Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ancientindia] India's first empire

Expand Messages
  • Venkata krishnan
    B.C.VENKATAKRISHNAN. ________________________________ From: Venkata krishnan To: ancientindia@yahoogroups.com Cc: venkatakrishnan B.C.
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 1, 2010

      From: Venkata krishnan <bcvk71@...>
      To: ancientindia@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: venkatakrishnan B.C. <bcvk71@...>; BCVENKATAKRISHNANNewsListgroup <bcvenkatakrishnannewslist@yahoogroups.com>; Ahimsa Foundation Group <ahimsa_foundation@yahoogroups.com>; Solarcity <solarcity@...>; Scienceofastrology group <scienceofastrology@yahoogroups.com>; jetusa@yahoogroups.com; Ponnappan <oppiliappan@yahoogroups.com>; vedic_wisdom@yahoogroups.com; USBrahmins Group <usbrahmins@yahoogroups.com>; fhrs_usa@yahoogroups.com; divya_desam@yahoogroups.com; shaneeswaragroup <shaneeswara@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thu, December 2, 2010 2:29:53 AM
      Subject: Re: [ancientindia] India's first empire

      According to History there were 24 Emperors or Kings who had the name VIKRAMAADITYA.According to main Streamn acadamic history, Vikramaditya the Great of Ujjain about whom there are many legends and history, Vikramaaditya of Malwa who ascended the Throne of Malwa in 57/56 B.C. is considered The VIKRAMAADITYA the Great of Ujjain which is hypothetical.Since, much archaeological and scientifical evidence are yet to be unearthed The fixing of a Monarch as VIKRAMAADITYA the Great of Ujjain, which of the 24 Monarchs whether the Vikramaditya I or any other monarch is yet not clear.By the by, its not clear whether VIKRAMAADITYA the Great of Ujjain ruled Bharatavarsha before or after the Mahaabharata war.A Scroll has been discovered in in the deserts of Saudi Arabia recently, according to which Vikramaaditya  the Great civilized the Arabs who were Barbarians before The Great Monarch sent Scholars to Arabia and the Arab countries were part of his Empire.The information in the Scroll is written in Arabian Language and it glorifies the Monarch in all respects.This scroll has to be studied and the very fact that this Scroll has been discovered proves that Emperor VIKRAMAADITYA the Great of Ujjain is not a myth but History whatever be his Period in History.I am yet to see the scroll in person though I ve got its picture and in Mail.He could also be the first Ever Emperor of India proved archaeologically and scientifically not just Literature and Legands.

      From: Rajeev <airavat15@...>
      To: ancientindia@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tue, November 30, 2010 8:56:42 PM
      Subject: Re: [ancientindia] India's first empire


      The problem appears due to much dependency on Vedic Literatures. For the a moment can we forget Vedic literature and look at the Non Vedic literatures, even though there is distortion of facts.
      The Samhitas gives some  account on the life of people of present Afghanistan and north west Pakistan. it does not provide the picture of real India. And the north western part India was also probably closeer to Aryan  countries, like Ariana (present Afghanistan), Parthia (Iran), Scythia (Iran), Saka (Iran/Ujbekistan area), Bacteria (Iran-Afghan area), Balkan (turks,Azarbizan area ) than other parts of India.
      Can we look up their(Aryan) history?

      In India, it is a fashion to become self proclaimed commerder, king, Chakravorty, Vikramaditya, Jagat guru, Bhagawan, Swami etc, it is endless. In reality we know what they are.

      However, there are lot of hidden indication/clues are  traceable in our Vedic and non Vedic literatures.Many a historians have proved such things, but the rulers of the society  are not allowing to educate the common or ruled people on these issues, to protect their interest.

      I must give credit to Mr. Pattanaik ,that he has taken up such a project to push back Indian history by 1000 yrs and providing various inputs for our benefits.

      We need to get the chronology of events occurred, but very very difficult. 

      Why cannot we look at Ganga Lohit civilisation? or is it due to the fact that European people have not ventured in this area?

      Very hard subject Sir.

      Dr. Rajeev Agnihotri

      --- On Tue, 30/11/10, Pradip Bhattacharya <kanakpradip@...> wrote:

      From: Pradip Bhattacharya <kanakpradip@...>
      Subject: Re: [ancientindia] India's first empire
      To: ancientindia@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Tuesday, 30 November, 2010, 12:04 PM


      actually, the puranas--our chronicles--have little to say about the lives of ordinary people. some glimpses are definitely there about poverty-stricken Brahmins who depended upon the ruling warrior class for donations to improve their standard of living. Mahabharata has several stories of brahmins living on grains gleaned from the fields dying of starvation after offering the little they had to guests. at least one disciple goes blind on chewing "arka" leaves (calatropis gigantea) out of hunger when denied sustenance by his guru. famines occurred and there was no system of storing foodgrains by rulers for such catastrophes (Joseph seems to be the first to plan for this for the Pharaoh in Egypt). Vishvamitra kept body and soul together by stealing the haunch of a dog from a chandala, and his family was kept alive by Trishanku killing Vashishtha's cattle for food. Ramayana gives a glimpse of the hollowness of Rama-rajya with the washerman denouncing the king for not abandoning his queen who lived a year in her abductor's custody. When Samavarana was mooning after Tapati, his kingdom suffered 12 years of famine, as did Shantanu's kingdom for which he got his elder brother Devapi (who had turned ascetic being denied the throne because of a skin ailment) to perform rituals for rain.
      The list of regions conquered by Mandhata does indicate an empire. It is less certain for Pururava because there is no such list in his case, only a statement that he was a "chakravarti". Both Pururava and the first king Vena were killed by brahmins when they tried to confiscate their wealth (golden vessels in the former's case, while the latter banned all sacrifices to gods, insisting he was the only deity, as Hiranyakashipu had done). The birth of agriculture by smoothing the earth, removing rocks etc. to make plain fields was the work of Prithu, whom the brahmins consecrated ruler after Vena, setting aside the tribal Nishadas who were pushed out to the mountains. 
      It is interesting that originally there was no king at all, but when people realised that greed was leading to the stronger oppressing the weak, they approached Vaivasvat Manu (just as in the wild west Wyatt Earp and others were approached to become town marshals or sheriffs to keep law and order). Initially he refused to undertake the very unpleasant task of ruling over others and getting blamed; then they offered him one-sixth of their produce and the loveliest of maidens from among them. That is how kingship came about.
      The Shatapatha Brahmana clearly recounts a movement eastwards, carrying sacred fire to the banks of the Ganga. Prior to that only the western rivers were known. The battle of ten chieftains in the Rig Veda certainly indicates that there was no empire in that area, only many battling tribes/clans, as we see later among the Rajputs. If we study Todd's Annals of Rajasthan, plenty of insights emerge about what matters may have been in Vedic and post-Vedic times. The appendix Acharya Chatursen Shastri wrote to the 2nd volume of his great novel, "Vayam Rakshamah" (Hindi) attempts to provide some details of pre-historic Indian history very convincingly. 

