--- On Tue, 10/3/09, Raja <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Raja <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [silk] What is "Indian culture"?
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Tuesday, 10 March, 2009, 12:22 AM
> Interesting. Firstly, I think the
> 'tired' meme you are pointing to is fact
> (even if you have heard it before) and I think the
> counterpoint being quoted
> is what is questionable. I don't know what reference the
> person below quotes
> for Sapta Sindhu but the seven rivers (atleast according to
> wikipedia:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapta_Sindhu) are all in
> northern India
> (correct me if I am wrong). This definition of India
> disenfranchises
> southern and eastern India. It is not an insignificant
> contribution of the
> British when partition happened and the country of India
> emerged with almost
> the same borders it has today. Also the statement that for
> 2500 years that
> there was general agreement on the shape and size and
> extent of india?
> wow...
> I lived in several parts of rural tamil nadu enough to know
> that the 'common
> folk' there don't really rever the concept of the vedas or
> wherever else
> this idea of India is being quoted from. You think their
> ancestors were part
> of that 2500 year old consensus? They sure are part of
> modern India now.
> Quoting "Sapta Sindhu" from the Rig veda or the "Hapta
> Hindu" from the
> Avesta and saying that there was a consensus opinion about
> India as a
> country for 2500 years is much akin to quoting the Bible
> and saying that
> dinosaur fossils are 6000 years old (IMO).
> Anyways, we are getting away from our original point of
> discussion which is
> whether there exists any single concept of Indian culture.
> I would say that
> no there is not. I would also follow up by saying so what?
> Thaths said it correctly that culture is present
> continuous. It is time to
> embrace that and maybe start thinking about what our
> culture is now rather
> than what it was long ago. Shiv also made a nice point.
> Whats the cut off
> date for Indian culture? people are squabbling over
> mythical "bridges" built
> over "6000" years ago when genetic studies have shown that
> our subcontinent
> has been populated for around 40,000 years or so (ref:
> Journey of Man by
> Spencer Wells). People mostly lived as hunter gatherers.
> Why not lets all go
> back to those ways (no chaddi campaign!)? Even 2500 years
> doesn't compare to
> 40,000.
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Udhay Shankar N <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Raja wrote, [on 3/9/2009 7:52 PM]:
> >
> > > That seems like an extensive discussion. Actually
> it seemed more like an
> > > ugly fighting contest in the undergrounds of
> Thailand. Was there some
> > > specific point that you were pointing me to?
> >
> > Primarily, this (in the context of the tired meme of
> "India as a nation
> > dates from 1947"):
> >
> > <quote>
> >
> > >It's a nation because this is all the Brits
> managed to conquer and keep.
> > >Had they managed to grab and keep Tibet for
> example, we'd have had Mt.
> > >Kailash in the anthem as well. Don't go all mushy
> on me; it's tedious.
> >
> > What is tedious is tendentious writing based on a
> misreading of the
> > historical facts. Eccentricity is fine, illiteracy and
> ignorance not so.
> >
> > The British had little to do with it. If you are not
> averse to a little
> > reading,
> > go look up the texts, all the way back. Sapta-Sindhu,
> or Hapta-Hindu, as
> > the unable-to-sibilate Iranians pronounced it, is a
> very old construct.
> > Right through the previous 2,500 years, there has been
> a general
> > agreement on the general shape and size and extent of
> India, which term
> > itself is a derivative of Sindhu and Hindu (not the
> religion, but the
> > place). Until very recently, Afghanistan, and parts
> slightly further
> > north of that, were also part of the extended area. If
> anything, the
> > British brought bits of South India and East India
> into the general mill.
> >
> > </quote>
> > --
> > ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com))
> ((www.digeratus.com))
> >
> >
Might it not be a reasonable suggestion, a very humble suggestion, that the
rest of the discussion on that long-past occasion be borne in mind before
commenting with quite so broad a brush?
Check out the all-new Messenger 9.0! Go to http://in.messenger.yahoo.com/
