Lord Krishna: A God and the Unification of a Sub Continent

          In a land teeming with myths and legends, stories both sacred and secular, it is difficult to select one. The subject here, therefore, is a complex of stories revolving around one figure called by a myriad of names, with multiple facets, towering with an inscrutable smile above the Hindu pantheon, the lovable Hindu God, Krishna.

The story itself is a familiar one with many echoes in similar stories across the world.  It is set down here with the caveat that a most complicated story with many differing strands in many local traditions cannot really be reduced to a few words; this is only a small attempt.

Our story begins before the birth of the baby Krishna, at the marriage of his future parents, Devaki and Vasudeva, being celebrated with pomp and magnificence by Devaki's loving brother but an evil ruler Kansa, the King of the Yadava Kingdom of Mathura. The festivities are rudely interrupted by a divine voice which says that the vile acts of Kansa can no longer be tolerated by mortals and the groaning earth shall be delivered by Devaki’s eighth son. Kansa is enraged by this and imprisons the newly married couple, systematically killing off all their offspring as they are born.

 The eighth son arrives in due course, in the dead of the night amidst thunder, torrential rain and lightning. The prison guards are miraculously put to sleep and Vasudeva places the baby in a reed basket upon his head to take him across the swollen river Yamuna to be reared in safety in the household of a supportive chieftain of the Yadavs in Vrindavan. The waters of the river part and Vasudeva walks across, exchanges the baby boy with the new born baby girl of the chieftain, Nanda and his wife, Yashoda, and walks back. The next day, Kansa tries to kill the baby girl only for her to slip out of his grasp, take the form of a Goddess and inform him that the boy who will kill him has already been born.

Kansa institutes a search and kill operation for all new born babies but the baby Krishna surmounts all the demons sent by Kansa killing them and surviving unscathed.

His boyhood is an idyll on the banks of the Yamuna in a pastoral community of cowherds. His romances with the Gopis or milkmaids are sung of even to this day. His consort Radha with whom his name is inextricably linked, is one of these Gopis.

The young Krishna attains his destiny; goes with his foster brother, Balarama, to Mathura, kills his evil uncle Kansa in unarmed combat and restores the throne to his deposed grandfather.

His chief role, however, is as the divine preceptor and guide in the epic battle for the control for the earth which is the subject matter of one of the two main epic poems of India, the Mahabharata. The fight is between the evil Kauravas and their dispossessed cousins, the Pandavas, who are the rightful heirs of the Kingdom. In the battle field he delivers to his friend- disciple, Arjuna, one of the Pandavas, the immortal precepts which have been the bedrock of Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism for thousands of years, the Bhagwat Geeta. This contains the essence of the wisdom of the Upanishads and is one of the basic texts of Hinduism.

The battle is won by the Pandavas after the almost complete annihilation of both the sides thanks largely to the tactics and strategy advocated by Lord Krishna.

These are the bare bones, or even less, of the story surrounding Lord Krishna but each facet of his life is the subject of countless legends, all of them with different regional and community flavours.

If I were to attempt a functional analysis of this complex of myths it would offer an insight into the development of the Indian subcontinent in the second and first millennium BC from an agglomeration of different tribes, communities and clans at different stages of material culture into a cohesive cultural unit culminating into a political unit under the Mauryan Kings in the 4th century BC. It would facilitate an understanding of the assimilation of the tribes who disseminated the Vedic fire sacrifice or yagya, religious, cultural and linguistic complex (Aryans simply as a name for a linguistic group who called themselves by this appellation without any connotations of race) with the other non Aryan groups. If the society was to progress as a whole their mutual animosity had to be overcome and they had to work as a unit.