      Pradip Bhattacharya PhD, IAS (Retd)

      International HRD Fellow (Manchester)

      PG Dip. Public Service Training (Distinction, Manchester)

      ex-Additional Chief Secretary &

      Chairman State Planning Board, Chairman Pashchimanchal Unnayan Parshat, West Bengal

      Member, Board of Governors, IIM Calcutta

      Member, Editorial Board, Journal of Human Values, Manushi

      Regional Editor (East), Mahabharata Encyclopaedia Project

      Mahabharata Samshodhana Pratishthanam, Bangalore

      AD-64, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700064, India
      ph: 91-33-23373511

      "I lift up my hands and I shout
      But no one listens.
      From dharma come wealth and pleasure
      Why is dharma not practised?"--Vyasa, Mahabharata


      From: Girfox Girfox <girfoxgirfox@...>
      To: ancientindia@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tue, 30 November, 2010 14:06:29
      Subject: Re: [ancientindia] India's first empire


      Dear Mr. Kishore,

      Indian civilization may be very old.

      Any civilization to arrive at a certain stage take a very long time and it is a continuous and gradual development.
      If we look at the Chronological development of our civilization, I find there are two in North India, one of them is east Indian civilization, based on Ganga and Lohit river valley, while the other one is Saptha Sindhu Valley.

      Even if we consider Sara swati river valley, the civilization might have displaced but not beyond Hindukush region.

      Among this two great civilization, and if we analyse the condition of people of today and gradually goes to past and correlate them it looks impossible for Indians to established a huge empire at any point of time.

       We Indians lack the necessary resources to build an  empire. It is true for todays world, and it was true for earlier period.

      It is like all our swamijees are having  self declared great titles like  Jagat Guru , Bhagawan, etc. supported by their few intellectual disciples. The fact is that their "Jagat" is very small in fact  infinitesimal small in comparison to the real "Jagat".

      The conditions of poor people is a reflection of a civilized society.

      To measure the level and quality of civilization, we need not look in to history nor to Itihas or Puranas. from our surroundings itself it is possible to guess the civilization  of India

      We find  so many ."Vikramaditya", but the fact is that we we not even aware of knowledge to identify them properly at a later date, until the arrival of Europeans with modern education system.

      I am sorry to state the above facts, but not have any intention to hurt any feelings of any one.
      I may kindly be excused if some one is hurt and I express my sincere apology towards the same.

      With kind regards..

      --- On Tue, 30/11/10, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik.ancientindia@...> wrote:

      From: kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik.ancientindia@...>
      Subject: Re: [ancientindia] India's first empire
      To: ancientindia@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Tuesday, 30 November, 2010, 7:59 AM



      Question  asked :  when was India's First Empire built ?


      The question is highly confusing.
      Becouse, we need to define India in a particular period.

      1) Is it ancient India?
      if so, then what was the western border and what was the eastern
      border? the same way the northern and southern borders need to be
      clearly defined.

      However, Chandragupta Mourya may be given the credit to built the
      largest empire in India, which is larger  in size than the present
      India. The maps of various dynasties are enclosed in the attachments
      for ready references.

      During the period of Mahabharata, Indraprastha was ruled by Pandavas,
      Hastinapur area was ruled by Kouravas, in south of Indraprastha, Birat
      Kingdom (Jaipur) was independent. In the south east Krishna was the
      independent rular of Mathura.
      North east Hardwar and the adjacent area was ruled by Dronacharya.
      East of Mathura that is Panchal was ruled by king Drupad. Further east
      was ruled by Kasi King, and north of Kasi was Koshola again
      independent state. East of Kasi was Anga, where Jarasandha was
      rulling, further east and north ware Vaishali and Bangadesh.
      When such is the case where is the empire? all were landlords and
      rulers of a place equivalent to the area of a district of today.
      These are the hidden clues available in our mythological literatures.

      Dr. KK Debnath


      There is absolutely no confusion here, it depends on the context. If the question was asked in a text book or an examination, they have meant to point towards the Ancient India known after Buddha,  since as per the popular scientific belief ( who accept the anchor sheet of Indian history to be sandro cottus being CGM) , there were no empires prior to Buddha. They differ the reply to the question answering either Nandas or Mauryans.
      However, the traditionalists will want to reply the way I have answered it, since the chronological  history of Ancient India properly starts with Mahabharat. If you see the replies here, a respected member pointed out to the puranic legends where Prithu and Mandhata were taken to be the earliest emperors.
      Kishore patnaik

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.