A Historical Sense: What Sanskrit Has Meant to Me

Aatish Taseer in the Open magazine about what India lost when the Brits under influence of missionaries severed its roots by banishing Sanskrit from the education system.

A Historical Sense
What Sanskrit has meant to me

By Aatish Taseer

I had come to Sanskrit in search of roots, but I had not expected to have that need met so directly. I had not expected my wish for a ‘historical sense’ to be answered with linguistic roots.

Aged twenty-seven or so, when I first began to study Sanskrit as a private student at Oxford, I knew nothing about the shared origins of Indo-European languages. Not only did I not know the example given in my textbook—that the Sanskrit ãrya, the Avestan airya, from which we have the modern name Iran, and the Gaelic Eire, all the way on the Western rim of the Indo-European belt, were all probably cognate—I don’t even think I knew that word, ‘cognate’. It means ‘born together’: co + natus. And natus from gnascor is cognate with the Sanskrit root jan from where we have janma and the Ancient Greek gennaõ, ‘to beget’. Genesis, too.

And in those early days of learning Sanskrit, the shared genesis of these languages of a common source, spoken somewhere on the Pontic steppe in the third millennium BC, a source which had decayed and of which no direct record remains, absorbed me completely. Well, almost completely. The grammar was spectacularly difficult and, in that first year, it just kept mushrooming—besides three genders, three numbers and eight cases for every noun, there were several classes of verbs, in both an active and middle voice, each with three numbers and three persons, so that in just the present system, with its moods and the imperfect, I was obliged to memorise 72 terminations for a single verb alone.

And still I found time to marvel at how the Sanskrit vid, from where we have vidiã, was related to the Latin videre—to see—from where, in turn, we have such words as video and vision; veda too, of course, for as Calasso writes in Ka, the ancient seers, contrary to common conception, did not hear the Vedas, they saw them! Or that kãla, Time and Death, should be derived from the Sanskrit kãl, ‘to calculate or enumerate’—related to the Latin kalendarium, ‘account book’, the English calendar—imparting, it seemed to me, onto that word the suggestive notion that at the end of all our calculations comes Death. Almost as if k ¯ala did not simply mean Time, but had built into it the idea of its passage, the count of days, as it were.

These thrills were so self-evident that I did not stop to ask what lay behind them. But one day, a few months into my second term, the question was put to me by a sympathetic listener. An old editor at Penguin. I was in London assailing him over dinner, as I now am you, with my joy at having discovered these old threads, when he stopped me with: But what is this excitement? What is the excitement of discovering these old roots?

An oddly meta question, it should be said, oddly self- referential, and worthy of old India. For few ancient cultures were as concerned with the how and why of knowing as ancient India. And what my editor was saying was, you have the desire to know, fine—you have jijñãsa, desiderative of jña: ‘to know’—but what is it made of? What is this hunting about for linguistic roots? What comfort does this knowledge give? And, what, as an extension, can it tell us about our need for roots, more generally? It was that most basic of philosophical enquiries: why do we want to know the things we want to know?


I grew up in late 20th century India, in a deracinated household. I use that word keeping in mind that racine is ‘root’ in French, and that is what we were: people whose roots had either been severed or could no longer be reached. A cultural and linguistic break had occurred, and between my grandparents’ and my parents’ generation, there lay an imporous layer of English education that prevented both my father in Pakistan, and my mother, in India, from being able to reach their roots. What the brilliant Sri Lankan art critic, Ananda Kentish Coomaraswamy, had seen happening around him already in his time had happened to us (and is, I suppose, happening today all over India).

‘It is hard to realize,’ Coomaraswamy writes in The Dance of Shiva, ‘how completely the continuity of Indian life has been severed. A single generation of English education suffices to break the threads of tradition and to create a nondescript and superficial being deprived of all roots—a sort of intellectual pariah who does not belong to the East or the West.’

This is an accurate description of what we were. And what it meant for me, personally, as an Indian writer getting started with a writing career in India, was that the literary past of India was closed to me. The Sanskrit commentator, Mallinatha, working in 14th century Andhra, had with a casual ‘iti-Dandin: as Dandin says’, been able to go back seven or eight hundred years into his literary past. I could go back no further than fifty or sixty. The work of writers who had come before me, who had lived and worked in the places where I lived and worked today, was beyond reach. Their ideas of beauty; their feeling for the natural world; their notion of what it meant to be a writer, and what literature was—all this, and much more, were closed to me. And, as I will explain later, this was not simply for linguistic reasons.

I was—and I have TS Eliot in mind as I write this—a writer without a historical sense. Eliot who, in Tradition and the Individual Talent, describes the ‘historical sense’ as: a perception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence; the historical sense, he feels, compels a man to write not merely with his own generation in his bones, but that [for him]—I’m paraphrasing now—the whole literature of Europe from Homer onwards to that of his own country has ‘a simultaneous existence’.

My problem was that I had next to nothing in my bones. Nothing but a handful of English novels, some Indian writing in English, and a few verses of Urdu poetry. That was all. And it was too little; it left the bones weak; I had no way to thread the world together.