The dark skinned hero of the Yadavas was assimilated into the pantheon of Hindu gods; Krishna is a non-Vedic non-Aryan god who better represented the combined ethos of the changing society. It was evolving into a settled agrarian society from a pastoral and nomadic existence. Gory animal sacrifices on a large scale were no longer acceptable or indeed possible as cattle wealth no longer existed on a significant scale. One important story of Lord Krishna’s childhood is precisely how he saves his followers from the wrath of Indra, a terrible Vedic god who was henceforth no longer evoked or offered his share at the sacred ceremonies.

A subsidiary cult grew up around his brother Balarama or Sankarshana who was given the sacred weapon of the plough to propitiate agriculturists and watch over them.

A variety of cults around local mother goddesses and nymphs were also incorporated into this system mostly through the divine marriages of these deities with an obliging Lord Krishna. One of the figures in the Bhagwat Purana puts the number of his wives at 16000! This is a pointer to the scale of the assimilation.

Lord Krishna was incorporated into the worship of another non Vedic god who has since ruled the Hindu pantheon, Vishnu, albeit on a subsidiary scale, by making him one of the incarnations of Vishnu. His brother Balarama is an incarnation of the celestial serpent which upholds the earth and on whose back Vishnu reclines floating in the primal waters, Shesha Naga.

The coalescing of the stories and worship of Aryan and non-Aryan gods aided the assimilation of a large complex and variegated society into a unit. A spectrum of religious beliefs and practices was knit into a pattern.  At one end is the highly sophisticated and abstract philosophy of the unified godhead, Paramatma, and the individual Atman which forms the subject matter of the Vedas, Upanishads and the Geeta. As we move slowly along the spectrum we encounter the manifestations of the Godhead as the sacred trinity of the creator , Brahma, the preserver, Vishnu and the destroyer, Shiva with the flowering of millions of local traditions and rituals relating to the worship and further manifestations of these primary deities. The mother goddesses have been incorporated by the creation of divine family units with their own offspring of minor gods and their own worship.

This particular evolution reached its apogee in the mid first millennium of the Common Era and the basic structure set down by it is still alive and vibrant in India, the over-arching big tradition and the multiple little traditions live in harmony.

Sumedha Verma Ojha

Geneva 2008

Sanatan Dharma: Antiquity, Continuity and Nomenclature

Evolution and Composite Nature of Sanatan Dharma

• Sanatan Dharma (SD) is arguably the oldest living religion on this planet.  I also think it is correct to call it Sanatan Dharma rather than Hinduism.
• In its five millennia old journey it has gone through many changes and permutations within a general framework of continuity.

In the earthly realm Sanatan Dharma has a long and ancient history and shows elements from every part of the Indian sub-continent and even beyond. Some doubts have been raised about change in practices within the religion and certain deities and aspects of SD not appearing in the Vedas.

As far as changes in practices are concerned, over the millennia religious practices have definitely evolved and changed, as they should. The urban, sophisticated IVC dwellers, the pastoral nomads who described their lives in Vedic literature and later settled down and built cities in the Later Vedic age, the merchants and city dwellers of the second wave of urbanization in about the 6th century BCE who also embraced the paths of Buddha, Mahavira, Gosala etc, a later wave of Brahmanism, the advent of the Muslims and then the Western Europeans have all had an impact on this religion. Why or how would it not? There is, however, a bed rock of continuity amid the apparent change. 

Although the Vedas are revered as the holiest books of the Hindus, there is more to Sanatan Dharma than just the Vedas. This is a seminal issue around which the understanding of the Vedas as contributors and a pivot of belief, but not sole owners of the religion, revolves.  There are pre Vedic and non- Vedic sources for much of SD that is not found or only peripherally found in the Vedas e.g. the worship of Shiva and Shakti is absent.  SD is a mélange of Vedic and non-Vedic practices. To compound issues further, the Vedas themselves, in terms of language and influence, are anything but pristine. Social, cultural and linguistic analysis throws up evidence of an assimilation of many cultural and linguistic sources.
(I would strongly recommend reading ‘Sanskriti Ke Chaar Adhyaay’ by Ramdhari Singh Dinkar whose understanding as a historian (which he studied formally) and a literary genius (which he was through his writings) is unparalleled.)

