New airport network. Kudos to NaMo’s team

Ashok Gajapathi Raju‏Verified account @Ashok_Gajapathi Mar 29

More

#UDAN network will cover the whole country, giving a major economic boost to hinterland areas. New routes announced today #TransformingIndia

2. Ashok Gajapathi Raju‏Verified account @Ashok_Gajapathi Mar 29

   More

   New #UDAN routes awarded on 30.03.2017 (5/5)

   

   9 replies53 retweets64 likes

   Reply

   9

   Retweet

   53

   Like

   64

3. Ashok Gajapathi Raju‏Verified account @Ashok_Gajapathi Mar 29

   More

   New #UDAN routes awarded on 30.03.2017 (4/5)

   

   23 replies82 retweets74 likes

   Reply

   23

   Retweet

   82

   Like

   74

4. Ashok Gajapathi Raju‏Verified account @Ashok_Gajapathi Mar 29

   More

   New #UDAN routes awarded on 30.03.2017 (3/5)

   

   2 replies44 retweets49 likes

   Reply

   2

   Retweet

   44

   Like

   49

5. Ashok Gajapathi Raju‏Verified account @Ashok_Gajapathi Mar 29

   More

   New #UDAN routes awarded on 30.03.2017 (2/5)

   

   PIB India, MIB India, Press Trust of India and Doordarshan News

   4 replies52 retweets62 likes

   Reply

   4

   Retweet

   52

   Like

   62

6. Ashok Gajapathi Raju‏Verified account @Ashok_Gajapathi Mar 29

   More

   New #UDAN routes awarded on 30.03.2017 (1/5)

   

   PIB India, MIB India, Press Trust of India and Doordarshan News

Itihāsa of Bhāratam Janam: some quotes from S.S. Murdeshwar’s compendium (1953)

Manohar Kamath These are just a few from around 11chapters and over 500 quotes by S. S. Murdeshwar, the great scholar written in 1953

CAG protests refusal of access to GSTN data. PC sinister plot says Swamy

Subramanian Swamy‏Verified account @Swamy39 Mar 29

More

http://toi.in/rtFPiY59  via @timesofindia—Bravo CAG– GSTN is a corrupt sinister cancerous anti-national construct of PC

CAG protests refusal of access to GSTN data

TNN | Mar 30, 2017, 04.09 AM IST

NEW DELHI: The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has protested with the finance ministry against the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN), a special purpose vehicle majority owned by private companies, refusing to give access to taxpayers data on its network for scrutiny and audit.

The GSTN is a private limited company floated to aid the rollout of the new indirect tax regime. The company will provide information technology support to all stakeholders for smooth implementation of the new taxation regime across the country and will be the repository of all information related to taxation and entities registered under GST.

The majority (51%) shareholding in the firm is with private entities including HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank and LIC among others. The central government, jointly with state governments and Union Territories, own 49% in the company.

The federal auditor has asked the finance ministry to give it access to GSTN’s data network after the latter refused to allow the CAG on the ground that it was a non-government company and the auditor could not exercise the same rights as applicable for public enterprises.

The GSTN also argued that it was just a “pass through portal” and that the CAG must approach the Central Board of Excise and Customs and states which would have original data filed by taxpayers. Rejecting GSTN’s contention, the federal auditor said the source of all taxpayers’ data in the GST regime would be with GSTN, ‘being the primary location’ where the data is created. “It is from here that the data is selectively pushed to CBEC and states. It is therefore essential for the CAG to access the data lying at the primary source for performing its constitutional mandate,” the auditor said.

The CAG also contended that the government had “strategic control” in GSTN irrespective of the shareholding pattern. The SPV is performing a part of the statutory function pertaining to revenue collection on behalf of the Centre and states and it could not refuse to give access to information to the auditor.

“This has to be viewed as GSTN performing a part of the statutory functions pertaining to revenue collection on behalf of the Centre and states,” the CAG said.

The auditor has requested the ministry to ensure that it gets access to data maintained on the GSTN portal as well as to its application software, the modalities of which could be worked out later.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/cag-protests-refusal-of-access-to-gstn-data/articleshow/57904086.cms

Silk Road settlements analysed. Such analysis should be done for Maritime Tin Route from Hanoi to Haifa.

Nomadic ecology shaped the highland geography of Asia’s Silk Roads 

Michael D. Frachetti1, C. Evan Smith1, Cynthia M. Traub2 & Tim Williams3

doi:10.1038/nature21696

  

There are many unanswered questions about the evolution of the ancient ‘Silk Roads’ across Asia. This is especially the case in their mountainous stretches, where harsh terrain is seen as an impediment to travel. Considering the ecology and mobility of inner Asian mountain pastoralists, we use ‘flow accumulation’ modelling to calculate the annual routes of nomadic societies (from 750 m to 4,000 m elevation). Aggregating 500 iterations of the model reveals a high-resolution flow network that simulates how centuries of seasonal nomadic herding could shape discrete routes of connectivity across the mountains of Asia. We then compare the locations of known high-elevation Silk Road sites with the geography of these optimized herding flows, and find a significant correspondence in mountainous regions. Thus, we argue that highland Silk Road networks (from 750 m to 4,000 m) emerged slowly in relation to long-established mobility patterns of nomadic herders in the mountains of inner Asia. 

Editor’s summaryinالعربية

The Silk Road refers to a network of ancient trade routes that have crossed central Asia since time immemorial. But how did it get started? Conventional models usually start by inferring the easiest paths between sites already known to be part of the network. This introduces a circular argument as it biases the results towards what is already known. Here Michael Frachetti and colleagues take a different approach to show that the network emerged from hundreds of years of interactions between pastoralists moving their livestock between higher and lower elevations in response to the seasons in this generally mountainous region. They suggest that the Silk Road network therefore materialized slowly from the long-established, local mobility patterns of nomadic herders. This finding may encourage archaeologists to seek more nuanced explanations for the evolution of ancient connectivity.

http://sci-hub.cc/10.1038/nature21696

Cow protection: Bharatiya imperative

From the standpoint of Dharma, there is no legitimacy for either the slaughter of cow or its consumption today.

Nithin Sridhar @nkgrock With a degree in civil engineering, and having worked in construction field, Nithin Sridhar passionately writes about various issues from development, politics, and social issues, to religion, spirituality and ecology. He is based in Mysore, India.

Identity (Distortion & Appropriation) | 30-03-2017

“Cow” is called “aghnya”- the inviolable, the one which should not be harmed or killed. Hindus perceive her as the mother who nourishes everyone, as the abode of all goodness, and the very embodiment of Sattva, where all deities manifest themselves. Rig-Veda (6.28.1-8) calls her the bringer of fortunes, while Puranas describe her as Kamadenu- the wish fulfilling cow. In other words, cow is a sacred animal for the Hindus, which should be nourished, protected, and cherished very dearly.

In the last many decades, with illegal cow smuggling becoming rampant and slaughterhouses cropping up at every nook and corner, cow-protection has become a very critical political issue. While some Hindu organizations have repeatedly appealed for blanket ban on cow-slaughter and beef consumption, the left-liberals, including those in academia and media have become self-appointed guardians of people’s eating habits.

These left-liberals have accused Hindus of hypocrisy and have alleged how their Vedic ancestors slaughtered hordes and hordes of cows and bulls every other day and consumed beef extensively in the typical leftist fashion of “suppresio veri, suggestion falsi”, all the while conveniently ignoring the fact that the cows were only to be sacrificed in the context of certain specific rituals and that too never for taste, or the fact that there is a Hindu prescription for Kaliyuga, which prohibits any slaughter of cows in this age. Unfortunately, the Hindu response from some quarters have also completely ignored these tenets and they have instead indulged in equally faulty assertions, with memes like “Myth of beef in Vedas” doing the rounds on the internet.

While the hypocrisy of the left is well known and I have also dealt about it in the context of beef parties elsewhere, in the present article I will concentrate on why there is no need for Hindus to distort and whitewash our past in order to build a case for cow-protection in the present.

Whitewashing of the past: An unnecessary and misleading distraction

Swami Vivekananda once said: “Even if truth destroys the whole universe, still it is truth; stand by it.” The emphasis on truth can be considered one of the defining traits of Sanatana Dharma. As the Upanishads say, “Satyam vada, Dharmam Chara”, Dharma in speech is Truth, Truth in action is Dharma. Yet, unfortunately, owing to preconceived notions, as well as in an attempt to counter the anti-Hindu narrative, which has been continuously built, first by the British and now by the Leftist academia and media, a certain section of Hindu scholars and activists have popularized the view that “cow-sacrifice” and “beef” is absolutely nowhere mentioned in the Hindu scriptures and any citations that go against this contention are either ignored or are branded as interpolations.

We can categorize these whitewashing attempts into three broad categories. Though a detailed elaboration of the issue is beyond the scope of the article, I would cite just one example in each case to illustrate the point.

1. Selective quoting from scriptures: While Hindu responders countering the left narrative rightly highlight numerous references from Hindu scriptures including the Vedas to display the sacredness of the cow and its inviolable nature in Hinduism, they conveniently ignore numerous references to the sacrifice of cows mentioned in texts like Grihyasutras. Paraskara Grihyasutra (3.8), for example, speaks about go-yajna, wherein a cow is sacrificed and its various parts are offered to different deities. Similarly, Apastamba Grihyasutra (1.3.9) explicitly lists occasions where cow-sacrifice can be carried out (without violating Dharmic tenets): madhuparka (in honor of certain guests), as sacrifice for the pitrs, and in marriage.
2. Rejecting contrarian verses as interpolations:  An important verse in Manu Smriti states that animals can be sacrificed only during madhuparka, yajnas, and during rites in honor of ancestors (Verse 5.41). Since, the primary animal, which was supposed to be offered to specific kinds of guests during madhuparka, who would then make a choice whether to sacrifice it or let it go free, was the cow, the verse from Manu Smriti acts as an important evidence that shows how cow sacrifice and consumption of beef as “Prasada” was permitted during certain ceremonies. Yet, because this goes against the convenient rhetoric that there is no reference to cow-sacrifice or beef in Hinduism, some Hindu scholars brand this verse as “interpolated” simply because the verse contains a phrase towards the end saying “as stated by Manu.” The argument of these scholars is that since entire Manu Smriti constitutes the message of Manu, there was no need to specify “as stated by Manu” and this shows that the verse is later-day interpolation. But, this argument has no standing in reality. If one turns back to the very first chapter, Manu himself says that his student Bhrigu will explain to them the teachings on Dharma, which he had himself imparted to Bhrigu. That is, from the end of first chapter, it Rishi Bhrigu and not Manu, who is the narrator and hence the phrase “as stated by Manu” makes perfect sense. Another argument made by upholders of interpolation argument is that since, Manu Smriti 5.51 says that those who involve in slaying of animals, as well as those who consume it are all guilty of slaying, the verse 5.41 quoted before must be an interpolation. This again does great injustice to Manu Smriti by reducing its nuanced treatment of the issue of food, meat and ahimsa into an axiomatic injunction. Interested people may further study chapter 5 in depth to understand how Manu makes space for everybody all the while enunciating clearly the final ideal. Thus, this argument of interpolation is too convenient to be true and in reality, it has no standing in many of the cases.
3. Discarding primary meaning of the words for their secondary and tertiary meanings, since the primary meaning goes contrary to preconceived notions: In Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (Verse 6.4.18), it is said that the couple who wish for a son well versed in all the four Vedas and have a full term of life, they should have rice cooked with “mamsa” of either “uksha” or “rishabha” by mixing it with clarified butter. Now, the primary meaning of “mamsa” is meat, “uksha” is a vigorous bull with a capacity to breed and “rishabha” is the bull more advanced in years. But, since, this verse directly speaks about consumption of bull’s meat for sake of a certain kind of progeny and goes against the meme that no beef in Vedic literature, these Hindu scholars have dropped in the primary meanings of all the three words and have instead argued that “mamsa” means “fruit pulp”, while “uksha” and “rishabha” are references to medicinal plants having properties to strengthen virility. Now, it is indeed true that Ayurvedic texts attest to the presence of medicinal plants named rishabha and uksha. In fact, uksha refers to the famous Soma. Though, because of its property to increase virility, the reference at the first glance may indeed appear to be related to these medicinal plants, a closer look at the context points otherwise. Studying verses from 6.4.14 to 6.4.18, it is clear that the Upanishad prescribes different recipes to beget children of different competencies in the said verses. It prescribes a combination of rice, milk and ghee in case a couples wants a son who would grow up to master one Veda. Similarly, a mixture of rice, curd and ghee is prescribed for a son who would learn two Vedas; a mixture of rice, water, and ghee for a son who would learn 3 Vedas; and a mixture of rice, sesame, and ghee for a daughter who would grow into a scholar. Now, if the purpose of the recipes was to suggest medicinal preparations to increase virility alone, why would they prescribe water, milk, curd, or sesame, none of which have any special character of inducing virility? Instead, the purpose of the verses clearly appears to ensure that the couples would be able to beget children of different temperaments and competencies. Also, all the items mentioned in the recipe be it ghee or sesame or water are easily available at home, including bulls. But, the medicinal plants, especially one like Soma is difficult to procure. Thus, it is plain that the reference of the verse 18 is not medicinal plant but the meat of the bull. Moreover, if the primary meaning was to be discarded and a secondary meaning were to be taken, Adi Shankaracharya in his commentary on the verse would have highlighted the same. But, he has not done. He has commented on the verse taking primary meaning itself. This serves as an example about how certain Hindu scholars are trying to discard primary meanings of the words simply because it goes against their pre-conceived notions and instead are force-fitting secondary and tertiary meanings into the scriptural statements.