The place I grew up in was not just culturally denuded, but—and this is to be expected, for we can only value what we have the means to assess—it held its past in contempt. Urdu was given some token respect—though no one really bothered to learn it—but Sanskrit was actively mocked and despised. It was as if the very sound of the language had become debased. People recoiled from names that were too Sanskritic, dismissing them as lower class: ‘Narindar,’ someone might say, ‘what a driver’s name!’ They preferred Armaan and Zhyra and Alaaya. The Sanskrit teacher in most elite schools was a figure of fun. And people took great joy at having come out of a school, such as The Doon School, say, without having learnt any more Sanskrit than a derisive little rhyme about flatulence.

What was even more dismaying was that very few people in this world regarded Sanskrit as a language of literature. In fact, Sanskrit, having fought so hard historically to escape its liturgical function and become a language of literature and statecraft, had in the India I grew up been confined once again to liturgy. And an upper-class lady, on hearing that you were learning Sanskrit, would think nothing of saying: ‘Oh, I hate all that chanting-shanting.’

Sanskrit was déclassé; it was a source of embarrassment; its position in our English-speaking world reminded me of the VS Naipaul story of the boy among the mighty Mayan ruins of Belize. ‘In the shadow of one such ruin,’ Naipaul writes in The Enigma of Arrival, ‘a Mayan boy (whatever his private emotions) giggled when I tried to talk to him about the monument. He giggled and covered his mouth; he seemed to be embarrassed. He was like a person asking to be forgiven for the absurdities of long ago…’


To have Sanskrit in India was to know an equal measure of joy and distress. On the one hand, the language was all around me and things that had once seemed closed and inert came literally to be full of meaning. ‘Narindar’ might have sounded downmarket to the people I had grown up with, but it could no longer be that way for me. Not when I knew that beyond its simple meaning as ‘Lord of Men’, nara—cognate with the Latin nero and the Greek anér—was one of our oldest words for ‘man’. Some might turn their nose up at a name like Aparna, say, preferring a Kaireen or an Alaaya, but not me. Not when it was clear that parna was ‘leaf’, cognate with the English ‘fern’, and aparna, which meant ‘leafless’, was a name Kalid ¯a sa had himself given Paravati: ‘Because she rejected, gracious in speech though she was, even the high level of asceticism that is living only on leaves falling from trees of their own accord, those who know the past call her Aparna, the Leafless Lady.’

My little knowledge of Sanskrit made the walls speak and nothing was the same again. Words and names that had once seemed whole and complete—such as Anuja and Ksitaja—broke into their elements. I saw them for what they were: upapada compounds, which formed the most playful and, at times, playfully profound compounds. Anuja, because it meant ‘born after’, or ‘later’, was a name often given to the youngest son of a family. And ksitaja, which meant ‘born of the earth’—the ja being a contraction of jan, that ancient thread for birthing, begetting and generating—could be applied equally to an insect and a worm as well as the horizon, for they were both earth-born. And dvi|ja, twice born, could mean a Brahmin, for he is born, and then born again when he is initiated into the rites of his caste; it could mean ‘a bird’, for it is born once when it is conceived and then again from an egg; but it could also mean ‘a tooth’, for teeth, it was plain to see, had two lives too.

So, yes: once word and meaning were reunited, a lot that had seemed ordinary, under the influence of the world I grew up in, came literally to acquire new meaning. Nor did the knowledge of these things seem trifling to me, not simply a matter of curiosity, not just pretty baubles. Because the way a culture arrived at its words, the way it endowed sabda with artha, gave you a picture of its values, of its belief system, of the things it held sacred.

Consider, for instance, sarıra or ‘body’. One of its possible derivations is from √srr, which means ‘to break’ or ‘destroy’, so that sarıra is nothing but ‘that which is easily destroyed or dissolved.’ And how could one know that without forming a sense of the culture in which that word emerged and how it regarded the body? The body, which, as any student of John Locke will tell you (1), had so different a significance in other cultures.

I thought it no less interesting to observe the little jumps of meaning a root made as it travelled over the Indo-European belt. Take vertere, ‘to turn’, from the old Latin uortere: we have it in Sanskrit too: vrt, vartate: ‘to turn, turn round, revolve, roll; to be, to live, to exist, to abide and dwell’. It is related to the German werden—‘to become’. From where we have the Old English wyrd—‘fate, destiny’; but also werde: ‘death’. That extra layer of meaning restored, it was impossible ever to think of Shakespeare’s ‘weird sisters’ from Macbeth in the same way again.

What Sanskrit did for me was that it laid bare the deep tissue of language. The experience was akin to being able to see beneath the thick encroachment of slum and shanty, the preserved remains of a grander city, a place of gridded streets and sophisticated sewage systems, of magnificent civic architecture. But to go one step further with the metaphor of the ruined city, it was also like seeing Trajan’s forum as spolia on people’s houses. The language was there, but it was unthought-of, unregarded, hardly visible to the people living among it: there as remains, and little more. There are few places in the world where the past continues into the present as seamlessly as it does in India, and where people are so unaware of it.

