I came across a book by Neil MacGregor 'A history of the world in 100 objects' and found some positively interesting observations about the Saraswati-Indus civilisation which is gaining currency among main stream historians and coming especially from a devout Christian with British nationalist leanings its rather surprising.
The book is divided into various ages of world history starting from early pre historic times travelling down to foundation of early cities, empires, birth of religions and so on. In the foundation of cities section the Saraswati and Vedic civilisation finds a chapter dedicated to the various seals, the organisation of the cities and the civilisations eventual demise.
MacGregor starts off by explaining the expanse of the civilisation, the democratic government opposed to autocratic contemporary civilisation, the sophistication of the city architecture and the various seals. He confesses that the discovery of these cities rewrote not just Indian history but world history by pushing back Indian history by thousands of years and giving the nationalist Indians an argument to demand freedom from British rule. The dates of 2500 BC MacGregor offers can be rejected for a much older date based on recent discoveries of cities around the dried Saraswati river bed. He mentions the fact that the dead were cremated and explains the bull and cow seals without alluding to Vedic Hindu roots of the civilisation which is ambiguous for a historian who otherwise is emphatic with other conjectures.
Most importantly MacGregor unlike his colleagues elsewhere has clearly left out even an ambiguous mention of the Aryan invasion theory and offers ecological disaster and climate change as the reason for the civilisations demise. He steers clear of Aryan invasion theory even while hazarding a guess on the topic.
This narrative is very important to note the changing discourse on the Aryan invasion theory and Saraswati and Vedic civilisation among leading academics. Witzel and his tribe of deception artist's should take note. So should the Indian historians who should move with time and rewrite a more authentic Indian history based on facts and not based on conjectures or political motivation.
MacGregor quotes Prof. Nayanjot Lahiri from Delhi University on the importance of the discovery of these ancient cities.
Towards the end MacGregor share his own sentiments.
In conclusion I can only repeat that history of India has to be rewritten with more authenticity. A nation without history can create one, but a nation deprived of its true history is a nation deceived. Indian falls in the later category.
The book is divided into various ages of world history starting from early pre historic times travelling down to foundation of early cities, empires, birth of religions and so on. In the foundation of cities section the Saraswati and Vedic civilisation finds a chapter dedicated to the various seals, the organisation of the cities and the civilisations eventual demise.
Most importantly MacGregor unlike his colleagues elsewhere has clearly left out even an ambiguous mention of the Aryan invasion theory and offers ecological disaster and climate change as the reason for the civilisations demise. He steers clear of Aryan invasion theory even while hazarding a guess on the topic.
We can only hazard a guess as to why. The need for timber to fire the brick klins of the huge building industry may have led to extensive deforestation and an environmental catastrophe. More importantly climate change seems to have caused tributaries of the Indus to alter course or dry up completely.
This narrative is very important to note the changing discourse on the Aryan invasion theory and Saraswati and Vedic civilisation among leading academics. Witzel and his tribe of deception artist's should take note. So should the Indian historians who should move with time and rewrite a more authentic Indian history based on facts and not based on conjectures or political motivation.
MacGregor quotes Prof. Nayanjot Lahiri from Delhi University on the importance of the discovery of these ancient cities.
In 1924 when the civilisation was discovered, India was colonised. So to begin with there was a great sense of pride that we were equal to the British if not better than our colonisers and considering this that the British should actually leave India. This was the exact sentiment that was expressed in the Larkana Gazzette...
After independence the newly created state of India was left with just one site in Gujarat and a couple of other sites towards the north, so there was a urgency to discover more Indus sites in India. This has been among the big achievements of Indian archeology post independence - hundreds of sites today are known, not only in Gujarat but also in Rajasthan, in Punjab, in Haryana and even in Utttar Pradesh.
Towards the end MacGregor share his own sentiments.
The great cities of Mohenjodaro and Harrapa which were first excavated, are in Pakistan, and and subsequently one of the most important pieces of work on the civilisation was done by a Pakistani archielogist - Rafiq Mughal who discovered nearly 200 sites in Pakistan and Cholistan. But my own sense is that on the whole the state of Pakistan has been much more interested, not exclusively but significantly, in its Islamic heritage, so I think there is a greater interest in India as compared to Pakistan.
...the artefacts, the pottery, the beads, etc., that were found at these sites - are divided between the two states. Some of the most important objects were actually divided right down the middle - like the famous girdle from Mohenjodaro.
In conclusion I can only repeat that history of India has to be rewritten with more authenticity. A nation without history can create one, but a nation deprived of its true history is a nation deceived. Indian falls in the later category.