Such whitewashing of the past are not only a distraction because it impedes genuine discussion on the topic, it also does great injustice to the tradition we have inherited from the wise Rishis, who were always nuanced in their discourse, and were very accommodative of the needs and capacities of all people. More importantly, such whitewashing is a travesty of truth, the same truth, which is the hallmark of Sanatana Dharma. We do not need to whitewash the past to build a case for cow protection in the present. All we need is only a proper understanding of our texts and tradition.

A genuine case for cow protection based on Hindu tradition

A genuine case for cow protection can only be made based on a correct understanding of Hindu tradition. Just like Truth, Ahimsa is one of the hallmark of Hinduism. It is a Samanya Dharma, a duty common to all humans. Mahabharata Anushasana parva (117.37-41), for example, says “Non-Violence is the highest duty (dharma), non-violence is the highest self-control (damaH), non-violence is the highest gift (dAnam) and non-violence is the highest penance (tapaH)….The gifts given in all sacrifices, the ablutions made in all sacred waters, the merits acquired from all kinds of gifts (mentioned in the scriptures), all these do not come equal ahiMsA (i.e. they do not equal the merits attained by the practice of ahiMsA).” Yet, this glorification of Ahimsa is not a propagation of pacifism. Instead, Manu Smriti (8.349) says that the violence used for self-defence or when someone is forcibly stealing or when protecting women and Brahmanas does not cause violation of dharma. Kurma Purana (Uttara-bhaga 11.15) goes a step further and enunciates that the violence committed according to rules of scriptures (eg: in yajna’s etc.) is considered as ahimsa itself. In other words, though Ahimsa is the ideal, its application involves use of Himsa for the sake of Dharma as per the tenets of Shastras.

This same criteria is applicable with respect to inviolability of the cow as well. While cow is a sacred animal and hence it cannot be and should not be harmed in any manner for selfish reasons, including for the sake of taste, it can be sacrificed in certain rituals and ceremonies like Yajnas, Madhuparka, Shraddha, etc. as enunciated in the scriptures (Apastamba Grihyasutra 1.3.9)  without violating the dictum of cow being “inviolable”. This is so because, the purpose of these rituals is not the fulfilment of selfish craving for cow-meat. Instead, the purpose is religious and spiritual and results in welfare of whole society and only a little quantity of the remnant meat from the offering is consumed as a “Prasada”. As a result, these animals also attain heaven and a higher next birth (Manu Smriti 5.40-42) That is, even the animals thus sacrificed are benefited. But, this is not the case with consuming beef or any meat only for the sake of taste. Those who consume beef or any other meat only for the sake of taste, do so to satisfy their inner cravings. There is neither spiritual merit for oneself, nor welfare of the others. No merit is acquired even by the animal which has been consumed. It is for this reason, the Manu Smriti (5.51) says that he who kills the animal, who buys and sells the meat, and who consumes it all are considered killers of that animal i.e. all share the Karmic burden of causing the death of the animal. Hence, Manu Smriti concludes that animals should only be killed during Madhuparka, Yajna, and in rituals dedicated to deities and pitrs (5.41), and adds that those who kill animals for one’s pleasure will never find happiness (5.45).

On the one hand, we have assertions from the Left academics about how Hindu ancestors killed and consumed hordes and hordes of cows and bulls for the sake of taste. And on the other hand, we have some right scholars arguing that there is absolutely no mention of cow sacrifice and partaking of beef in Hindu scriptures. But, contrary to both assertions, the reality was that while Hindus did sacrifice cows in certain situations and consumed their meat in a small quantity as prasada, it was not in hordes and was never for the sake of taste. Instead, cows were inviolable, which were never killed for selfish purposes, be it for money, as business, or for purely consumption. The only occasions when the cows were predominantly sacrificed were certain specific religious and spiritual rituals and ceremonies conducted sporadically and these sacrifices imparted spiritual merit and a higher birth even on the animals thus sacrificed. Even the example of partaking beef in the context of progeny as mentioned in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad must be seen in the context of how having children is an very important Dharmic action, one that is supposed to help the parents pay their debts to ancestors and save them from falling into suffering. The same applies to the reported medical usage of beef in certain situations according to Ayurveda. The gist is, in none of the cases where cows were sacrificed, the purpose was taste or appetite. Instead, a small quantity of beef was either consumed as “Prasada” or for medicinal purpose (A detailed account of the issue of beef in Ancient India and their origin in history can be read here).

This understanding, not whitewashing, should be the basis of our cow-protection narrative. While our ancestors killed cows and bulls only for Dharmic purposes and consumed a small quantity of beef as “Prasada”, today, cows are smuggled and slaughtered solely for the purpose of satisfying the craving for beef. While our ancestors called the cow “inviolable” and considered it sin to harm her in any way for selfish reason, today we have completely abandoned our cows and bulls, who end up either in diaries or in slaughterhouses, where no love, no compassion is showed to the animal. While our ancestors not only protected and cherished the cows, they also ensured the spiritual evolution and a better life for them by occasionally sacrificing them in yajnas and rituals, today we are not even able to ensure cows are fed well and have a proper shelter to sleep. It is also worth noting in the passing that though cow-sacrifices in the occasions mentioned earlier was considered as a Dharmic action in the previous yugas, we have Puranic recommendation from Brahma-vaivarta Purana (Krsna-jnama Khanda 185.180) that this should no longer be practiced in Kali yuga, since, people are more attached to desires and may even misuse these rituals for satisfying the craving for beef and the way a section of Indians today celebrate beef parties has only reinforced this wisdom embedded in the Puranas!

The gist is, from the standpoint of Dharma, there is no legitimacy for either the slaughter of cow or its consumption today. Killing of cows purely for taste and appetite was Adharma in the past and remains so even in the present. As to the sacrifice of cows for ritualistic purpose, as seen above, though practiced in previous yugas, it is to be given up in Kaliyuga and we already see this as having materialized on the ground for many centuries now, since Hindus no longer sacrifice cows in rituals like madhuparka, shraddha, or vivaha.

The love and care for the cows embedded in Hinduism stems from the Hindu view of ecology, which perceives the entire cosmos as one integral whole pervaded by divinity and promotes harmony. The reason for the special place given to cow among all animals is that it is the most Sattvic of all animals. Most animals be it those in the wild or those domesticated as pets, have varying degree of tamas and rajas in them. But, cow is one of the very few animals, which is full of Sattva. It is this innate Sattva, which makes the cow defenseless, but it also makes her compassionate and loving, as can be seen by one who regularly interacts with the animal.

In some sense, in the Hindu worldview, cow has become a symbol of all animals. A society which at least cherishes and protects its cows, has some goodness and compassion left in it, though it may already be fast falling down the ladder of Adharma. On the other hand, a society, which projects cow-slaughter, that too for a selfish reason as “taste”, as a virtue has fallen down to irredeemable levels of Adharma.

It is high time that Hindu society as a whole rise and recognize cow as a symbol of Dharma that frees one from the depths of Adharma and make this a new mantra for cow-protection movement.

The author wishes to thank Dr. Sammod Acharya and Nagaraja Gundappa for their inputs on some technical points.

http://indiafacts.org/case-cow-protection-without-whitewashing-past/

India should promote Tin Route which preceded Silk Road by two millennia

NaMo, I suggest that Bharat should promote Maritime Tin Route which preceded Sik Road by two millennia creating a Tin-Bronze Revoution on the globe. Details: http://tinyurl.com/lnj2uuz Sindhu-Sarasvati Script: repository of economic prosperity in Ancient India

Seafaring merchants and artisans of Ancient Bharat of the Bronze Age were the principal institutions transacting the multi-national trade into entire Asia linking Hanoi of Vietnam with Haifa of Israel.

http://tinyurl.com/lnj2uuz Sarasvati-Sindhu Script

The suggested decipherment framework covers both the Script and Itihāsa of Bhāratam Janam.

https://youtu.be/m6LIiVflpGc (19:41) sindhu sarasvati script voice annotations Decipherment of Sarasvati-Sindhu (Bharati) Script, a presentation in 23 slides (19:41) with voice annotations. The complementing monograph was presented in ICHR Annual Conference (2017) on March 29, 2017 in 336 pages including thumbnail images of about 5000 inscriptions.

India using Kashmir to oppose Silk Road project: Chinese media

PTI | Mar 30, 2017, 01.01 PM IST

BEIJING: India sees China’s Silk Road initiative+ as a geopolitical competition and is using the Kashmir issue as an “unfounded excuse” to oppose the ambitious project, Chinese state media alleged and asked New Delhi to “abandon” its “cliche mentality”.

“The official reason the Indian government rejected the offer to join the initiative (Silk Road) is that it is designed to pass through Kashmir. However, it is just an unfounded excuse as Beijing has been maintaining a consistent position on the Kashmir issue, which has never changed,” one of the two articles on India by state-run Global Times said.

“India sees the Belt and Road initiative as a geopolitical competition,” the article said, criticising India for hindering Beijing’s push into South Asia and the world with multi-billion Silk Road project which is also known as the ‘Belt and Road’ (BR).

“Whether to continue to boycott or join the Belt and Road remains a conundrum for New Delhi,” it said adding that, India is the only one which can help itself.

The article said that India should give up its “biased” view on the BR initiative.

“It is high time to abandon the cliche mentality of associating everything with geopolitics. India will surely see a different world if it does,” the article said.