I will try to explain below the evolution of SD over the years in brief.  This is a vast and complex subject not really amenable to short cut understanding but I will try to give a basic outline.

At least the following reading would be necessary to have good understanding;
Volume 1 of B G Tilak’s commentary on the Geeta;  ‘Geeta  Rahasya’ ( pp 439 to 443))
Volume 2 of S Radhakrishnan’s  Indian Philosophy.  Especially pp 19-22 of the Introduction will give an idea of the underlying unity with reference to the religious philosophy of the different schools of thought.

The evolution of Sanatan Dharma can be traced as follows

1. The most original aspect of Vedic religion, the first step as it were, is Yagya Pradhan i.e. based on ritual sacrifice. ‘Yagyayaag’ and ‘Karma’ are the basic characteristics (This set of practices was later given the name Mimansa because Jaimini’s ‘Mimansasutras’ provided an organized exposition) .
2. Further evolution had two aspects. While engaged in ritual sacrifices the question arose as to how only practices of Yagyayaag which are outward in nature would lead to knowledge of Parmeshwar which needs an internal focus on gyaan. This reflection and deliberation on the nature of Parmeshwar and Parambrahm was done both by the Gyaan Marg, and the Sankhya Marg.
1. The Gyaan Marg is reflected in the Upanishads especially the Chandogya Upanishad and was later called Vedanta. This is Advaita in character.
2. Kapil Sankhya is Dvaita.
3. Both Vedanta and Sankhya arose as an answer to the exploring the question of the nature of Parambrahm and are opposed to just the practice of ritual sacrifice.
3. It is clear from this that both of these were not satisfied with only the Yagyayaag method of devotion and advocated something more; Gyaan. There was another issue to be dealt with at this stage, how to reconcile Karma and Gyaan? Some of the Upanishads ( Brihataaranyak ) said that the two cannot be reconciled and Karma has to be given up for attaining Gyaan which is also the stand of Sankhya. Other Upanishads ( Isopanishad) advocated that the two should move together, Karma should never be given up for Gyaan. This is the ‘Gyaankarmasammucchay’ Marg and from this later, arose the Yog and the Bhakti Margs.
4. In some of the Upanishad’s including the Chandogya, it has been said that it is necessary to meditate on Brahm to achieve knowledge of Parmeshwar or Parambrahm; for this it is necessary to achieve shanti and concentration, to focus the mind a ‘Sagun’ symbol is necessary.  The focusing of the mind developed into the Yog Marg and the Sagun symbol into the Bhakti marg.
5. The Bhakti Marg started with visualizing the Yagya and its parts as exemplified in some Upanishadic sutras. Then Vedic gods such as Vishnu, Rudra etc  were visualized. Then , using the concept of avatars as a tool of unification and assimilation of different deities and their local conceptions, Narsingh, Varaha, Ram, Krishna, Narayan etc were visualized apart from different Devi swaroops.  There is not enough space here to go into the details of this complex, complicated and multifaceted process which still goes on which is why you find new deities being added even today( witness the English Goddess of the Dalits). It is however the basis of the cultural and religious unity of the country. ( Separate note is needed on this in case anyone is interested. As an example, I could link to a little piece on Lord Krishna). To repeat and emphasize, there is a mélange of Vedic, pre-Vedic and non- Vedic practices within the religion.
6. The basic wholeness of all the different religious practices and thought are evidenced by their common source and have been understood not only in abstract philosophical terms but also by the general Hindu unconcerned with detailed philosophical fights. For instance read Sant Gyaneshwar’s wonderful Marathi  exposition of this unity right at the beginning of the Gyaneshwari which is a simple commentary for the common man on the Geeta. (Can be accessed in any copy of the Gyaneshwari; in my Hindi translation it is on Page 34). All the schools of thought are explained as parts of the divine Lord Ganesh.  The centrality of the Vedas in this scheme is that all systems are defined in relation to it, whether in agreement or negation. Whether it is Tulsidas or Kabeer or the Agamas or the Bengali Vaishnavas or the Kashmir Shaivites they can be understood within the same framework.
7. The impact of the rise of different cults from within Hinduism which achieved different levels of success, ranging from Buddhism which is growing at a healthy clip in modern times to the Ajivikas which gave the Buddhists a run for their money but finally died out in the 14th century, was felt by the parent religion. As I have mentioned above the impact of Islam and Christianity have also been felt.  This does not take away from the continuity of the religion but merely explains changes within it. ( Again a vast subject very ably dealt with by Dinkar)

