This piece is a rejoinder, to the article on the subject titled ‘ARE WE HARAPPANS”? IN THE OUTLOOK MAAG THIS WEEK

(https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/we-are-all-harappans/300463)

The objective of writing this piece was to analyze the revelations made in the referred article on the historicity and the epoch of the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC). However, we are well aware of the strategy of the leftist ideologues by now, who did not even spare Archeology, Sanskrit and Indology studies from painting them in ‘red’, twisting the facts to fit into an anti-religion and anti-Sanathana Dharma characteristic mould, aiming to dampen the ‘Hindu sovereignty’ perceptions and claims that may arise time and again, as and when the ongoing excavations at IVC sites would correct itself and takes the age of IVC further couple of thousand years back in BCE.

The Vast India would include the areas beyond the borders of present time Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Balochistan, Afganistan, Iran and Iraq on the West and beyond Myanmar on the East

So they see only a demon in the much acclaimed 7000 years old archaeological artefact that is the ‘Pashupathi’ seal but blind enough to skip the hidden Godly protector of flora and fauna, a much revered God of Nature, in it. This is the very benevolent principle of “Sanatana Dharma” (Hinduism) meant for the entire Mankind. This is what is uniting the 110 crore Hindus in present India from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, and was exactly executing the same integration efforts nearly 8000 to 10000 years ago in northern plains of this Aryavartha. ‘Pashupati‘ and ‘Swastika‘ symbols found in IVC sites were indisputable evidence of the early evolving Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma).

Though the article under reference, has expressed ‘concern’ about the ‘politicisation’ of the findings of the IVC, yet it was not clear from whose perspective, this ‘study’ is said to be politicised? The author did not elaborate on this aspect. Yet it is clear for all of us, that the results of IVC studies are increasingly vindicating the indigenous belief of its nativity and Genesis and for some reason, this article is attempting to confuse the readers with bits of contradictions being expressed here and there in the article by in order to revive the Aryan invasion theory in Indian History, probably for the reason, the team of writers themselves appeared ‘confused’

Instead of going by para wise and line wise, I shall pick some salient points of the findings of the experts on IVC that were discussed in the article and I shall try to highlight some inaccuracies that were found in the article which otherwise strengthens the nativity belief of the native Indic enthusiasts.

In the backdrop of the sensational findings of the Chariot relics in Bhagpat, last June by the ASI and the forthcoming fresh reassuring findings in Rakhigarhi are only adding much ammo to the already reasoned views of the Indic enthusiasts on IVC and its nativity. This map would remain handy throughout while going through this article. At the very outset, I wonder, whenever the Indic haters counter the Indic argument, they keep referring to an ‘India’. While referring to an ‘India’, they are expected to refer to an India that was supposed to be an ‘ancient India‘ that existed at least in 7000-9000 BCE and that vast India would include the areas beyond the borders of present time Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Balochistan, Afganistan, Iran and Iraq on the West and beyond Myanmar on the East. But during their arguments, they always unmindfully regard to the present day political map of India, which was drawn and handed over to Nehruvian rulers in 1947 by the midnight kings of Britain. This map of India of 1947 excluding the large chunk of IVC sites would only strike in our minds, limiting our visualisation strictly from present-day Bhuj in Gujarat and further inside India towards Bhagpat. Nothing beyond either side.

However, the strang aspect of IVC is, the easternmost tip of the IVC site so far discovered is Shortugai bordering the present Tajikistan which is nearly 2000 KM from Bhuj, Gujarat. So, when we discuss the IVC, it is obviously a large area from Shortugai in Tajikistan in North, Sutkagan Dor near Gwadar port of Iran to Mundigak in Afganistan to Bhagpat in UP all are Indus Valley Civilization excavated Archaeological sites so far. This vast area could be possibly larger than the one known at present, because whatever IVC sites so far excavated are not and cannot be conclusively comprehensive ones, as more such sites still could be lying deep underground and unexplored in places much deep inside Tajikistan, Iran, Iraq etc.