Referring to India’s reservations to attend the BR summit called by Chinese President Xi Jinping, the article said it may be an “embarrassing occasion” for India as the meeting is backed by “China’s peripheral countries, notably Russia, Indonesia, Kazakhstan and Pakistan”.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi recently said 20 heads of state will attend the summit, together with over 50 leaders from international organisations, over 100 ministerial officials and more than 1,200 guests from around the world.

The article referred to a comment by foreign secretary S Jaishankar during his visit here last month to co-chair the upgraded India-China strategic dialogue, saying India is examining China’s invitation to attend the summit and “how a country whose sovereignty has been violated can come on an invitation”.

In the meantime, however, state-run Chinese media stepped up campaign to pressurise India to join the summit.

China apparently is keen about India’s participation in the summit as the project struggled to make headway in the region except the $46 billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) where both Beijing-Islamabad are putting all efforts to show early harvest.

Media reports here said that Xi plans to invite his US counterpart Donald Trump to attend the meeting during their first summit early next month in Florida.

BR consisted of maze of roads, including CPEC, Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Economic (BCIM) Corridor and 21st Maritime Silk Road besides road network to connect China with Eurasia.

The article also said, “it seems that the mainstream opinion throughout India is that the connectivity brought about by BR initiative is geopolitically significant. Therefore, India cannot allow the initiative to expand further into South Asia”.

“This could also explain why the BCIM has seen no progress since its proposed by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang in 2013, and also why New Delhi has been keen on Japan’s investment in the Iranian port of Chabahar,” it said.

“New Delhi may also feel embarrassed as Moscow has actively responded to the Belt and Road initiative and will build an economic corridor with China and Mongolia,” it said, adding Russia and Iran seeking to join the CPEC putting “India in a more awkward position”.

It said, “Beijing has expressed, on various occasions, its anticipation to see New Delhi join the grand project and to make concerted effort with India in building economic corridors involving China, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh and Myanmar”.

Another article in the same daily said a “benign” competition between India and China may help development in South Asia but they should avoid “cut-throat” rivalry.

“The so-called dragon-elephant contention is perhaps a blow against strategic mutual trust between Beijing and New Delhi, but may be conducive to development in South Asia,” it said.

 Accusing India of not being “generous” to its neighbours, it said “a yawning infrastructure funding gap in South Asian countries creates space for China and those nations to strengthen economic cooperation”.

 “Bangladesh and China signed 27 deals worth billions of dollars during President Xi Jinping’s visit last year,” it said, adding China’s BR initiative has received an increasing amount of attention from Bangladesh.

“Only by investing more resources in regional integration and extending the benefits from India’s rapid economic growth to other South Asian countries can New Delhi maintain its influence in the region,” it said.

 “Benign competition between China and India will be conducive to development in South Asia. The question remaining is how to avoid cut-throat competition as Beijing and New Delhi jostle for influence. India and China should seek common ground while strengthening cooperation with South Asian countries to promote regional integration,” it said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/india-using-kashmir-to-oppose-silk-road-project-chinese-media/articleshow/57912754.cms

Sarasvati-Sindhu Script Decipherment as repository of economic prosperity of Ancient India

http://tinyurl.com/lnj2uuz Sarasvati-Sindhu Script

The suggested decipherment framework covers both the Script and Itihāsa of Bhāratam Janam.

https://youtu.be/m6LIiVflpGc (19:41) sindhu sarasvati script voice annotations Decipherment of Sarasvati-Sindhu (Bharati) Script, a presentation in 23 slides (19:41) with voice annotations. The complementing monograph was presented in ICHR Annual Conference (2017) on March 29, 2017 in 336 pages including thumbnail images of about 5000 inscriptions.

Abstract

Sindhu-Sarasvati Script: Repository of Economic Prosperity in Ancient India

This paper narrates the economic history of the Indian nation (with its center in the Sindhu-Sarasvati civilization) over the first millennium during which India enjoyed the status of being the most prosperous nation of the world with 32% share of the total world economy (Global GDP). The paper is developed with reference to the Sindhu-Sarasvati Script Corpora which, I have argued elsewhere, constitute Bronze Age metalwork catalogues. The paper will discuss in greater detail the following points (reproduced in the corresponding ppt slides):

The rediscovery of the Sarasvati River using satellite imagery, archaeological reports and ancient texts has been a multi-disciplinary milestone in knowledge discovery about the antiquity of culture in Bharat. This rediscovery has been followed up by identifying the people who lived on the banks of Sarasvati River in over 2000 archaeological sites. A breakthrough discovery occurred thanks to the work of students of Institute of Archaeology, Delhi in a site called 4MSR in Binjor on the banks of River Sarasvati, near Anupgarh (about 7 kms, from the present international border with Pakistan). This discovery is momentous and firmly anchors the Harapap (or Sarasvati-Sindhu) civilization on Vedic culture. The historic epoch-making discovery in April 2015, includes the finds of a Vedic fire-altar with the signature tune of an octagonal yupa अष्टाश्री यूप, as described in Vedic texts (Rigveda, Taittiriya Samhita, Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa) for a Soma Samsthā, Soma Yāga. The finds also include a Harappa Script seal with inscription describing a metalwork catalogue). The owner of the seal is deciphered from the ‘standard device, sangaḍa, ‘lathe, brazier or portable furnace’) as rebus: samgraha, samgaha ‘arranger, manager’.

Following the octagonal Yupa found in Binjor dated to ca. 2500 BCE as a Mature Harappan site (4MSR), 19 yupa inscriptions have been found in historical periods in Rajasthan, Mathura, and East Borneo (Mulavarman) recording performanceof Soma Samsthā Soma Yāga. This astonishing continuity of Vedic culture in Sarasvati River Basin is a breakthrough in studies of History and Culture in Ancient Bhārata.

Using data mining techniques and tantra yukti doctrine to document the matches between hieroglyphs on Harappa Script inscriptions and the vocabulary of Meluhha (Indian sprachbund). As a first step in delineating the Harappa language, an Indian lexicon[(file://HP-PC/Users/HP/Google%20Drive/IndianLexicon.pdf )] provides a resource, compiled semantically in clusters of over 1240 groups of words/expressions from ancient Bhārata languages as a Proto-Indic substrate dictionary. Decipherment of over 4000 inscriptions in Harappa Script as metalwork catalogues results in the knowledge discovery about archaeo-metallurgical contributions of Bhāratam Janam to Bronze Age Revolution along a Maritime Tin Route from Hanoi (Vietnam) to Haia (Israel). The knowledge discovery also covers the weltanschuaang of dharma-dhamma because the artisan and merchant guilds treated their workplace of kole.l smithy/forge as kole.l ‘temple’. Octagonal shaped Yupa provides the iconography framework for worship of Sivalinga with octagonal Rudra bhāga. Find of five Sivalinga in Harappa link with Atharva Veda Skambha Sukta (AV X.7,8) reinforcing the vedic ādhyatmika foundations of Bhārata culture.

Slide One

Sindhu-Sarasvati Script: Repository of Economic Prosperity in Ancient India

S.Kalyanaraman; Sarasvati Research Centre; March 24, 2017

Slide Two

Sindhu-Sarasvati Script is a continuum of Vedic culture of wealth-creation through the institution of yajña.

Slide Three-Four

Sindhu-Sarasvati Script is also a continuum of Bhāratiya Sprachbund i.e. a commonwealth of languages spoken in India (including Austro-Asiatic languages) where unique linguistic features and vocabularies were absorbed from one another to give rise to the Sprachbund that facilitated economic cooperation leading to prosperity. Indian Lexicon

Slide Five

Bhāratiya sprachbund remained active and contributed to the continuity of economic prosperity over the first millennium because of the presence of mlecchita vikalpa (cipher-writing code or system) that was regularly taught to youth who were inducted in the family trade/business as part of the Varnashramadharma model (see Vidyāsamuddeśa of Vātsyāyana).

Slide Six-Seven

Examples of mlecchita vikalpa (cipher-writing) as an art/science The writing continued on Punch-marked coins of mints from 600 BCE

Sindhu-Sarasvati Script Corpora (made of over eight thousand glyphs based on languages from the Sprachbund) constituted catalogues of metal works that acted as engines of economic prosperity from the Bronze Age on until the end of first millennium.

Slide Eight-Nine-Ten-Eleven

Bronze Age revolution occurred when Tin-Bronzes replaced the scarce arsenical bronzes, 4th millennium BCE

Hypertexts read rebus from the toy chariot excavated from Daimabad is one illustration of how the Sindhu-Sarasvati Script Corpora yields data for extrapolating the continued presence of vigorous economic activity in ancient India.

Slide Twelve-Thirteen-Fourteen

Maritime Tin Route linking Hanoi and Haifa, which preceded the Silk Road by two millennia, was witness to a prosperous India.

Slide Fifteen-Sixteen

Dong Son (Vietnam)/Karen Bronze Drums with cire perdue tympanums signify metalwork using Sindhu/Sarasvati Script hieroglyphs/hypertexts. Cultural traits developed in the Sindhu-Sarasvati civilization had spread over most of South-East-Asia.

Slide Seventeen

People of ancient India (Bhāratamjanam) contributed to 32% of Global GDP from 1 CE on until the end of the first millennium according to Angus Maddison. This was made possible thanks to the ‘artha niti’(work ethics and philosophy) documented by Kautilya and others.

Slide Eighteen-Nineteen-Twenty

Domestication of crops like cotton, rice, millet, creation of śreṇis (guilds), i.e., institutions acting as corporate forms for wealth-creation that were consistent with the Weltanschauung of dharma were other supporting factors of continued economic prosperity (abhyudaya) during the first millennium in Bharata.

Slide Twenty-one

Sindhu-Sarasvati Script Corpora constitute Bronze Age metalwork catalogues

Slide Twenty-two-Twenty-three

Ātmā of Bhāratam Janam

The gesture of welcome and greeting (namaste), yogasana (yoga posture), parting of hair, a variety of terracotta toys etc constitute metaphors of life principles and life activities of the people of India (Bhāratam Janam) that continue from the Vedic and Sindhu-Sarasvati times.

Thanks to Dr Shrinivas Tilak

 

Namaste

Sarasvati Script.pdf Full Paper http://tinyurl.com/lnj2uuz Sarasvati-Sindhu Script

Mohenjodaro ‘Dancing Girl’ is Parvati, claims ICHR journal

The author claims that the Dancing Girl is Parvati because “where there is Shiva, there should be Shakti”.

Written by Ritika Chopra | New Delhi | Updated: December 26, 2016 12:07 pm

Dates back to 2500 BC

The iconic ‘Dancing Girl’ of Mohenjodaro is Goddess Parvati, further proof that people of the Indus Valley Civilisation worshipped Shiva, claims a new research paper published in Itihaas, the Hindi journal of the Indian Council of Historical Research.

The research paper, titled ‘Vedic Sabhyata Ka Puratatva (Archaeology of Vedic Civilisation)’, authored by Thakur Prasad Verma, a retired professor of Banaras Hindu University, makes a case for the Vedic identity of the Indus Valley Civilisation and reiterates the longstanding claim of Right-leaning historians that Shiva was worshipped by the inhabitants of this civilisation. Verma’s interpretation of the Dancing Girl, dating around 2500 BC, as a Hindu goddess – the first such claim – is in line with this argument.

The research paper goes on to say that several artefacts excavated from Mohenjodaro point to Shiva worship in those times. According to Verma, the famous ‘Seal 420’, a seal of a horned figure sitting in yogic posture and surrounded by animals, is strong evidence of Shiva worship. The identity of the figure in the seal has often been the subject of debates. While archaeologist John Marshall in 1931 saw a “prototype of Siva” in this figure, historians have later differed with this interpretation and some have even suggested the figure is of a woman.