I will now, as an example of antiquity, discuss the links between the IVC and SD.

IVC and the Roots of Hinduism

Is there any evidence to link elements of the remains, symbols, art, sculpture etc. of the IVC with SD? The answer is an unambiguous and resounding yes.

The IVC has been dated to the period between 5200 and 3900 to 3000 years ago. There is a wealth of archaeological evidence to analyse because of the discovery of remains of cities with a plethora of artifacts. The script has not yet been definitively deciphered which limits the extent of information which can be gathered about all its facets. However, to compensate for that there is a cornucopia of other information from the physical archaeological ruins left behind.  This indicates very strongly that the religion/culture followed here was, at the very least, proto-Hinduism.

Consider the following

• The seals and emblems found which point to a Shiva like deity, a proto Shiva as he is called.  (See for example analyses of Seal Nos 420, 222, and 235 found at Mohenjo-Daro)
• The cult of Shakti or the Mother Goddess again found in the seals and symbols
• Religious symbols revered by the Hindus to this day such as the Pipal  ( both the leaf and the tree used as motifs, the conch shell, the Ksheer Sagar,  etc.)
• Small conical objects interpreted a proto shiv lingas
• Aspects of art forms; especially the so called animal style which bears a striking resemblance to and appeared on Ashokan pillars millennia later.
• The Great Bath as the precursor of the bathing tanks of Hindu temples.  The modern ‘Ghat’ echoes the steps of the Great Bath.
• The roots of Yoga have also been traced to the IVC.  (Yan Y. Dhyansky, Artibus Asiae, Vol. 48, No. 1/2 (1987), pp. 89-108)

A couple of quotes:

‘It is useful to distinguish hindsight from fast-forwarding. Hindsight often misreads an earlier phenomenon by assuming that it meant then the same thing that it meant later….But at times the atavism, the modern traces of ancient phenomena are so striking that it would be perverse to ignore them…For the resemblance between some aspects of the IVC and later Hinduism are simply too stunning to ignore.’ (‘The Hindus’ by Wendy Doniger pp 82-83) (emphasis mine)
‘The  other significant conclusion which  arises from the  above  discussion is  the presence of overwhelming evidence of  the  continuity of  Indian culture and religion from the  days of  Mohenjo-Daro to  the  present’ (Yan Y. Dhyansky, as cited above)

In actual fact pick up works by any historian who writes on Ancient India and you will find these facts which I am dealing with briefly because of their very ubiquity. You can profitably read about this for instance in DD Kosambi’s ‘The Culture and Civilisation of Ancient India in Historical Outline’ . The collection of his articles published in 2002; D.D. Kosambi: Combined Methods in Indology and Other Writings - Compiled, edited and introduced by Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya (Oxford University Press, New Delhi) has a number of references to the IVC and the web of connections between later Hinduism and the IVC.  Romila Thapar’s ‘Early India’, D N Jha’s ‘Ancient India ‘…indeed any historian on ancient India will provide the same insights. Others I may mention are John Marshall and  Asko Parpola. For a viewpoint from the religious history angle Wendy Doniger’s ‘The Hindus’ is useful. This is merely an indicative and not exhaustive list of books and authors.

