).  Punjab's attachment with India is the new invention....It's attachment with Iran is the historic one.

Jagsaw

What was the name of the Satrapy that Punjab was part of.

I just find it strange that Alexander pretty much took over the Persian Empire, Persopolis was burnt down but still faced stiff resistance in Punjab. 

Surely if the Macedonians /Greeks took Persian wife's and the Persian way of life and even had Persian troops join their ranks (please correct me if I'm wrong) then the local Punjabis should have accepted them with open arms since we are from these same people.

Also, if Punjab's connection with India is very recent how do you explain Ashoka or the Maurya Empire?

I think there are a lot of gaps and inconsistencies in what is conventially taught. 

This is just my layman's opinion and I am no expert.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Jagsaw

What was the name of the Satrapy that Punjab was part of.

I just find it strange that Alexander pretty much took over the Persian Empire, Persopolis was burnt down but still faced stiff resistance in Punjab. 

Surely if the Macedonians /Greeks took Persian wife's and the Persian way of life and even had Persian troops join their ranks (please correct me if I'm wrong) then the local Punjabis should have accepted them with open arms since we are from these same people.

Also, if Punjab's connection with India is very recent how do you explain Ashoka or the Maurya Empire?

I think there are a lot of gaps and inconsistencies in what is conventially taught. 

This is just my layman's opinion and I am no expert.

yeah well the Hindian's like to alter history to suit ...look at the monkey sena changing history to say battle of Panipat was won by Hindus ...oy Vey....next they will say there was never a mughal empire ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

yeah well the Hindian's like to alter history to suit ...look at the monkey sena changing history to say battle of Panipat was won by Hindus ...oy Vey....next they will say there was never a mughal empire ...

Never denied that wasn't an empire. 

However, I think that there is a degree of overlap between cultures.

I think some of us Sikhs like to disclaim so much of our Hindu heritage/ancestry that now we are claiming to be Persians

Vedic hindu culture and some ancient Persian culture (like Zorastrianism ) have a lot in common. 

It is more likely many thousands of years ago, we were all the same stock of people but we have diverged since.

History is a lot more murkier and complex than we like to admit.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jagsaw_Singh

Re; the 'Free Jaggi Now' thread on the main page:

Quote

If there is a sample letter I can use, I will write to my MP.

No, no, no, no my friends. Please do not all be using identical template letters. This is about human emotion, human rights. It's about appealing to the humanity behind the receiver of the letters at the news organisation, MP's office or Foreign Office. It's about showing how a human, who happens to be British born and bred, has been brutalised by an inhuman regime (India). You don't get that point across by sending robotic identical letters to people that receive thousands of computer generated appeals everyday. Don't hand them the opportunity to see this as just another one of those mass letters they get. To appeal to their human side you need to express your own emotions as a human.

The next step must be this:  Given the truly horrific and disgraceful inaction by the British Embassy in Delhi I suggest we all make Freedom of Information requests to the Foreign Office demanded release of every email and telephone conversation that occurred regarding Jaggi at the Foreign Office and the Embassy. They will refuse this by virtue of Secions 24, 27 and 28 of FOIA 2000. You then lodge an appeal with the ICO and it WILL go to a hearing. They'll never release the transcripts but the whole issue will be heard at a Tribunal and will draw national attention. There's a lot you can do....but robotic template letters is not the way you should go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jagsaw_Singh

Re; the 'I took a DNA test' thread on the main page:

Ranjeet and Tej said this :

Quote

If anything Punjabi has roots in Sanskrit, but it is an apabrahmsha meaning a corrupted version of Sanskrit - like all present day Indo-Aryan languages.

Sanskrit by definition means 'a language that has been refined from something else'. That something else that came before Sanskrit is Prakhit. Prakhit is olde Punjabi and is as closely interwined with Punjabi as olde English is to English. Don't fall into the trap of respecting Hindu India's historic language when your own is 2000 years older. Both of you are pre-occupied with looking south towards Hindu India for answers to everything when your blood, culture and history is clearly to your north west. Dem Indians have got you hook, line and sinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Guest Jagsaw_Singh said:

Re; the 'I took a DNA test' thread on the main page:

Ranjeet and Tej said this :

Sanskrit by definition means 'a language that has been refined from something else'. That something else that came before Sanskrit is Prakhit. Prakhit is olde Punjabi and is as closely interwined with Punjabi as olde English is to English. Don't fall into the trap of respecting Hindu India's historic language when your own is 2000 years older. Both of you are pre-occupied with looking south towards Hindu India for answers to everything when your blood, culture and history is clearly to your north west. Dem Indians have got you hook, line and sinker

Never said anything about Sanskrit. 

Though I reckon that what is now India and countries north west have had some connections. 

Much of the ancient world was more connected than we realise. 