Further, to prove Shiva worship in the Indus Valley Civilisation, Verma states that the trefoil pattern seen on the shawl of the ‘Priest King’, another iconic sculpture excavated from Mohenjodaro, is sign that the king was the follower of a Hindu god. The trefoil pattern, he says, resembles the Vilva or Bilva leaves that are used to worship Shiva today.

The author then goes on to claim that the Dancing Girl is Parvati because “where there is Shiva, there should be Shakti”, a manifestation of the Goddess, though “till date, no one has identified any idol or statue of Parvati in Harappan Civilisation”.

Historian and Jawaharlal Nehru University professor Supriya Verma said this was the first time anyone had said the Dancing Girl could be Parvati. “Till date, no archaeologist has ever interpreted the ‘Dancing Girl’ as a goddess, let alone Parvati. This particular artefact has always been seen as the sculpture of a young girl. It is difficult to say anything more than that. The elaborate terracotta female figurines were described by Marshall as mother goddesses, although he categorised some of the other terracotta female figurines as either toys or as being associated with magic,” Verma said in an email to The Indian Express.

The latest edition of ‘Itihaas’ was released last month. This is the first edition of the journal published during ICHR chairman YS Rao’s tenure. Historian Sachidanand Sahai is the chief editor of the journal.

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/mohenjodaro-dancing-girl-is-parvati-claims-ichr-journal-4444981/

Fallacies of Proto-Indo-European — Nicholas Kazanas

Fallacies of Proto-Indo-European

Kazanas, December 2016

0.There was a P(roto)I(ndo-)E(uropean) language 10.000 years ago. Its reconstruction is impossible now despite enormous efforts by fanciful scholars. The closest extant language is (old) Sanskrit.

1. I do not belong to the small circle of sanskritists, classicists and others who reject the existence of PIE. Admittedly there is no hard evidence for this language – no texts, no fragments anywhere. But the astonishing similarities that unmistakably exist between Sanskrit, Old Greek, Latin and other languages cannot be dismissed as chance events or borrowing or wave-influences. The languages involved starting in the East and moving westward are chiefly these: Sanskrit (or Vedic or Old Indic), Avestan (or Iranian in Ancient Persia/Iran), Tocharian (in Central Asia), Armenian, Hittite (Luvian, Palaic and few others in what is today Turkey), Slavic (branches in Russia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Czechoslovakia, Poland and few other areas), Albanian, Greek, Latin (and few other dialects in today’s Italy, Spain, France and Rumania), Celtic (Old Irish/Welsh), Germanic (the largest family with Gothic, Old High German, Old Icelandic etc) and Baltic (=Latvian, Lithuanian and Old Prussian).

From these ancient languages various scholars have over almost two centuries now, starting around 1800, “reconstructed”, so they claim, the ancient PIE. I shall not cite any of these reconstructions, except on rare occasions as absurd examples, because they are all imaginary, having no true basis in reality, since no trace of PIE itself has survived. Some laws of change and interrelation between (some of) the extant languages are valid since they are based on actual lexemes (=forms of words). But as soon as one moves out of these few oases of rationality, one wallows in uncertainty and conjecture.

2. Let me start by giving some examples of close similarities. I leave out Avestan (or Iranian) because in most case the lexeme is very similar to Sanskrit. But I deal with some Indo-Iranian affinities in §8, below.

belly : S(anskrit) udara , Gk hoderos, L(atin) (venter?) uterus, B(altic) vēderas .

flesh : S māṃsa, Toch(arian) misa, Arm(enian) mis, Sl(avic) mesa, Alb(anian) mish, G(er)m(anic) mimz/mensā, B mesa.

knee : S jānu , Gk gonu , L genu , Gm kniw.

molar(tooth): S jamba, Toch keme, Sl zebn, Alb(anian) dhëmb, Gk gomphos.

Some human relations.

father : S pitṛ/pitar , Gk patēr, L pater, C athir (Celtic lost |p| almost everywhere), Gm fadar .

mother : is found in various forms in all except H(ittite)

son : S sūnu , Toch soy, Sl synǔ, Gk hui-, Gm sunu(s), B sūnus.

Natural phenomena

dawn : S uṣās ,  Gk ēōs, L au[s]rora, Gm eostre, B  aušra.

fire : S agni , H agnis, Sl ognǔ, L ignis , B ugnis.

rainwater : S abhra, Arm amb, Gk ombro, L imber.

star : S star- , Toch śreñ/ścirye, Arm astl-, Gk astēr , L stella , C sterenn , Gm stairnō .

Man-made objects

awl : S ārā , Gm al/āla , Old Prussian ylo , B yla .

butter : S sarpis , Toch sälyp-e, Alb gjalp, Gk helpos, Gm salba.

house :  S dhāma, Sl domǔ, Gk dom-a/-o, L domus.

wheel :  S cakra , Toch kukäl, Gk kuklo-, Gm hwēol.

Some verbs

be : S asti, Gk esti, Gm ist etc etc.

beget : S jan-, Gk gen-, Lt gen-, C gen-a/i.

grab : S grabh, H karp, Sl grabi-, Gm gre(i)pan, B grābt.

put : S dhā- , Toch täs/tēs, H dai, Sl dĕ-ti,  Gk ti-thē-, C do-di, B détí.

think : S man, Sl mǐnĕ-, Gk mna-/main-, L me-min-, C de-moin-, Gm mun, B many.

There are hundreds more. But enough examples have been given to show that far too many lexemes have close resemblance to assume anything other than a genetic relation. That is to say, the languages mentioned descended from one original mother tongue and each retained many or few aspects according to the influences it received once they had split, when groups of people speaking the original PIE began to diverge and move to different distant areas.

3. Apart from lexemes there are similarities in the declension of nouns and conjugation of verbs and in syntax. Moreover, there are similarities in themes and motifs in mythology and in several customs, laws and social practices.

Below are the 1st Sing, 1st and 3rd Plural persons of the verb to be:

	Sanskrit	Hittite	Greek	Germanic(Gothic)
sing 1	asmi	ēšmi	eimi	im
pl 1	smas	–––	e-smen	sijum
pl 3	santi	ašanzi	eisi/enti	sind

Except for the Gothic sijum ‘we are’ the resemblances are so close as to need no further comment.

I shall close this section with one of the many mythologems that are common to three or more IE cultures. Versions of this are found in the Sanskrit, Greek, Celtic and Germanic (Scandinavian) cultures.

In the Vedic literature we find Saraṇyu, daughter of creator god Tvaṣṭṛ, marrying the Sungod Vivasvat. But soon afterward she disappeared leaving behind her a shadowy likeness and assumed the form of a mare. Vivasvat located her, assumed the form of a stallion and mated with her. As a result the twin horse deities Aśvins were born.

In Greece, goddess Demeter disappeared to escape the sexual harassment of seagod Poseidon. She assumed the form of a mare. Poseidon located her with the aid of Sungod, became a stallion and mated with her. As a result was born a noble horse Areion and a girl. Then the goddess was worshipped in Arcadia as Demeter Erinus (=Saraṇyu: a sure cognation).

In Scandinavia the gods asked a giant-mason to build for them a huge wall within a certain date and would win a goddess as reward. With the help of his horse Svadilfari, the mason worked very fast and would win the bet with the gods. So they sought the help of Loki, god of tricks and transformations. He became a mare and kept distracting the mason’s horse. Thus the gods won their bet as the mason was unable to finish on time. The mare became pregnant and bore the eight-legged horse Sleipnir, the fastest ever. This was given to kinggod Odin.

Again the similarities are quite extraordinary when one considers how far apart the three traditions were and how none of the intermediate IE or non-IE cultures had this legend. But the element of sex with a mare is found in other legends and the Irish should be mentioned here. In one tribe in Ulster, the future king had to mount a white mare before his coronation. Then the mare was slaughtered and cooked and all people involved in the ritual partook of the mare’s meat.

In some IE countries bestiality was forbidden except for mares and in some cases cows. Wherever Christianity was established all bestiality was  prohibited.

4. It is an established fact that we scholars love conjectures, models, suppositions, theories, about all subjects. When the similar IE languages were discovered and explored in the 19th cent, the desire arose naturally to find the mother tongue PIE. This was not forthcoming and it is unlikely that it will be discovered. So linguists specialising in this area, comparativists, began to contrive this PIE on the basis of the facts in these extant languages. They thought then, and now many of them are certain, that PIE could be “reconstructed”. The early attempts in the 20th cent were not very satisfactory and one generation after another “improved”, as they thought, on the work of the previous. By the 1990’s they felt confident that their methods had been refined and become very exact and scientific. And soon thereafter followed several studies presenting the last word on comparative IE philology and the reconstructed mother tongue PIE. (E.g. B. Fortson 2004, N. Ritt 2004, J. Clackson 2006.)

The first fallacy is that the comparative method is “scientific” and can offer predictions.   And the comparativists are very proud of their “science” – although there are some few who dissent and consider all this a waste of time (e.g. Leach 1990; Angela Marcantonio 2009, 2013).

There are in fact no predictions outside observable phenomena in the fairly rich documentation of comparatively early languages like Sanskrit, Avestan, Greek and Latin. For instance, Sanskrit |ś| appears in Greek most frequently as |k|, as in S daśa = Gk deka for the number 10, and S śăta = Gk he-kato for the number 100. But S /ś/ appears in Greek as |p| also, as in S aśva = Gk hippos for horse. When Mycenaean Greek was deciphered in mid-20th cent., it was discovered that it had iqo-/iqe- for horse. So the equation S |ś| = Gk |k| held true if |k| = |q|.

This discovery is, of course, no prediction at all. Because the other Greek dialects do not conform to this rule and the causes for the disparity are totally unknown.

In any event, the scientific predictions and reconstructions should concern the PIE itself. But this cannot be verified. Thus we are asked to accept the results of a “scientific” method that can in no way be verified. And this proposition comes from scholars who are regarded as mature, serious and well-educated. Yet they disregard one of the most basic conditions of scientific investigation: the results must be amenable to independent verification.

5. Closely related to the previous fallacy, is the fallacy that PIE can be reconstructed.

It cannot. Apart from the impossibility of verifying the reconstructions since we have no genuine, original PIE linguistic facts, the data available from the various IE extant tongues contain many variations and contradictions. It is acknowledged by the more sober, older scholars that the extant languages descend not from the PIE itself but from dialects that had descended from it.

1. Burrow who wrote a study of Sanskrit (1955, revised 1973), that still remains a standard text, wrote: “In the case of Indo-European it is certain that there was no such unitary language which can be reached by means of comparison… In fact detailed comparison makes it clear that the Indo-European that we can reach… was already deeply split up into a series of varying dialects” (11: 1973).
2. Szemerényi, an eminent comparativist in his day but now out of favour and fashion, writes on one page that “the first task of the Indo-Euroepanist is … the fullest possible reconstruction of the Indo-European” to be used as “a starting-point for the interpretation of the system and its prehistory” but on another page writes that we need the reconstructed forms for easier reference (one form rather that the many in the diverse IE tongues) and elsewhere cites other scholars who assert that “complete forms cannot be reconstructed at all” (1996: 33)!

Like Szemerényi and others, I think all indoeuropeanist comparativists are aware of the absurd side of the matter, that is of reconstructing a language that cannot be verified, that is spoken by nobody and has no texts whatever! Don Ringe also, a respected contemporary comparativist, mentions the difficulties of reconstruction (2004: 1117). Yet the indoeuropeanists continue their “scientific” reconstructions degrading every sense of science and scientific investigation. In 2000 Calvert Watkins published The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots , while others publish textbooks for students!!!