In passing I may mention that those who claim to have deciphered the script such as Parpola are even more certain of the roots of Hinduism lying here.

The Question of Nomenclature

This is a vexed and much debated issue. I should make clear that I lean towards calling it Sanatan Dharma for the reasons I shall explain below but in terms of reality I think we are stuck with ‘Hindu’ whatever it may mean to different people.

The Bhagwat Geeta which is often scornfully called a book full of contradictions from which anyone can derive sanction for anything is, in my view, a great example of the Indian genius for synthesis and reconciliation of the otherwise irreconcilable so as to maintain harmony in society and give each view its due. It is a good place to look for much of Hindu concepts (although of course there are major absences such as the Shakta and the Tantra tradition.).

Chapter 4 of the Bhagwat Geeta ( Verse 1-3) describes the timelessness and hoary antiquity of this religion which appears in this world and disappears again to be re-established in each ‘kalpa’.( 4 yugas make a mahayuga and a thousand mahayugas make one day of brahma i.e. one ‘kalpa’ of earthly beings, Ch 8 verse 17.)

Brahma’s day gives birth to creation and all its manifestations which then merge into the formless (avyakt) at the end of the day, i.e. the night of Brahma. (Chapter 8, Verse 18)

At the beginning of another day of brahma when all is created afresh knowledge of dharma is given again to mortals.

The knowledge of this religion is therefore timeless, emerges and merges with the creation and destruction of srishti.  That is why ‘Sanatan’.

Chapter 7 Verse 10 of the Bhagwat Geeta also uses the word Sanatan in describing Parmeshwar; he is the ‘Sanatan Beej’ of everything.

Given the religious philosophy and explication of this religion I therefore feel that it would be correct for believers to call it Sanatan Dharma. (Those who do not believe in it will obviously reject the formulation of time, creation and destruction in the Geeta but then it is hardly logical or likely that non-believers should decide what to call any set of practices.)

Dharma coming from ‘dhri’ i.e. to uphold, SD is the eternal upholder of the world.

This is as far as my beliefs go. However, it will be impossible to fully change the nomenclature and people like me have to often reluctantly fall in line and use the word Hindu. This has been in use since the time of the Avesta to denote the inhabitants of the area around the Sindhu river and also has been mentioned in the inscriptions of the Persian Emperor Darius ( 550-486 BCE). It also has, however, a religious connotation and sometimes a pejorative one as used by Muslims for the inhabitants of India. The name will be very difficult to change but there is a trend towards using Sanatan Dharma.

Problems of Chronology and historiography in Ancient India: Need for a New Paradigm

Sumedha Verma Ojha

In recent days RBSI has seen an interesting discussion thrown up on the issue of the dates of significant events of India’s past. Different groups have been debating the issues with inputs from a wide variety of sources including authors of books on alternative views.

I am writing this as a response to the general discussion and some individual exchanges on this issue.

The discussion began with the dates to be ascribed to the Mauryas and soon spread out into a discussion of Ancient Indian historiography and chronology. In its present form it has assumed such vast dimensions that, frankly, my imagination boggles at treating the entire gamut of evidence in detail. It will perforce have to be sketchy. Two interesting writers, Kosla Vepa (http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Rare-Book-Society-of-India/196174216674) and Ranajit Pal (http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Rare-Book-Society-of-India/196174216674) have written extensively on these issues and have joined the discussion thread on the RBSI page. Their opinions differ from established ancient Indian historiography.

Ø Kosla Vepa has written that the identification of Chandragupta Maurya with the Sandrocottus of Greek accounts of India at the time of Alexander’s entry into north western India was done by William Jones on the basis of very limited evidence and was more or less a leap of faith unfortunately accepted by later historians as an article of faith. And, therein begins the story of the misdating of the Mauryan Empire, indeed of ancient Indian civilizations. His point is well taken.