My language is Punjabi. It is it's own language and it's not a dialect of Persian.

We are our own people. Our accomplishments are our own.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Haridas
On 14/11/2017 at 4:53 PM, Guest Jagsaw_Singh said:

Re; the DNA Test' thread on the main page:

Come on now Ranjeet. Tut tut....I thought you would have been well aware that well before the Mughals arrived Punjab spent many centuries as the easternmost (and richest) province of Persia (iran).  Punjab's attachment with India is the new invention....It's attachment with Iran is the historic one.

what nonesense!

see Mohejendharo- now in Pakistan- which is thoroughly Indian.  Read Persian and Arab texts- Panjab was a part of India.  So once was Afghanistan- Gandharva, hence the Buddhist statues.  Persians were Zoroastrians, there is no explicit history of Zoroastrianism in Panjab.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Guest Haridas said:

what nonesense!

see Mohejendharo- now in Pakistan- which is thoroughly Indian.  Read Persian and Arab texts- Panjab was a part of India.  So once was Afghanistan- Gandharva, hence the Buddhist statues.  Persians were Zoroastrians, there is no explicit history of Zoroastrianism in Panjab.

 

Indian? India and Indian was an invention of the Greeks. There was no such country or human being known as  India or Indian until 1947 when India was created by the departing British. This is not to say that other foreigners did not use the word India or Indian as a way to describe the land and the people south of the Himalayas. They people of this area never considered themselves as Indian until 1947. You claim a 4600 year old site as 'thoroughly Indian' when even two hundred years ago a resident of the villages around Mohenjo Daro would not know what an 'Indian' was? 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Haridas
23 hours ago, proactive said:

Indian? India and Indian was an invention of the Greeks. There was no such country or human being known as  India or Indian until 1947 when India was created by the departing British. This is not to say that other foreigners did not use the word India or Indian as a way to describe the land and the people south of the Himalayas. They people of this area never considered themselves as Indian until 1947. You claim a 4600 year old site as 'thoroughly Indian' when even two hundred years ago a resident of the villages around Mohenjo Daro would not know what an 'Indian' was? 

by this reasoning no country exists in the world, or ever existed.  you idea of 'until 1947' is plainly absurd.

The word 'Indus' may be of Grecian origin, but it was 1) probably based on an indian word 2)the greeks were intelligent people, i think they knew how to delineate between one country and another.

if it never existed, how did Greeks and Arabs manage to refer to it in their texts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Reply - india

Interesting conversation about India and history, @ guest haridas "   By this reasoning no country would exsist in the world" - yes that's why we credit the current political establishments with the history of that particular area. So Mohinjo Daro is as much Pakistani history as the Taj Mahal is indian. the concept of greater India is only still revered by ultra nationalist Hi dua like the RSS, who often site the time of Ashoka as the time of great India - a period which only lasted 40 odd years, Ashoka was a Buddhist himself ironically and there is some debate if he really did take all of the Indian subcontinent. But even if you suppose that is true, to base the entire Indian identity on one short period concidering the Dehli sultanate, mughals and the British also took India but for longer periods of times not to mention the polithera of civilisations / kingdoms and empires that exsisted in that area.

 The word Indus by the way was the world the Greeks used for Indus River and people beyond the river were Indian- the Arabs pronounced it Hind and Hindi / Hindu for the same. Hindu also means person with a religion of that region, which includes all of them, So India and Hindustan mean the same thing - the land with the Indus River - which ironically is in Pakistan - the Sanskrit word ( again from ashoks time) is baharat - which india uses for internal dialogue. 

It is also worth noting before the Arabs came to India there is no written history if the India people from its own people - there are mythology/scripture such as the vedas/ Mahabharat etc but not a written history - all previous histories are foreign - most early ones are from Arabs/ Persians/ mughals.

i recommend you read non bias Hindu histororians or western historians who will confirm the above  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jagsaw_Singh

Casting aside the superfluous issue of semantics (the word 'india') one can't help noticing how the India embracing Sikhs like to hate everything that the Mughals did except how the Mughals attached Punjab to India. That, they absolutely love. 

The India loving Sikhs say "Mughals were bad" "Mughals were evil" "Mughals were terrible" "Everything the Mughals done was terrible"...."oooh except one thing though.......we really love they way they made Punjab part of India for the first time....we really like the way the Mughals did that..............oooh we love it so much we'd like to keep it that way so that we can honour the glorious legacy of the great Mughals" .    "oooh but I'm not a slave to my India masters though. Oh no. I have a mind of my own. I've made my own conscious decision to show reverence and upmost respect to India's heritage language of Sanskrit even though Sanskrit evolved from, and came after, my own language of Punjab: Olde Punjabi (Prakhit). I like ignoring my own legacy and embracing theirs. Ooooh those lovely Mughals really were brilliant weren't theyB| 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Hindu
19 hours ago, Guest Reply - india said:

Interesting conversation about India and history, @ guest haridas "   By this reasoning no country would exsist in the world" - yes that's why we credit the current political establishments with the history of that particular area. So Mohinjo Daro is as much Pakistani history as the Taj Mahal is indian. the concept of greater India is only still revered by ultra nationalist Hi dua like the RSS, who often site the time of Ashoka as the time of great India - a period which only lasted 40 odd years, Ashoka was a Buddhist himself ironically and there is some debate if he really did take all of the Indian subcontinent. But even if you suppose that is true, to base the entire Indian identity on one short period concidering the Dehli sultanate, mughals and the British also took India but for longer periods of times not to mention the polithera of civilisations / kingdoms and empires that exsisted in that area.

 The word Indus by the way was the world the Greeks used for Indus River and people beyond the river were Indian- the Arabs pronounced it Hind and Hindi / Hindu for the same. Hindu also means person with a religion of that region, which includes all of them, So India and Hindustan mean the same thing - the land with the Indus River - which ironically is in Pakistan - the Sanskrit word ( again from ashoks time) is baharat - which india uses for internal dialogue. 

It is also worth noting before the Arabs came to India there is no written history if the India people from its own people - there are mythology/scripture such as the vedas/ Mahabharat etc but not a written history - all previous histories are foreign - most early ones are from Arabs/ Persians/ mughals.

i recommend you read non bias Hindu histororians or western historians who will confirm the above  

i recommend you be a bit more honest rather then letting your anti-hindu sentiment tide your views of history.  You yourself say India (English word) and Hindustan (Persian word- according to you) mean the same thing.  

and which western historians?  would you like to nod to what western historians say about sikhism also?  

Mohenjodaro isnt Pakistani, because 'Pakistani' did not exist at that time and no 'pakistani' built it.  The Taj Mahal was made of Indian (Hindoostan- as you yourself admit) materials by Indian (Hindustani) architects grounded and surrounded by Hindustani culture (which included Urdu- which isn't spoke in Persia).  Theres no Taj Mahal in Persia, etc.  

French people do not call France "France" in French.  Does that mean France does not exist?

Ancient Greece itself (Helene?) was a mix of kingdoms (Athens, Sparta etc), but there was a cultural entity recognised as Greece (Hellen? I don't know what words they used).  likewise, Germany, Italy, were a mix of districts before they became modern countries.  The word Indus refer to the Indus river, would refer to the baisan area of the largest river.   the greeks set up their buddhist university on the periphery (in present day Afghanistan).  There were Hindus on the west of the Indus river (on the east side of the 'Hindu Kush' region).  It is not 'ironic' that 

I'm not basing the "entire indian identity" on one short period- that is what you are doing.  I am basing it on a socio-culture-- Vedic.  The pandits from Panjab, Bengal, Kerala etc would be able to converse in Sanskrit on similarities in their religions and rituals.  Asoka was a Hindu first- and his subjects remained Hindu.

Hindus did not write histories, this is what frustrated English historians in the 1800s.  But the Arab and Greek historians don't seem to doubt the existence of India.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Hindu
7 hours ago, Guest Jagsaw_Singh said:

Casting aside the superfluous issue of semantics (the word 'india') one can't help noticing how the India embracing Sikhs like to hate everything that the Mughals did except how the Mughals attached Punjab to India. That, they absolutely love. 

The India loving Sikhs say "Mughals were bad" "Mughals were evil" "Mughals were terrible" "Everything the Mughals done was terrible"...."oooh except one thing though.......we really love they way they made Punjab part of India for the first time....we really like the way the Mughals did that..............oooh we love it so much we'd like to keep it that way so that we can honour the glorious legacy of the great Mughals" .    "oooh but I'm not a slave to my India masters though. Oh no. I have a mind of my own. I've made my own conscious decision to show reverence and upmost respect to India's heritage language of Sanskrit even though Sanskrit evolved from, and came after, my own language of Punjab: Olde Punjabi (Prakhit). I like ignoring my own legacy and embracing theirs. Ooooh those lovely Mughals really were brilliant weren't theyB| 

Because no one is under the illusion that the mughals 'attached' Panjab to 'India'.  Maybe you should go study a map? 

Modern Panjabi is not even the same as Panjabi in the SGGS.  Sanskrit is older than 'modern panjabi'.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Hindu

from what I understand, Al Biruni studied Sanskrit in Panjab, than wrote a book about India.  So how did he write a book about India when he didn't even study there?  And why did he study Sanskrit 'outside' of India if Panjab was not a part of India, as you say?

Even linguistically, if you understand Panjabi you can understand 90% of what someone from UP of Gujirat are saying in their languages.  How much can you understand when Afghans or Persians speak their language?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×