It is customary to place an asterisk initially on every reconstructed lexeme (e.g. *deiwos = S devas ‘god’) but Watkins has put no stars on his roots: anɘ ‘breathe’ (PIE *h₂en-?!!?) = S an; gnō ‘know’= S jñā ; mē ‘measure’ = S  mā ;  stā ‘stand’ = S sthā; yag ‘worship’ = S yaj ‘sacrifice’; etc. So readers uninformed in the subject may well think that these concoctions are actual roots of an actual language. This is a minor difficulty. Watkins indulges at length in misleading everybody by not providing adequate information or by providing only secondary inessential facts. E.g. root anɘ : he refers to L anima ‘soul’ and derivatives, to Gk anemo ‘wind’ and derivatives and the name ‘Enid’ from Welsh eneit ‘soul’. But he does not say that only S has the root (dhātu) itself √an and the conjugation of the verb ‘to breathe’!

The epidemic with proto-languages has spread to linguistic studies of other groups of languages, like Afro-Asiatic, Dravidian, Finno-Ugric, Kurtvelian etc. Even within IE family, the comparativists deal with Proto-Germanic, Proto-Celtic, Proto-Italic (i.e. Latin etc) and so on. R. Woodward edited, with the help of numerous other comparativists, in 2004, the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Ancient Languages (Cambridge, Britain). Chapter 17, incidentally, describes briefly in 14 pages and in “scientific” terms, the IE Protolanguage admitting that it is not attested but “reconstructed”.

However, the mentality behind this reconstructed PIE is not all that different from the belief, current in St Augustine’s time in the 4th cent CE that all languages descended from Hebrew. It was Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609) who first challenged this mainstream inane notion.

6. Another fallacy is very subtle: it is the tacit assumption that the reconstructed forms are actual and experts in this imaginary field discuss and argue among themselves as if they are realities.

If by some miracle a tablet should be discovered from say 10 000 BCE with a genuine (fragment of a) text of PIE, these experts would not recognise it as such because, I am sure, it would be vastly different from their reconstructions. I shall explain the reasons for my certitude below (§§ 7-11).

In an effort to convince others of the validity of the reconstructions, the IEnists use two analogies: one is the depiction of an animal, a drawing, in a biology textbook which is according to J. Clackson, “an idealised depiction”: the drawing corresponds to the creature (cat or caterpillar) but it is not the same as it (2013:270). Obviously the learned comparativist does not see the frightful fallacy here. The cat or caterpillar is drawn from real life; they are existing entities and the artist, or photographer in our days, has actually seen the animal itself and has not “reconstructed” it from scattered pieces, here and there, as philologists do!

The second analogy is the “map” of the sky and “constellations” like the Orion. These are presented in two dimensions whereas the actual positions of stars differ in depth and distance in space: some lie further away from earth than others (Clackson 2013:271). Here too our comparativist falls into the same fallacy. Sky-maps and constellations are real objects seen and photographed, not a concoction of pieces from different constellations in different areas of heaven as seen by us. The PIE tongue is not seen or photographed from real PIE elements: it is a new formation “reconstructed” with entities from different languages and projected as “real”. What has actual existence are the extant languages; the PIE is an imaginary collage, a conjectural projection without any real existence except in the linguistic books!

7. The development of reconstruction has not been a straight line. At first Sanskrit was given prominence. Eventually a more “democratic” approach prevailed but one that regards Hittite as an older and closer descendant of the PIE. And since Hittite has a sound that came to be designated “laryngeal”, i.e. |h̯|, gradually this sound and variants were introduced to fill many gaps and solve difficulties met in comparisons. At one time these laryngeals were 10, now they have been reduced to 3. But they are wilfully introduced even in languages that do not have them, like Sanskrit and Avestan!

Sanskrit is not given the attention it deserves because it is regarded as more “modern” than Hittite, Iranian (=Avestan) etc.

This is due to the wretched AIT, the Aryan Invasion/Immigration Theory. This states that the Indoaryans (=ancient Indians/Aryans) came from Iran into N-W India c 1700 after spending some time in Iran with the Iranians and speaking a common Indo-Iranian protolanguage. They spread southward and eastward into the Gangetic plain driving the old natives south into the Dravidian area of India, or reducing them into the servile class.

This absurd Theory, like so many others, has become mainstream doctrine. It ignores glaring facts. The Avestan hymns say that the Iranians themselves wandered much before settling into South Iran and the first place they passed from was the Land of the Seven Rivers (in N-W India and Pakistan). A Sanskrit text, again, Baudhāyana’s Śrautasūtra (18.14) says that there was the Āmāvasa migration from Saptasindhu (Land of 7 rivers) westward and the Ṛgveda hymn 6.61.9,12 says that the 5 Aryan tribes spread beyond the seven sister-rivers!

However, I leave this fallacious theory as I have deconstructed it in my Vedic and Indo-European Studies (N. Delhi, 2015) and in numerous other publications.

According to my reading of anthropological, archaeological, genetic, linguistic and literary data, all expounded in detail in my two books (2009, 2015), the original IE homeland was in the larger area of Saptasindhu and covering Bactria. From there the various IE-speakers radiated to their northern and north-western and western migrations. The Avestan speakers are the last to leave and for this reason their tongue Old Iranian bears the greatest resemblance to Old Indic.

Baudhāyana’s ŚrautaSūtra 18.14 mentions two migrations: one eastward, the Āyava; one westward, the Āmāvasa producing the Gāndhāris, Parśus (=Persians) and Arāttas (=of Urartu and/or Ararat on the Caucausus).

8. Another fallacy is the notion of uniform phonological change in the selfsame environment.

This does sound most reasonable. In fact, it is quite otherwise in the actual world of the texts. I shall take only one example from Sanskrit and Avestan, since they are such close relatives and neighbours, the sonorant vowel |ṛ|, which is by full consensus held to be PIE.

Observe please that this |ṛ|, remains in fact in all the Sanskrit words but changes variously in the corresponding Avestan!

S	ṛṣṭi ‘spear’;	amṛta ‘immortal’;	vṛka ‘wolf’;	vṛkṣa ‘tree’;	ākṛti ‘form’
A	aršti ;	amǝša ;	vǝhrka ;	varǝša ;	ākǝrǝti

There are, in fact, more variations in Avestan – ōrǝ , ar , ra …

Writing on Kurylowitz’s ‘laws of change’, Heinrich Hock, one of the most eminent IE comparativists stated – “a prediction of when a change will or must occur is impossible” (1991:211).

9. Another fallacy is the division into satem and centum languages: satem being Sanskrit, Avestan, Baltic etc; centum being Tocharian, Greek, Latin etc. As is generally known, the distinction is due to the appearance of palatals in satem (from Avestan ‘one hundred’ = S śata) and of velars (gutturals) in the centum (from L ‘one hundred’). However, this distinction is not so absolute as one might think. Palatals are found in some places in centum tongues and velars in satem.

The Baltic languages are three: Old Prussian, Latvian and Lithuanian. Well, in Lithuanian we find god Perkunas (and variants = Sl Perenu) who is cognate with S Parjanya. Thus S has the palatal |j| as is proper for satem but Lithuanian has the velar |k| which is proper to centum languages.

10. The biggest fallacy and central to any discussion regarding the Protolanguage in IE studies is exposed by the presence of roots or more correctly dhātus ‘lexical seedforms’ in Sanskrit. When all the paraphernalia of PIE reconstructions are laid aside the investigator finds that, in plain fact, only Sanskrit and Avestan (to a much lesser degree) have roots! The other IE languages have verbs and nouns etc but not roots, as such, from which verbs and nouns etc are derived. Even Sanskrit has many words that cannot be analysed or traced back to a dhātu (apart from borrowed words): e.g. kakud ‘peak’, nṛ/nara ‘man’, putra ‘child/son’, balakṣa ‘white’, śūdra ‘servile’ etc. But it has 2000 dhātus all told and about 700 fully active in the early language.

In his Dictionary Walkins gives 5 roots ser, and of these he connects number 2 with S ̦√sṛ > sarati/sisarti ‘moves/flows/runs’ and then gets lost in the labyrinth of IE complexities. This |sṛ| is not found as an independent word noun or adjective, but is found in S as stem in sṛ-t ‘running’, sṛ-ta ‘having gone/passed’, sṛti ‘way’ etc. Then there are sara saraṇa, sarit, sāra, sārin etc. This is found also in a cognate form in Tocharian salate, in Gk hallomai and L salio, all meaning ‘leap/rush’, but only as verbs, not as roots and with very few derivatives. The most curious fact is that its derivative saras ‘eddy, whirl, wave, lake’ is in the name of the ancient river saras-vatī. This is cognate with Avestan hara^xvaiti, also a river’s name; but there is no root nor other word connected with this harah in Iranian, so it stands alone! The mainstream theory, that wants the common Indo-Iranian tongue and culture in Iran, says that the Indoaryans went to Saptasindhu and there gave their version of the name to a river to remind them of their former country. This of course is utter, wilful nonsense, because saras has a rich family of lexemes and a dhātu but the Iranian haraḥ is a lonely orphan! So the movement must have been the other way round and the Iranians just lost dhātu and derivatives retaining only the name and memory of the river in Saptasindhu. (See§7-8.) Otherwise, it is impossible that the Indoaryans left Iran with only harah/saras and once in their new habitat started developing other lexemes and the dhātu √sṛ.

11. Of the 700 dhātus in the early Vedic texts, 200 are found in the root-form as nouns or adjectives and also stems for verbs. Thus Vedic has √īś (m) ‘lord’ and verb īś-e ‘I reign’; but also derivatives īśa, īśin, īśvara etc. Similarly √ruc > ruc (f) ‘lustre’ and á-ru-ruc-at ‘one shone’ (in a past tense, called reduplicated aorist); but also derivatives ruk-ma, ruca-ka, rucin, rocana etc. Similarly √sad > sad (adj) ‘sitting’ and verb á-sad-at (aorist) ‘one sat’. 200 such dhātus with their families of derivatives (nouns and verbs etc) form a very rich inheritance – considering that no other IE language has anything. Tatiana Elizarenkova, the renowned Russian vedicist, put it like this: “the verb-root [=dhātu] is basic to both inflexion and derivation…it is irrelevant that for some root as such nouns are not attested”(1995: 50). Sanskrit has organic coherence.

The most telling aspect for the antiquity and significance of Sanskrit is precisely this organic coherence arising from roots generating verbs, nouns etc. This functions with the regular use of suffixes, verbal and nominal. I shall give only two examples, but the instances are hundreds.

S has the stems pad/pād- (weak/strong) ‘foot’ and √pad > vb padyate ‘befalls, falls’. Since the foot is the bodily part that in movement constantly rises and “falls” we see semantic as well as phonetic agreement. Gk has pous (Gen podos) and L pes (Gen pedis); Armenian, Hittite and Tocharian have similar cognates for ‘foot’. But none has a cognate verb like S √pad- ! Gm does have ge-fetan ‘to fall’ (Old English) and has cognates fôt/fuoz ‘foot’. Slavic also has pada/pasti ‘falls’ but no other nominal cognates. Lithuanian has the verb peduoti but its padas is ‘sandal, shoe’ (not foot).

The IE cognates for “daughter” present a similar case. S duhitṛ for daughter is the √duh and the suffixes i-tṛ, as in pitṛ ‘father’, aritṛ ‘rower’, aśitṛ ‘eater’ etc. The verb is duḥ- > dogdhi ‘extracts, milks’ (hence duhitṛ = milkmaid!). Gk thugatēr, Gmc tohter, Sl dušti and Oscan (old Italic) futir , have no other plausible cognates in their total diction. Surprisingly neither Latin nor Hittite have any cognations for IE daughter! The others have the noun but not the verb.