So, the map of ‘India’ of IVC times is supposed to be a vast ‘Aryavartha Vedic land’ at least starting from the present Iran and Kazakhstan to present Assam. This is the real IVC India. So, when our antagonists argue in support of the Aryan invasion, then any movement of such Aryan clan from Mohenjodaro to Bhagpat cannot be termed as an ‘invasion’ but only a buddy-buddy expansion of the people to further lands without clashing with any other community en route, because they were all one family under Sanatana Dharma. This briefing is necessary here because further in the article the cultivation was termed as ‘Iranian Farming’ confusing the readers. Because the very phrase ‘Iran’ is misleading as this word came into usage only in the 2-4th Century CE. During circa 7000 BCE, they were known as Arians>Aryans>now Iranians. While talking about ‘farming’ the article refers to ‘Iranian Farming’ but not even a passing remark of Rishi Vashista and Arundhati (the couple who pioneered cultivation in India) was made. I do agree with the fact that the scholars who are involved in the research project would limit their research on the ground and base on physical pieces of evidence that are recovered and Genetical and Geological studies alone. Ye Hindu Puranas would have provided corroborative instances of evidence

The Queen Kaikeyi in Ramayana, mother of Bharata is believed to be from present-day Iran. So the present day India in 5000-9000 yrs BCE was much larger and well connected under one Kingdom, one doctrine and one wisdom which is known as Sanatana Dharma, which was already in place and practice then.

Now the Rakhigarhi is near Delhi and Mohenjodaro is in the east of the subcontinent that is in the Sindh province of present Pakistan, which is 900 to 1000 km from Rakhigarhi. At the outset, the Aryan invasion theory, (though an obsolete one now) should be recalled here, because the present findings would strengthen some factors that lead to incorrectly believing in the Aryan invasion of India.

From the beginning, Indic historians were proving the expansion theory i.e the original Hindu inhabitants of this Vedic land in Aryavartha were migrating to the other parts of the world including the southern part of India.

1) Now let’s look at the map above. The Mohenjodaro site was dated 3000-1900 BCE This is in the far west of central India.

2) The Harappan site was dated 2800-1300 much inside towards east.

3) Rakhigarhi is near Delhi which site was dated 5500-1900 BCE.

The Aryan invasion route was supposed to be from central Asia to Delhi and UP and further east. From West to East of central India. The southern part of IVC i.e. Lothal in Gujarat was dated 3,700 BCE. The puzzle remains as, how the IVC site Rakhigarhi was dated 6000 BCE earliest among all the IVC sites, but it is situated near Delhi, and Harappa was dated 3000-1900 BCE and Lothal in the southern part of entire IVC sites was dated 3,700 BCE. So what it connotes that Rakhigarhi being oldest among all IVC sites but situated in the vicinity of Kurukshetra?

The Rakhigarhi samples have a significant amount of ‘Iranian farmer’ ancestry. You won’t find this DNA in the north Indian population today, but only in south Indians,” says Niraj Rai.

A “converse” journey from the epicentre of Rakhigarhi (Kurukshetra) to other parts of this sub-continent, central Asia, southern India, and faraway lands, would have been the actual fact?

“The Harappans are very local-The samples we are getting is very local” Niraj Rai, head of the Ancient DNA lab at Lucknow’s Birbal Sahni Institute for Palaeosciences.

“We aren’t getting any Central Asian gene flow in Rakhigarhi. Comparing Rakhigarhi with data from modern Indian populations, we have concluded that they have more of an affinity with the Ancestral South Indian tribal population compared to the north Indian population.” Niraj Rai

This finding is sensational. This view vindicates the nationalist’s view. But the catch is, overall it sumps up that the Harappan people were native to the land, and did not belong to the invading Aryans from Central Asia or that sort of a story. Secondly, this research confirms another fact that the Harappans later migrated to down south India and now be known as ‘ancestral south Indian tribal community. After having confirmed these facts in clear tone, a further confusing note has been added. It is confirming the fact that at the time of falling of IVC, the Aryan invasion took place from central Asia region, and that mixup occurred in later years. And this mixed population is cited in North India.