Ø The problem does not end with this, however. There is an array of supporting evidence for this identification of not only the King, but the description of society, polity and administration in Greek accounts, with the Mauryans. Megasthenes’ Indica exists only in fragments collected first of all by Dr Schwanbeck of Bonn and translated by J W McCrindle in six volumes which also included works of Arrian (also called the Indica), Strabo, and Ktesias, Ptolemy, Q.Curtius, Pliny, Plutarch, Aeolian and some other minor Greek works. Extensive work has been done on these comparisons by scholars across the world.

Reading McCrindle‘s translation cannot inspire anyone with confidence regarding the sense and veracity of the Greeks. They are vague, full of wonderful and impossible stories (like a race of gold digging Indian ants!) and in general very far removed from being serious historical evidence. Megasthenes and Nearchus also contradict each other on the subject of whether writing existed in Mauryan times, the former says no and the latter, yes. However, for times so long ago we have to make the best of what we have and some information has definitely been extracted which cannot be rejected out of hand.

Ø This brings me to a comparison of the Arthashastra and Megasthenes’ accounts in the Indica. There are certain points where the two are similar such as a description of the divisions of society and the organization of the city. It is not as if they are exact but they can be construed as a description of the same reality. Dating the Arthashastra is a huge undertaking in itself and this correspondence does not place Chandragupta in 326 B.C.E. as traditional historians would have it. The Arthashastra has layers of descriptions which may belong to very different periods.

Ø Then there is Ashoka, his inscriptions and rock edicts, major and minor, and Buddhist sources to say nothing of Chandragupta Maurya and Jain sources.

The Mahavamsa (read with the Chulavamsa) and Dipavamsa of the Sinhalese are a record of events in Sri Lanka since the birth of the Buddha, one of the oldest and most well preserved of historical records. They start with the arrival of Buddhism on the island during the rule of Ashoka. They were translated in 1837 and the title used for the King, ‘Devanampiya Piyadassi Raja Ashoka’ led to the identification of the King whose inscriptions and edicts are scattered across India, i.e. Ashoka Maurya, by Prinsep. (He had earlier identified the Devanampiya Piyadassi with a Ceylonese King.) Inscriptions, both Ashokan and others have been correlated with Kings ruling outside India and their chronology which broadly backs them up. The five ‘Yona’ or Greek kings mentioned in the Graeco-Aramaic inscription at Kandahar have been correlated with actual rulers. For some historians this is the central fact on which the chronology of the Mauryans hinges. In recent years many new Ashokan, rock cut inscriptions and pillars have been found in a very large area ranging from Afghanistan to Southern India.

However, many inscriptions mentioned by Hsuan Tsang and Fa Hsien have still not been found. Again a number of these were removed by the rulers of medieval India to other than original sites. This was also done later by the British. Evidence could therefore be said to have been compromised. It has also been argued that the inscriptions were on pillars which are much older than Ashoka therefore they are not really Mauryan pillars as such. There is also new evidence on the origin of the Brahmi script conventionally dated to the 3^rd century BCE.

Ø The Chinese, ‘A Dotted Record of Many Sages’, which had 975 dots in the year 489 CE, started just after the Buddha’s death and therefore dates his death to 486 BCE. There are controversies surrounding this interpretation, too, however, with some scholars arguing that certain supporting manuscripts with which this record should have been read have been ignored. In such a case, another seminal date for ancient Indian chronology, the birth of the Buddha is placed in doubt.

