Ishwa helper Reged: 03/03/02 Posts: 553

Re: Distortion of History by Leftist Historians-1 [Re: Vishal_Agarwal] #12900 - 03/03/02 04:26 PM Edit Reply Quote

Just a few words on invaders: I don't believe that the way the former historians mentioned the tribes who "invaded" India is correct. Take for instance the name Turushka, Yavana, Shaka, Parthava, Parshava. Are we really dealing with invasions or are these the tribes who lived in the fringes of ancient India. Turushka, just as Shaka and Yavana became later words for people who reappeared in India but were in older days just within the subcontinent. The Mahabharata mentions King Kalyavana. The Yavanas are called Turvasus. In the Bharata period we come accross Prthuparshava an Anava king who fought against the Sarnjaya Bharatas in the Panjab. This is far before any Parthavas or Parshavas emerging in Iran. Parthava simply means "descendant of Prthu" and Parshava "descenadant of Parashu". I believe the Irani to be more like a mixture of Anu and Arksha Paurava tribes (the name Kuru-sh is very common among Iranis). The Panchala Bharatas had sometimes clashes with their Arksha cousins of Hastinapura. King Sudas had a clash, but later also a Somaka king, who had driven king Samvarana Arksha out of Hastinapura. In those days the Arksha Paurava were living in the Kekaya Anava areas of the Panjab. Later on the offspings of Kuru kings were living in Panjab and beyond, like king Bahlika, family of king Shantanu. Kalhana mentiones in his Rajatarangini the 3 Turushka kings Hushka Jushka and Kanishka, who are not the later Kushana (an Indo-European tribe, related to or equal with the Tocharii of Sinqiang Uighur) of post-78 AD. Those three kings are Shakas. They are not looked upon as really strangers, because the Turvasus were present in western India-Pakistan. They later became the Shaka kshaharatas (kshaha from khshathra=Shah=king and rata=data=given) of Gujarat, when Darius invaded the Panjab in the end of the 6th century BC. (Darius can never have held the Panjab alone to get som much income, if the Shakas were present, they would have ruled in Malwa and the Deccan) Most probably by the invitation of Kalakacharya, the Jain monk, who opposed the Gardabhila king of Malwa, who had insulted his sister. The Shakas must first have acted as khshatrapas of Darius. Especially Nahapana. After him came the Chashtana Dynasty with the Shakas as Shaiva ruling for 420 years till Chandra Gupta II Vikramaditya crushed them in the third century BC. No sign of Shakas being foreign. The even were staunch Shaiva, with names as Rudradaman, etc. Only later on the names Yavana for foreigner (Yamana and Yavana are interchanged, so that the Arabs are also Yavana sometimes) and Turushka for Turk or Mughal reappear. But we have to carefully examine in what cases who is mentioned. So, the Parashu and Prthu as Anu/Anava and the Turushka or Turu-shka Shaka, but also the Yavana as Turvasu had their home in (south)western India, and before somewhere in south(eastern) UP, according to the Puranas and the Mahabharata. The Turvasu, when merging with the Puru into the Bharata, had also offshoots in southern India after the rule of their king Marutta. This gave the first offshoot from Puru-Turvasu Sanskrit into Dravida "Sanskrit". Maybe this explains why Dravidian languages have many features in common with the Sanskrit as we have it today, but must still have archaism and independant developments. Brahui might be an nrthern offshoot or remain. This all is not proven, but has to be investigated properly. I just mention this in line with the Puranas. But if it true, then we might look for cognate words or more within Scythic, Greek and Tamil. Another early and for shure Aryan offshoot was the Sinhali language of pre-Buddhistic age in ShriLanka. This very difficult language has still to be studied properly in relation to the other Aryan languages. What becomes clear is that the problems are more complex and never looked upon from a more textual way to find multidisciplined answers.