“We aren’t getting any Central Asian gene flow in Rakhigarhi. Comparing Rakhigarhi with data from modern Indian populations, we have concluded that they have more of an affinity with the Ancestral South Indian tribal population compared to the north Indian population.”

“Central Asian mixing happened only when the Indus Valley collapsed.”

The Rakhigarhi samples have a significant amount of ‘Iranian farmer’ ancestry. You won’t find this DNA in the north Indian population today, but only in south Indians,” says Niraj Rai.

Prof. V.S.Shinde was much convinced that the knowledge of agriculture, urban living etc was totally native and quoted in the article saying

‘Prof. Shinde, cognisant of the patterns of evolution of agriculture in pre-Indus sites, (Shinde) agrees with the fallacy of crediting this great civilisation directly to the flow of genes and knowledge from what can be thought of as ‘non-Indian types’ in West Asia. Nations of the Near East and Europe (or China) all have aggressive claims on antiquity, which complicates historical research—being aware of that should ideally free Indian minds from that trap”.

A careful reading of these observations suggests the following.

1) The outcome of this research at the outset credits the Harappan culture to ‘Ancestral South Indian Tribal population. (The word ‘Dravidian’ has been avoided)

2) The central Asian connection to the Harappan is totally ruled out. This would further mean that until now (when Harappan culture or IVC was at the peak) no Aryan invasion has occurred from the central Asian region.

3) Rakhigarhi has been considered oldest among all the IVC sites so far excavated and dated 5,500 BCE, and yet the researcher says they found ‘Iranian farmer’ ancestry in Rakhigarhi samples. This clearly separating central Asian issue and confirms the fact that the people of IVC were migrants from Iran’? but no trace of any connection with the central Asian population.

4) The central Asian mixup occurred only at a later stage that is when the IVC was at a collapsing stage.

5) “All the Harappans in the 20 lakh sq km area were co-existing, in touch with each other, all material developments were simultaneous” Prof. Shinde

6) There was Panchayat like-system in existence and the two-tier administrative system similar to the one discussed by Kautilya can be traced in the sites, Prof. Shinde.

7) A prototype Shiva and some forms of Linga figurines were found. Yet no decisive pattern of a religion can be seen as till now no temples were found too Prof. Shinde

From the above, the following conclusions have to be inferred.

1) Harappan people were ancestral south Indian tribals (not the native tribals of south India) meaning the Sangam age Tamils?

2) Harappan people’s faith was different from the Hindu religious practices and beliefs.

3) Harappan people’s ancestral epicentre may be the present day ‘Iran'( on the basis of the claim of similarity with ‘Iranian Farmer’s)

4) The Harappan’s almost ruled an area of 20 lakhs Sq Km in Northern Plains of India from 6000 BCE to 2000 BCE

5) This whole map of 20 lakh sq km was well interlinked with the movement of people and cattle all across in a friendly environment.

6) According to one view, Aryan invasion theory was held to be a very deceptive theory. Yet according to another view, the Aryan invasion did take place but not contemporaneous to the Harappan time, but did happen much later i.e after the end of Harappan, when the Harappan people further moved down south India.

The above findings would strongly vindicate the Indian’s native theory of Aryans origin. The north India plains around the Kurukshetra (Rakhigarhi region) is now believed to be the primogenitor of human origin and spread covering at least 80% of the world. Once the population increased the expansion took place. The ‘Aryans’ (meaning culturally enlightened man emerging during the process of ‘evolution’) started moving to far-flung lands of Iran, Iraq, Afganistan, Tajikistan, Turkey, and down the banks of river Ganga and the Yamuna and South India etc. Along with them, they carried a ‘Dharma’ but not a religion with a view to converting. This was also the crucial period, during which the blooming intelligence of the people that produced the Sanskrit, Tamil languages, Vedas, Upanishads, Epics, historical recordings of events like the Ramayana, Mahabharata, Puranas,Yoga and other knowledge dossiers.

What the impression I get here is, some scholars are erroneously trying to show us as the ‘river was flowing in reverse’ much against the ‘riverine’ where the very riverine is proof enough to show the path of the river flow was naturally downward not upward.

To be continued. . . . .