Ø Jain tradition connects Chandragupta Maurya with Sravana Belagola where he fasted to death. Jain sources have more or less been interpreted within the same chronology. It is interesting to note, however, that Jain traditions are as hoary as the Vedas and the Puranas and offer an alternative view of many of the same kings, dynasties and events. Time has been divided into ‘Kalpas’ and ‘Kalas’. Mahavir was the 24^th Tirthankar and the historicity of the other 23 is lost in the mists of time. It is also interesting that a well known Jain scholar Jagdishchandra Jain who has written extensively on ancient Jain literature and canon points out that the Kings that Mahavir is said to have converted to Jainism during his lifetime have not been identified except for Bimbisara, Ajatsatru, Udayana and Pradyotta. For example Chedaga of Vesali, Dadhivahana of Champa, Darsanabhadra of Darsana, Prasannachandra of Potanapur and others. Who were they and why are they not found anywhere near the time of the Mahavir?

Ø Numismatics has its own role to play as do literary sources. These are both controversial and it appears difficult for any consensus to be reached.

Dating of coins swings between gaps of more than two millennia. The types of coins called ‘Suvarana’ ,‘Satmana’ and ‘Krishnala’ in Vedic literature and ‘Nishka’ of the Jatakas would generally give the lie to any placing of the origin of coins to the 5^th or 6^th Century BC as has been done by some. Much more work needs to be done in this area. The indigenous system of weights of coins, explained in detail in the Arthashastra (One section of the book I have written set in the Mauryan period revolves around minting, coinage and ancient financial warfare!) and also shown to have some Indus Valley Civilization links is different from the Greek or Bactrian system.

Literary sources and interpretations are highly controversial and no general consensus exists.

Ø Last but most important is archaeological evidence. I think it is here that the chinks in the armor of current chronology show up. Archaeological evidence of Ancient India however is still more or less in the William Jones / John Marshall period. New investigations, digging, and carbon dating have just not been done on the scale necessary. Isolated efforts give us tantalizing discoveries such as in the Gulf of Cambay but concentrated work on important sites has not been done. It does not seem to be a priority. The state of archeology in India is nothing short of tragic (visit the official website of the ASI). I do not think a review of current carbon dating can throw up any definite conclusions.

Ø Proper excavations have to be done of significant sites and soon, they should be done carefully with due regard to stratification and dating. The digging at times resembled/es nothing short of looting and ascribing periods to recovered objects is more or less impossible as records of the strata at which they were found have not been kept. Important data has already been lost and is being lost even as I write due to depredations of weather, habitation because of a growing population (the Bhir mound of Taxila is no longer possible to excavate because it has become an area of settled habitation) and general indifference.

Ø With reference to Kosala Vepa I think the evidence was considered from only the point of view of Greek sources. There are many more which will have to be considered, and rebutted, to arrive at any finality.

Ø With reference to Ranajit Pal there is a huge array of interesting facts the analysis of which may perhaps need some more rigor. Unless in extremis personal opinion is not a substitute for either evidence or analysis (although as far as ancient history is concerned hard evidence is ‘hard ‘to come by!). For instance you say that “While Asoka has numerous inscriptions but no coins, Diodotus, who was a neighbor, has numerous coins but no inscriptions. This clearly shows that they were the same.” That left me a little confused as any definitive answer would require a more comprehensive analysis. Again, I have read the Mudrarakshasa very closely and continuously for the last three years and do not agree with your opinion regarding Chandandas. These are but two examples I quote to make the point of the need for a methodical analysis.

Ø To break the established paradigm and move to a new one a concentrated, comprehensive and well argued challenge has to be mounted to that which is currently believed. It is not enough to say that the current paradigm is wrong, we have to say what is right and provide cogent arguments for it. That is not possible with the current state of evidence; the mainstream historians have squatter’s rights and are using them to the fullest. :) All the above sources of evidence I have mentioned are subject to varying interpretations but the people who have worked on them have spent time and effort on interpretation; their arguments have to be closely countered. For example, if we are to prove that the alternate ‘scaffolding’ for ancient Indian history provided by Kosla Vepa is correct how do we go about collecting evidence?

Ø My thrust therefore is that all of us who have valid doubts about contemporary understanding of ancient history should do something about collecting evidence. Start a movement for it, find funding for it ….

Can we together do something?