12. I could give dozens of more cases which show this organic coherence in Sanskrit, which is totally absent in other IE tongues (See my 2015: ch 2). In another paper, “Rigvedic All-comprehensiveness”, I show that most of the significant cultural and linguistic IE features common in the other IE cultures are found in the Ṛgveda. All other branches show enormous losses in all respects – except erosion.

Is this aspect known and studied in depth by IEean comparativists? Perhaps. But they do not draw the natural conclusion that Sanskrit alone should be the basis for PIE. The other languages are made up of highly eroded and fragmented materials. In my view all the mainstream academic publications on the subject of reconstructing PIE are worthless.

Edmund Leach, provost of King’s College Cambridge, wrote many years ago: “Because of their commitment to a unilateral segmentary history of language development that needed to be mapped onto the ground, the philologists took it for granted that proto-Indo-Iranian was a language that had originated outside India or Iran…. From this we derived the myth of the Aryan invasions”. But he went further: “Indo-European scholars should have scrapped their historical reconstructions and started again from scratch. But this is not what happened. Vested interests and academic posts were involved” (Leach 1990:238).

I am afraid that the edifice of IE linguistics and reconstructions continues to be based on those “vested interests”.

 

 

 

Bibliography

Burrow T.                 1973  The Sanskrit Language, London, Faber & Faber.

Clackson J.               2007  Indo-European Linguistics, Cambridge (Brit), CUP.
2013  The Origin of the Indic Languages… The Indo-European Model, in Marcantonio (ed) 2013, ch9.

Fortson B.                2004  Indo-European Language & Culture Oxford, Blackwell.

Hock H.                      1991 Principles of Historical Linguistics 2^nd ed, Berlin, NY, de Gruyter.

Kazanas N.                 2009 Indo-Aryan Origins… N. Delhi, Aditya Prakashan.

2015 Vedic & Indo-European Studies N. Delhi, Aditya Prakashan.

Leach E .                    1990 “Aryan invasions over four millennia” in Culture through Time (ed) E. Ohnuki-Tierney, Stanford, Stanford University (227-245).

Marcantonio A.       2009  (ed) The Indo-European Language Family: Questions about its Status Washington, Journal of IE Studies Monograph Series No 55. «Most reconstructions are artefacts».
2013 (ed with Girish Nath Jha) Perspectives on the Origin of Indian Civilisation N. Delhi, D.K. Printworld; Center for Indic Studies, Univ. of Massachussets, Dartmouth (MA).

Ringe Don               2004 in Woodword R. (ed) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages, Cambridge (Brit), CUP.

Ritt N.                     2004  Selfish Sounds & Linguistics… Cambridge (Brit), CUP

Szemerényi O.        1996  Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics (1990 transl from German) Oxford, OUP.

Watkins C.              2000  The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots Boston/NY, H. Mifflin Co.

Rāṣṭram — Chandas & Harappa Script संस्कृति, culture & प्रकृति, civilization

Mirror: http://tinyurl.com/jmwrgxj

The idea of rāṣṭram which merges Cosmic Principle and Material Reality is outlined in the context of two works announced in this monograph.

Harappa Script hieroglyphs 1. echo chandas metaphors of 8th millennium BCE 2. data archive अर्थ artha, ‘wealth’ of Rāṣṭram, from 4th millennium BCE. One example is provided by the metaphor of varāha in chandas which is a hieroglyph rendered rebus (vikalpa) in Harappa Script Meluhha cipher.

Culture is a pattern of behaviour, civilization is a material expression.

In a time dimension, Harappa Script of Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization is प्रकृति ‘material expression’ of संस्कृति, ‘Veda culture continuum’. [प्रकृति is original or primary substance; in the सांख्य phil.) the original producer of (or rather passive power of creating) the material world (consisting of 3 constituent essences or गुणs called सत्त्व , रजस् and तमस्) , Nature (distinguished from पुरुष , Spirit as माया is distinguished from ब्रह्मन् in the वेदान्तs).संस्कृति is f. making ready , preparation , perfection VS. &c; hallowing , consecration BhP.; determination, effort.] 

In a space dimension, the culture and civilization are evidenced respectively, 1. in the ancient texts of Veda and 2. in Eurasia along the Maritime Tin Route from Hanoi (Vietnam) to Haifa (Israel).

The roots of संस्कृति, Veda culture (exemplified by rāṣṭram) and प्रकृति, Sarasvati-Sindhu Civilization (exemplified by Harappa Script) are traceable to 8th millennium BCE.

The common link is seen in the stunning depictions of Varaha as personification of Veda, in chandas tradition from 8th m. BCE.

The depictions continue in Harappa Script tradition of the Bronze Age Tin-Bronze Revolution from 4th m. BCE.

Varaha anthropomorph is an expression as Veda Puruṣa पुरुष, the very embodiment of Veda.

Puruṣa पुरुष is ‘the cosmic Being or Self, Consciousness, and Universal principle.’ This is a principle which creates all life and explains creation. The principle is a combination of material reality (Prakriti) and non-material, inexorable dharma-dhamma –aksara अक्षर  ‘non-changing’

Splendid and without a bodily form is this Puruṣa पुरुष , without and within, unborn, without life breath and without mind, higher than the supreme element. From him are born life breath and mind. He is the soul of all beings.— Munduka Upanishad

The limbs of the Veda, vedanga, according to this Upanishad are:

1. Siksha (Phonetics)  :  http://is1.mum.edu/vedicreserve/shiksha.htm

2. Vyakaranam (Grammar)

3. Chandas (Metre)

4. Nirukta (Etymyology)

5. Jyotisha (Astronomy)

6. Kalpa (Rituals and Mathematics) (Note: With the Harappa Script cipher we can add one more art&science discipline to complement language studies, mlecchita vikalpa, cryptography or hieroglyphic writing system. mleccha, milakkhu also mean ‘copper’. Meluhha  (aka mleccha) is defined as parole (lingua franca or spoken forms of language) of Bharata sprachbund, language union).

Harappa Script manifests the material reality (Prakriti). Veda manifests the non-material (Samskriti) cosmic principle of order called dharma-dhamma.

The common link  is seen over 10 millennia years of story of civilization of Eurasia, in अर्थ  in a tripartite structure of metaphors, which uses synonyms: resources which yield wealth, products as wealth and knowledge systems as wealth.

Metaphors of chandas (language of the Veda) find their echoes in the rebus Meluhha (spoken forms lingua franca or parole) renderings on Harappa Script cipher to data archive metalwork catalogues.

Only one hieroglyph is incised as an inscription text on Sheorajpur anthropomorph of ram’s horns with spread legs. Together with the fish-fins, this hypertext is a mleccha rebus rendering of the plain text: meḍ aya kammaṭa karṇaka ‘iron (metal) mint merchant, helmsman’

ayo meḍh ‘metal merchant’ ayo mēdhā ‘metal expert’

PLUS कर्णक m. du. the two legs spread out AV. xx ,133 rebus: karṇika कर्णिक ‘steersman’.

Note: mēdhā also has the semantics of: ‘dhanam, wealth and yajna’. An allograph: M. mẽḍhā m. ʻ crook or curved end (of a horn, stick, &c.) ʼ with the same cipher rendering of plain text occurs on ancient punch-marked coins which use symbols in Harappa Script metalwork tradition.

Medha = nipuṇa, pravīṇa, abhijña, vijña, niṣṇāta, śikṣita, vaijñānika, kṛtamukha, kṛtin, kuśala, saṅkhyāvat, matimat, kuśagrīyamati, kṛṣṭi, vidura, budha, dakṣa, nediṣṭha, kṛtadhī, sudhin, vidvas, kṛtakarman, vicakṣaṇa, vidagdha, catura, prauḍha, boddhṛ, viśārada, sumedhas, sumati, tīkṣṇa, prekṣāvat, vibudha, vidan, vijñānika, kuśalin   yaḥ prakarṣeṇa kāryakṣamaḥ asti।arjunaḥ dhanurvidyāyāṃ nipuṇaḥ āsīt।

मेधा f. mental vigour or power , intelligence , prudence , wisdom (pl. products of intelligence , thoughts , opinions) RV. &c Intelligence personified (esp. as the wife of धर्म and daughter of दक्ष) MBh. R. Hariv. Pur. மேதை¹ mētai , n. < mēdhā. 1. Supreme intelligence, powerful intellect; பேரறிவு. 2. Greatness; மேன்மை. (சூடா.) 3. Person of supreme intelligence; பேரறிவாளி. (சிறுபஞ். 22.)

Medhasa (adj.) [=Vedic medhas, as a — base] having wisdom or intelligence, wise, only in cpds. bhūri˚ of great wisdom Sn 1131; & su˚ [Ved. sumedhas] very wise Vv 222 (=sundara — pañña VvA 111); Pv iii.77 Medhāvin (adj.) [medhā+in=*medhāyin>medhāvin; already Vedic, cp. medhasa] intelligent, wise, often combd with paṇḍita & bahussuta: D i.120; S iv.375; Aiv.244; Vin iv.10, 13, 141; Sn 323 (acc. medhāvinaŋ +bahussutaŋ) 627, 1008 (Ep. of Mogharājā), 1125 (id.); Nd2 259 (s. v. jātimā, with var. other synonyms); Dh 36; J vi.294; Miln 21; DhA i.257; ii.108; iv.169; VvA 131; PvA 41.Medhā (f.) [Vedic medhā & medhas, perhaps to Gr. maq˚ in manqa/nw (“mathematics”)] wisdom, intelligence, sagacity Nd1 s. v. (m. vuccati paññā); Pug 25; Dhs 16, DhsA 148; PvA 40 (=paññā). — adj. sumedha wise, clever, intelligent Sn 177; opp. dum˚ stupid Pv i.82. — khīṇa — medha one whose intelligence has been impaired, stupefied J vi.295 (=khīṇa — pañña).(Pali)

Hieroglyph: So. ayo `fish’. Go. ayu `fish’. Go <ayu> (Z), <ayu?u> (Z),, <ayu?> (A) {N} “^fish”. Kh. kaDOG `fish’. Sa. Hako `fish’. Mu. hai (H) ~ haku(N) ~ haikO(M) `fish’. Ho haku `fish’. Bj. hai `fish’. Bh.haku `fish’. KW haiku ~ hakO |Analyzed hai-kO, ha-kO (RDM). Ku. Kaku`fish’.@(V064,M106) Mu. ha-i, haku `fish’ (HJP). @(V341) ayu>(Z), <ayu?u> (Z)  <ayu?>(A) {N} “^fish”. #1370. <yO>\\<AyO>(L) {N} “^fish”. #3612. <kukkulEyO>, <kukkuli-yO>(LMD) {N} “prawn”. !Serango dialect. #32612. <sArjAjyO>,,<sArjAj>(D) {N} “prawn”. #32622. <magur-yO>(ZL) {N} “a kind of ^fish”. *Or.<>. #32632. <ur+GOl-Da-yO>(LL) {N} “a kind of ^fish”. #32642<bal.bal-yO>(DL) {N} “smoked fish”. #15163. (Munda Etyma)

