Talk:Bharata Khanda/Archive 1

Be more specific
I have read the article again, for revision. I find no mention in this article saying that Sanskrit is more "advanced" than other languages. This article is not indended for it either. Only two languages are mentioned in this article. One is Sanskrit and other is the older version of Sanskrit which is usually called as the Vedic language. No other languages like English or Hindi is mentioned in this article

The main purpose of this article is compilation and classification of kingdoms mentioned in the ancient Indian texts. I however, liked to give the probable time period when these kingdom existed, for the curious readers. Max Muller studies and Aryan Invasion Theories give later dates (like 1500 BC and 500 AD) for their existence and recent stuedis give older dates (3500 BC, 2500 BC etc). Thus I am able to put an upper and lower limit to the time period for the existance of these kingdoms. Only for this purpose do I mentioned "Aryan invasion theory". It is not the main focus of my article at all. -Original Author ---Jijith, May 3, 2006


 * "Linguistic evidence are based on the fact that the languages like Sanskrit or the earlier form of Sanskrit (termed as the Vedic Language) require two or three millania of time, for their evolution." This is complete nonsense. Nothing about Sanskrit means it takes more time to "evolve" than any other language. All of the advanced technology and science of India accumulated over the centuries after the adoption of Indo-Aryan language by North Indians. Infact, the actual linguistic evidence points to an Aryan migration, and is pretty much indisputable. Archeological and genetic evidence may help us understand that the transformation of culture was a gradual one, and did not involve large scale migration, but the linguistic evidence shows us that it definately did take place. Indo-European culture and language came into India from outside. This is not an "earlier theory" or based entirely on the work of Müller, it is the current most accurate theory of Indian history we have. All that nonsense about "recent studies" and astronomical information and so on is merely misguided Indian nationalist propaganda, I'm afraid. Same for the idea that the Brahmi script derives from the Indus Valley script (it didn't, it derives from Semitic). --Krsont 09:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

To ---Dangerous Boy Thank you for your comment. I will try to add more References. I am also working on the typo errors. Original Author ---Jijith, May 3, 2006

POV
this article is riddled with all sorts of right wing Indian nationalist stuff, for example saying that Sanskrit is more "advanced" than other languages, and that the "Aryan invasion theory" (a term only used in nationalist propaganda) was invented by Max Müller. I really don't have time to fix this article at the moment, but there's clearly a huge problem here. Infact a case could be made for getting rid of most of this and merging it into history of India. --Krsont 18:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's a great article for Hindu mythology!--Dangerous-Boy 21:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * exactly :p unfortunately misguided extremist religious POV seems to be a dominant force in information on Indian and Hindu history on wikipedia. --Krsont 01:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting article, but
This promises to be a very interesting article, but I've been discouraged from reading the entirety by the prevalence of grammatical and syntactical errors. Could someone spend the time necessary to correct these? A few might (wrongly) be classed as merely stylistic (such as the typically Indian use of progressive tenses in place of the simple preterite or present), but all are irritating -- and confusing -- to the reader. Firstorm (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There may be errors but I think that this page and the map are extremely useful and have a great potential explanatory power. --Upstatepolyglot 22:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

An intersting article. But needs improvements and corrections for typo errors. Jijithnr, please continue to improve the

The time frame for vedic period is wrong. Vedas are way before Mahabarata. Kalhan in Rajtarangini, history of Kashmir Kings puts Mahabarta little over 3,000 BC. There is enough dococumentation to prove that the 1500 BC time frame was a product of Max Mullers and other Sansktists purposefully distorted dates. Subash Kak in "Story of Civilization" documents the Vedic times around the same period Kalhana notes in Rajtarangini. Other times mentioned in the article also are suspect. These need to be rectified.

This page makes India look like it was never one
In the Vedas it talks about India, better known at that time as Bharat or Land of the Aryans, as being an entire region....Yet this article is basically saying India was never one region, and instead, it was only made up of independant kingdowms?.....So its ignoring the history writtein in the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, and Mahabharat and Ramayan....AMazing.....Yet their were kindgoms...but their was still a recognition of an entire area as one land...ARYAN818 18:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC) This is not true. Indian Kingdoms were not formal States as in Europe. All across India, people could travel freely, without need for documents such as "visas", and "kingdom boundaries" were generally diffuse and fluid. The entire subcontinent was one cultural milieu which evolved as a composite whole. This was despite large diversity - linguistically, for instance. The reason for a composite cultural unity lay in "dharma" or "rit" - acceptance of a more or less common moral code where by peoples all over the sub continent had a very similar sense of right & wrong, and practiced numerous common sacraments from birth to marriage to death. The fact that there were different kings who collected their taxes was not as important as the fairly similar pattern of taxation, administration & justice. All those common cultural values were strong enough for the entire subcontinent to function largely as a one composite whole. Recall that All of India and its people were quite isolated and protected - by the oceans and the mountains. There was little or no contact with the outside world, & certainly no fictitious "aryan invasion" (such as came out of the fevered imagination of Muller). [If such a victorious invasion did occur -where are all the joyful memories of it in stories and song among the victors, for instance]. Indo-aryan linguistics only point to a shared or common past. It is equally applicable to an Aryan invasion of Europe from India as the other way around. Neither invasion is required nor necessary to explain linguistic links.Chibber (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC) [USER:from3102BCE]