Rebus: Ayo & Aya (nt.) [Sk. ayaḥ nt. iron & ore, Idg. *ajes — , cp. Av. ayah, Lat. aes, Goth. aiz, Ohg. ēr (= Ger. Erz.), Ags. ār (= E. ore).] iron. The nom. ayo found only in set of 5 metals forming an alloy of gold (jātarūpa), viz. ayo,loha (copper), tipu (tin), sīsa (lead), sajjha (silver) A iii.16 = S v.92; of obl. cases only the instr. ayasāoccurs Dh 240 (= ayato DhA iii.344); Pv i.1013 (paṭikujjita, of Niraya). — Iron is the material used kat)e)coxh/n in the outfit & construction of Purgatory or Niraya (see niraya & Avīci & cp. Vism 56 sq.). — In compn. both ayo˚ & aya˚ occur as bases. I. ayo˚: — kapāla an iron pot A iv.70 (v. l. ˚guhala); Nd2 304 iii. d 2 (of Niraya). — kūṭa an iron hammer PvA 284. — khīla an iron stake S v.444; M iii.183 = Nd2304 iii. c; SnA 479. — guḷa an iron ball S v.283; Dh 308; It 43 = 90; Th 2, 489; DA i.84. — ghana an iron club Ud 93; VvA 20. — ghara an iron house J iv.492. — paṭala an iron roof or ceiling (of Niraya) PvA 52. — pākāra an iron fence Pv i.1013 = Nd2 304 iii. d 1. — maya made of iron Sn 669 (kūṭa); J iv.492 (nāvā); Pvi.1014 (bhūmi of N.); PvA 43, 52. — muggara an iron club PvA 55. — sanku an iron spike S iv.168; Sn 667.  II. aya˚: — kapāla = ayo˚ DhA i.148 (v. l. ayo˚). -kāra a worker in iron Miln 331. — kūṭa = ayo˚ J i.108; DhA ii.69 (v. l.). — nangala an iron plough DhA i.223;iii.67. — paṭṭaka an iron plate or sheet (cp. loha˚) J v.359. — paṭhavi an iron floor (of Avīci) DhA i.148. — sanghāṭaka an iron (door) post DhA iv.104. — sūla an iron stake Sn 667; DhA i.148.(Pali)

barāh, baḍhi ‘boar’ vāḍhī, bari, barea ‘merchant’ bārakaśa ‘seafaring vessel’

Anthropomorph, Varaha. Harappa Script

A composite copper anthropomorphic figure along with a copper sword was found by Dr. Sanjay Manjul, Director, Institute of Archaeology at the Central Antiquity Section, ASI, Purana Qila in 2005. This composite copper anthropomorph is a solitary example in the copper hoard depicting a Varāha ‘boar’ head. The Anthropomorphic figure, its inscription and animal motif that it bears, illustrate the continuity between the Harappan and Early Historical period.

Hieroglyph: mẽḍhā ‘curved horn’, miṇḍāl ‘markhor’ (Tōrwālī) meḍho a ram, a sheep; mē̃ḍh ‘ram’ Rebus: Медь [Med’] (Russian, Slavic) ‘copper’.

मृदु, मृदा–कर ‘iron, thunderbolt’  मृदु mṛdu ‘a kind of iron’ मृदु-कार्ष्णायसम्,-कृष्णायसम् soft-iron, lead.

Santali glosses.

Sa. <i>mE~R~hE~’d</i> `iron’.  ! <i>mE~RhE~d</i>(M).

Ma. <i>mErhE’d</i> `iron’.

Mu. <i>mERE’d</i> `iron’.

  ~ <i>mE~R~E~’d</i> `iron’.  ! <i>mENhEd</i>(M).

Ho <i>meD</i> `iron’.

Bj. <i>merhd</i>(Hunter) `iron’.

KW <i>mENhEd</i>

@(V168,M080)

http://www.ling.hawaii.edu/austroasiatic/AA/Munda/ETYM/Pinnow&Munda

— Slavic glosses for ‘copper’

Мед [Med]Bulgarian

Bakar Bosnian

Медзь [medz’]Belarusian

Měď Czech

Bakar Croatian

KòperKashubian

Бакар [Bakar]Macedonian

Miedź Polish

Медь [Med’]Russian

Meď Slovak

BakerSlovenian

Бакар [Bakar]Serbian

Мідь [mid’] Ukrainian[unquote]

http://www.vanderkrogt.net/elements/element.php?sym=Cu

Miedź, med’ (Northern Slavic, Altaic) ‘copper’.
One suggestion is that corruptions from the German “Schmied”, “Geschmeide” = jewelry. Schmied, a smith (of tin, gold, silver, or other metal)(German) result in med ‘copper’.

ayo meḍh ‘metal merchant’ ayo mēdhā ‘metal expert’

PLUS  karṇika ‘spread legs’ rebus: karṇika कर्णिक ‘steersman’.

barāh, baḍhi ‘boar’ vāḍhī, bari, barea ‘merchant’ bārakaśa ‘seafaring vessel’.

eka-shingi ‘one-masted’ koḍiya, khondā   ‘young bull’, koṭiya ‘dhow’, kũdār ‘turner, brass-worker’ kunda ‘fine gold’. Thus, the anthropomorph signifies a steersman/helmsman, metals expert, metals turner (brass worker, goldsmith), metals merchant with a dhow, seafaring vessel.

Normally, the one-horned young bull is associated with hypertext of ‘lathe PLUS brazier’. Sheorajpur where this anthropomorph was discovered is on the banks of Ganga in Kanpur District. An ancient temple in the village is Kereshwar Mandir. The Sheorajpur anthropomorph is a धम्म र्संज्ञा dhamma saṁjñā ‘duty signifier’ — like a calling card proclaiming his or her professional expertese in metal work and responsibility as a steersman of a cargo boat — sangaDa ‘double-canoe, catamaran, seafaring vessel’. The combination of animal parts (by inscribing a ‘fish’ hieroglyph on the chest of the ‘ram, curved horn’ anthropomorph) is sangaDa rebus: sangaDa ‘double-canoe’. A rebus reading may also signify Vajra samghAta ‘adamantine glue’ or metallic calx.

Varaha and Bhumi, Badami

Varaha & Bhudevi (feet), Khajuraho; Varaha & Bhudevi Udayagiri caves

Varaha and Sarasvati, Khajuraho

Coin with Varaha (Vishnu Avatar) on a Gurjara-Pratihara coin 850-900 CE, British Museum.

इला	पृथिवी,  अग्नि	havir yajna, pAka yajna
मही	लक्ष्मी, द्रव्य, श्री	Soma yajna
सरस्वती	भारती,  वाक्	AtmA is devatA, RishikA is वाच् आम्भृणी

Kadambas of Hangal, Gold Gadyana in the name of Nakareshwara, the patron deity of Bankapur (1100-1200 CE), MCSI-I 225, 4.22g. Gadyana, வராகன்¹ varākaṉ , n. < Varāha. 1. Viṣṇu, in His boar-incarnation; வராகரூபியான திருமால். (பிங்.) 2. Pagoda, a gold coin = 3½ rupees, as bearing the image of a boar; மூன்றரை ரூபாய் மதிப்ுள்ளதும் பன்றிமுத்திரை கொண்டதுமான ஒரு வகைப் பொன்நாணயம். (அரு. நி.)

अध्य्-ात्म  [p= 23,2] n. the supreme essence. AtmA is the devatA of RV 10.125; Soma —atma yajnasya (RV 9.2.10)

इला [p= 168,2] f. (closely connected with /इडा and /इरा , qq.v.) flow; speech; the earth , &c; » इडा. ऐल [p= 234,3] n. plenty or abundance of food or refreshment;इड [p= 164,2] m. N. of अग्नि (who is to be addressed with prayers , or invoked with the stream of flow of praise) VS. ii , 3; इलावृत n. one of the nine वर्षs or divisions of the known world (comprehending the highest and most central part of the old continent , cf. वर्ष) MBh. BhP. Ma1rkP. VP. &c; Pulastya was one of saptarishis, one of ten Prajapatis, mind-born sons of Brahma.Vishrava was the son of Pulastya; Vishrava’s wife was Ilavida or Ilavila. The son of this union was Ailavida or Ailabila. Ailabila performed austerities and became Kubera, the lord of riches.

भूमि a [p= 763,1] f. (Ved. also nom. भ्/ऊमी gen. abl. °म्यास् loc. °म्याम्) the earth , soil , ground RV. &c

मही 1 [p= 803,2] f. (cf. 2. म्/अह्) , ” the great world ” , the earth (cf. उर्वी , पृथिवी) RV. &c &c (in later language also = ground , soil , land , country); du. heaven and earth RV. i , 80 , 11 ; 159 , 1 &c ( Naigh. iii , 30); pl. waters , streams RV. ii.11 , 2;v , 45 , 3 &c

लक्ष्मी [p= 892,3] = द्रव्य L. f. (nom. /ईस् , rarely /ई ; also ifc. as mf. , but n(इ). ; cf. लक्ष्मीक) a mark , sign , token RV. x , 71 , 2 Nir. iv , 10; (but in the older language more usually with प्/उण्या) a good sign , good fortune , prosperity , success , happiness (also pl.) AV. &c; N. of the goddess of fortune and beauty (frequently in the later mythology identified with श्री and regarded as the wife of विष्णु or नारायण ; accord. to

1. i , 45 , 40-43she sprang with other precious things from the foam of the ocean when churned by the gods and demons for the recovery of the अमृत q.v. ; she appeared with a lotus in her hand , whence she is also called पद्मा ; accord. to another legend she appeared at the creation floating over the water on the expanded petals of a lotus-flower , she is also variously regarded as a wife of सूर्य , as a wife of प्रजा-पति , as a wife of धर्म and mother of काम , as sister or mother of धातृ and विधातृ , as wife of दत्तत्रेय , as one of the 9 शक्तिs of विष्णु , as a manifestation of प्रकृति &c , as identified with दाक्षायणी in भरताश्रम , and with सीता , wife of राम , and with other women) ib. (cf. RTL. 103 ; 108 &c ); N. of various plants (Hibiscus Mutabilis ; Mimosa Suma ; turmeric ; a white तुलसी ; = ऋद्धि , वृद्धि , प्रियङ्गु , and फलिनी) L.

भारती N. of a deity (in RV. often invoked among the आप्री deities and esp. together with इला and सरस्वती accord. to Nir. viii , 13 a daughter of आदित्य ; later identified with सरस्वती , the goddess of speech) RV. &c; speech , voice , word , eloquence , literary composition , dramatic art or recitation MBh. Ka1v. &c

सरस्वती f. (of स्/अरस्वत् q.v. under स्/अरस्) a region abounding in pools and lakes MBh. i , 7745; N. of a river (celebrated in RV. and held to be a goddess whose identity is much disputed ; most authorities hold that the name सरस्वती is identical with the Avestan Haraquaiti river in Afghanistan , but that it usually means the Indus in the RV. , and only occasionally the small sacred rivers in मध्य-देश [see below] ; the river-goddess has seven sisters and is herself sevenfold , she is called the mother of streams , the best of mothers , of rivers , and of goddesses ; the ऋषिs always recognize the connection of the goddess with the river , and invoke her to descend from the sky , to bestow vitality , renown , and riches ; elsewhere she is described as moving along a golden path and as destroying वृत्र &c ; as a goddess she is often connected with other deities e.g. with पूषन् , इन्द्र , the मरुत्s and the अश्विन्s ; in the आप्री hymns she forms a triad with the sacrificial goddesses इडा and भारती ; accord. to a myth told in the VS. xix , 12 , सरस्वती through speech [वाचा] communicated vigour to इन्द्र ; in the ब्राह्मणs she is identified with वाच् , ” Speech ” , and in later times becomes goddess of eloquence » below) RV. &c; N. of a well-known small river (held very sacred by the Hindus ; identified with the modern Sursooty , and formerly marking with the दृषद्वती one of the boundaries of the region आर्य-देष and of the sacred district called ब्रह्मा*वर्त [see Mn. ii , 17] in RV. vii , 95 , 2, this river is represented as flowing into the sea , although later legends make it disappear underground and join the Ganges and Jumna at Allahabad ; » त्रि-वेणी , प्रयाग) ib.; speech or the power of speech , eloquence , learning wisdom MBh. Ka1v. &c; a cow VS. viii , 43

वाक् [p= 936,1] in comp. for वाच्. वाच् [p= 936,1] f. (fr. √ वच्) speech , voice , talk , language (also of animals) , sound (also of inanimate objects as of the stones used for pressing , of a drum &c ) RV. &c (वाचम्- √ऋ , ईर् , or इष् , to raise the voice , utter a sound , cry , call); Speech personified (in various manners or forms e.g. as वाच् आम्भृणी in RV. x , 125 ; as the voice of the middle sphere in Naigh. and Nir. ; in the वेद she is also represented as created by प्रजा-पति and married to him ; in other places she is called the mother of the वेदs and wife of इन्द्र ; in VP. she is the daughter of दक्ष and wife of कश्यप ; but most frequently she is identified with भारती or सरस्वती , the goddess of speech ; वाचः साम and वाचो व्रतम् N. of सामन्s A1rshBr.; वाचः स्तोमः , a partic. एका*ह S3rS. )

अर्थ [p= 90,3] [p= 90,2] mn. ([in RV. i-ix only n. ; in RV. x six times n. and thrice m. ; in later Sanskrit only m.]) aim , purpose (very often अर्थम् , अर्थेन , अर्थाय , and अर्थे ifc. or with gen. ” for the sake of , on account of , in behalf of , for “); substance , wealth , property , opulence , money; (hence in astron.) N. of the second mansion , the mansion of wealth (cf , धन) VarBr2S.; affair , concern (Ved. often acc. /अर्थम् with √ इ , or गम् , to go to one’s business , take up one’s work RV. &c ); sense , meaning , notion (cf. अर्थ-शब्दौandअर्थात् s.v. below and वेदतत्त्वा*र्थ-विद्)

Bharata artisanal competence in metals technologies is exemplified by Wootz (ukku) steel sword presented by Purushottama (Porus) to Alexander on the banks of Jhelum river and Delhi (Besnagar) or Kodachadri non-rusting iron pillars.

A painting in Steel Authority of India Institute, Ranchi.

Kodachadri temple, Karnataka and iron pillar. Culturally, smithy/forge was the temple of Ancient Bharata. kole.l ‘smithy, forge’ was also kole.l ‘temple’ a rebus expression repeatedly signified on Harappa Script Corpora points to the roots of weltanschauung of adhyatmika traditions of Bharata from ca. 8^th millennium BCE. A priest of this ancient temple was shown on an exquisite statue of Mohenjo-daro with Harappa Script hieroglyphs (ca. 3^rd millennium BCE) to signify that he is smelter and purifier (of smelted minerals). A dance-step and a woman with a wick-lamp signified on bronze statues are exemplars of the Bronze Age Revolution which impacted Bharatam Janam, ‘metalcaster folk’, an expression used by Viśvamitra in Rigveda (RV 3.53.12).

Significance of Harappa Script decipherment to explain the wealth of Bharatam ca 1 CE

It is a fact of great historical significance that Bharata accounted for 32.9% of World GDP in 1 CE.^[i]

At the turn of the Common Era, Bharata was indeed a land of bahu-suvarnaka, riches of gold and metallurgical excellence as evidenced by the decipherment of Harappa Script.

This cultural continuity foundation built over millennia sets the tone and tenor for the History and Culture of Bharata.

[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_largest_historical_GDP Pace Angus Maddison’s work for OECD.

The challenge is to extend this bar-chart back in time by about 8 millennia and enquire into the sources of wealth (Global GDP) recorded in 1 CE.

An enquiry into the sources of the wealth of Bharata (India) in 1 CE takes us on a pilgrim’s journey upto the 8th millennium BCE, based on the recorded evidence of Veda texts validated by archaeological evidences mostly from 4th millenium BCE.

Economic History of Ancient India–Artha, ‘wealth’ of Vedic rāṣṭram

This thesis is organized in the following sections:

Section A. rāṣṭram, seafaring merchants, artificers

Section B. Earth as wealth, wealth of minerals, metals

Section C. śreṇi, economic institution to create wealth

Section D. śyena, Varāha, metaphors of 1) mineral, metals wealth and 2) earth as wealth: सोमःसंस्था brahma-somāraṇya

Section E. Work is worship as an economic dictum

This volume is a sequel to the successful decipherment of Harappa Script Corpora as metalwork catalogues. Rigveda which is the oldest document of the civilization of Bharata contains unambiguous indicators related to the idea of rāṣṭram which is, in effect, a pathway for wealth creation for the commonwealth of people, ensuring abhyudayam for all and environment including flora and fauna. While attempts have been made to reonstruct the Economic History of the World (pace Angus Maddison) from 1 CE, there have been no major efforts to rewrite the Economic History of the millennia Before Common Era, say, from the days of the Rigveda dated ca. 8^th millennium BCE. This monograph is a preliminary attempt at building upon the idea of rāṣṭram as the movement of wealths across communities as commonwealths and at narrating historical evolution of śreṇi as a social corporate form. In this attempt, significant leads are provided by the decipherment of the Harappa Script Corpora; in particular, the unique ceramic stoneware responsibility badges with Harappa Script which describe the assignment of specific functions to participants in a guild. The treasurehouse of ancient texts of Bharata provide the literary framework to define the weltanschauung of the people of the rāṣṭram. Archaeological discoveries, sculptures and iconography help validate this framework chronologically in an extensive contact area of Hindu Veda civilization that travelled along a maritime Tin Route stretching from Hanoi (Vietnam) to Haifa (Israel) through Eurasia, about two millennia before the dawn of the Silk Road.

Given the complex nature of the task, this volume is but a continuum of Harappa Script primer –Cryptography for metalwork trade (2016) and will continue to be a work in progress as multi-disciplinary researchers report their findings to enable us to narrate the History and Culture of Bharata.with fidelity. In a nutshell, this is an extraordinary history governed by the primordial value of dharma-dhamma as performance of one’s responsibilities for abhyudayam and nihśreyas—a veritable Pilgrim’s Progress in an enquiry from Being to Becoming, uniting the ātman with the paramātman. Economic history of Ancient Bharata is a story of artha in civilization – artha as defined in Kautilya’s Arthasastra: “The subsistence of mankind is termed artha, wealth; the earth which contains mankind is also termed artha, wealth; that science which treats of the means of acquiring and maintaining the earth is Arthasastra, Science of Polity.” (R. Shamasastry, tr., Kautilya’s Arthasastra, p. 607). The weltanschauung of Meluhha people who encrypted Harappa Script is expressed in a precise, unambiguous example of Harappa Script cipher: kole.l ‘temple’ rebus kole.l ‘smithy, forge’ (Kota language). This is an affirmation of a value system which governed the life-activities of Bharatam Janam that ‘Work is worship’. This is the principal lesson learnt from the Economic History of Ancient Bharata. Metalwork is one form of creating wealth of a rāṣṭram. अहं राष्ट्री संगमनी वसूनां (RV 10.125) ātmā is devatā of the sukta (RV 10.125); Soma is ātmā of yajna. Creation of wealth is dharma and a positive affirmation of one’s life activity consistent with one’s proclivities and competence. ಕಾಯಕವೇ ಕೈಲಾಸ kAyakave kailAsa — Basava. The idiom means: work is worship. mēdhā also has the semantics of: ‘dhanam, wealth and yajna’.

Table of Contents

Section A. rāṣṭram, seafaring merchants, artificers Idea of rāṣṭram Identifying Harappans as Mleccha, Meluhha, Indo-European speakers Excerpts from ancient texts explaining some select terms of lingua franca  Wealth created by seafaring trade in Ancient Bharata Annex. Catamarans built in Malabar coast compare with sewn boats of 19th cent.BCE Ain Sukhna, a Red sea port Section B. Earth as wealth, wealth of minerals, metals Agricultural wealth, cotton textiles, forest products Material resources, fire-workers, ayas and Bronze Age wealth from metalwork Preface: Mleccha and Chandas: ferryman and scholar Semantics of mleccha derived from ancient texts ayas Vedic gloss in hieroglyph modifiers of Indus script, indicators of semantics of soma as a metallurgical process A Munda gloss for fish is ‘aya, ayo’. Read rebus: aya ‘iron’ (Gujarati) ayas ‘metal’ (Vedic) Section C. śreṇi, economic institution to create wealth śreṇi, corporate Hindu economic institution Historical evolution of śreṇi as a social corporate form Corporate organization of artisans and traders Co-operation to acquire wealth combined with social ethic Corporate laws comparable to laws of guilds or śreṇi in Bharata Nature of self-realization linked to ethical behavior: dāna; datta ‘[humans], give’! Framework of rules for ethical behavior Guild Laws (śreṇi dharma) Guild Structure Fundamental duties of the Guilds śreṇi dharma, or social capital, the missing element of economics Embedding social ethic in capitalism and socialism Dharma saṁjñā Corporate badges of Indus Script Corpora, ceramic (stoneware) bangles, seals, fillets Ceramic stoneware responsibility badges with Harappa Script Khetri copper belt Anthropomorphs as Harappa Script hypertexts Section D. śyena, Varāha, metaphors of 1) mineral, metals wealth and 2) earth as wealth: सोमःसंस्था brahma-somāraṇya śyena, orthography, Sasanian iconography. Continued use of Indus Script hieroglyphs Varāha’s caṣāla as Harappa Script hieroglyph metaphor records weltanschauung of Veda culture & wealth of Rāṣṭram Sarasvati as vāk signifies Rāṣṭram Chandogya in 8 chapters is Vedantic philosophy Spectacular Vedic discoveries of Binjor (4MSR) Binjor yupa inscription on Indus Script seal is यष्ट्वा बहुसुवर्णकम् सोमः संस्था Binjor seal Yupa inscriptions Contents of Mulawarman Yupa Inscriptions Bahusuvarnaka बहुसुवर्णक Item 1: Mortals do not taste Soma Item 2: माक्षिक, the fly, betrays Soma Item 3: Reference to Soma in the dual and plural सोमःसंस्था brahma-somāraṇya, principal source of wealth of Ancient Bharata Notes on brahma-somāraṇya (AŚ.2.2.2) What then are the etymology & semantics of ‘Elo! Elelo! He’lava, he’lava !!’? Soma, wealth Śreshtri ‘squirrel’ rebus: Śreshthin, seTh ‘guild-master’ Detail of terracotta bangle A. Meluhha, Proto-Indo-European speakers & contributions to evolution of languages of Bharata sprachbund (language union, linguistic area B. Wealth of Bharata Rāṣṭram, significant contributions to world GDP and early corporate forms of śrḗṇi (guilds) Octagonal yupa, caṣāla, ‘snout of boar’, Skambha Sukta, lingodbhava Skambha Sukta AV (X.7,8) is an ādhyātmikā excursus into ātman and link with paramātman  Atharva Veda (X.7,8) — Skambha Suktam Vālmiki Rāmāyana refers to the performance of Vājapeya Binjor: eight-angled yupa in yajna kunda Procedure for vājapeya soma yāga Process of carburization of metal explained as a metaphor in Vedic text शत-पथ-ब्राह्मण Sarasvati sculptural frieze on the caṣāla चषाल ‘snout of boar’ Section E. Work is worship as an economic dictum Lingodbhava Harappa Script data archives of wealth creation Epilogue Index