Neither is the expectation of such an awareness an imposition of the present on the past. Nor is it an import from elsewhere; not—to use the Academic’s word—etic, but deeply emic to India. For it is safe to say that no ancient culture thought harder about language than India, no culture had better means to assess it. Nothing in old India went unanalysed; no part of speech was just a part of life, no word just slipped into usage, and could not be accounted for. This was the land of grammar and grammarians. And, if today, in that same country, men were without grammar, without means to assess language, it spoke of a decay that could be measured against the standards of India’s own past.

That decay—growing up with as little as I had—was what lay behind my need for roots and the keenness of my excitement at discovering them. It was the excitement, at a time when my cultural life felt thin and fragmentary, of glimpsing an underlying wholeness, a dream of unity, that we human beings never quite seem able to let go of. But there was something else. In India, where history had heaped confusion upon confusion, where everything was shoddy and haphazard and unplanned, the structure of Sanskrit, with its exquisite planning, was proof that it had not always been that way. It was like a little molecule of the Indian genius, intact, and saved in amber, for a country from which the memory of genius had departed.



Filed under Ancient India, Hinduism

51 responses to “A Historical Sense: What Sanskrit Has Meant to Me

  1. I can’t read Sanskrit, but I know many Sanskrit words, especially as they pertain to Indian philosophy and spirituality. This language must never be abandoned! It contains superb, transcendental knowledge that those poor, ignorant Brit overseers could never have grasped. India must regenerate her sacred heritage, not only for the sake of India, but for the sake of the World.

    • Jaipal

      All Indians do not dislike Sanskrit. There are many who actually do
      appreciate it and respect it, like myself for example.

      The Indians who oppose and deride Sanskrit are usually those who
      boast about being Secular/Secularist. Secularism in India is
      nothing but a platform for anti-national and anti-Hindu agendas.

      Indians who are true to their roots will never disrespect Sanskrit
      as Sanskrit is the basis of Indian culture.

  2. cnm

    I salute and prostrate myself before Sanskrit, the mother of all languages. I am proud to inherit of such a rich and priceless heritage.

    • @cnm
      Not to knitpick, but Sanskrit is the ‘mother of many languages’, not ‘the mother of all languages’.
      However, I salute the author for this excellent article.

      • cnm


        Now that you have appreciated the article by aatish tasir throwing some light on the greatness of Sanskrit, may I request you to go through the link provided here by Indian ? I have no doubt that after reading that write-up with an open mind you will never fail to marvel at the beauty, vastness , uniqueness and perfection of the language that is Sanskrit. Sanskrit is peerless and no other language of the world can have any comparison with it.

        • @cnm
          Actually I have already marked the site as a reference point. And I would definitely read it at leisure. But even without reading it I have been informed from reliable sources about the beauty and the scientific structure (grammar) of Sanskrit. Nobody to date has produced a grammar in any language than the great Panini. Among many admirers of Sanskrit there is Markandeya Katju, a man despised by Hindu right. Incidentally Taseer is the son of the slain Pakistani politician Salman Taseer.

          • som

            Just sit on the lap of a superpower ,and
            justify it ,after loosing self esteem,is just
            a sham of national interest.

          • karan

            The meaning of the word Sanskrit is highly elaborated and refined.

          • cnm

            Thank you. I am honoured that you have consented to read the article. Can you explain me something how a nomadic and barbarian tribe as the aryans ( I accept that it is pure mischief to use “arya” as noun while it is simply an adjective) could manage to develop such a flawless and beautiful language? Besides, It is more intriguing to apprise when did they get time to develop Sanskrit in view of the fact that after their arrival in India all the time they were busy annihilating the Dravidians?

            • Jaipal


              If you appreciate Sanskrit, then why don’t you appreciate Hindu
              religion and culture? Why don’t you come out and say with confidence
              that you are a proud Hindu?? Why the timidity?

              • Jaipal


                Hindu Nationalism respects and seeks to promote Sanskrit language
                in India but pseudo-secularists like you fail to understand that.

                May I ask which political party you plan to vote for in 2014?

                • @Jaipal
                  @Cynical, “Hindu Nationalism respects and seeks to promote Sanskrit language
                  in India but pseudo-secularists like you fail to understand that.”
                  So Mr Sanskriteshwar, or is it Mr Sanskritsamrat, how about some example of your love and respect for Sanskrit?
                  How about translating this blog in Sanskrit, or at the minimum translating your comments in Sanskrit?
                  “May I ask which political party you plan to vote for in 2014?”
                  Of course, with pleasure. At the moment I am undecided. I am swinging between two possible choices.
                  1. I will vote for any party who I believe will stop MODI from becoming PM of India. In a worst case scenario I can even accept a Sushma, a Jaitley, a Jaswant Singh, but never that teli (but not because he is a teli). He will pull India asunder.
                  2. I will vote for BJP, so that MODI can become the PM. The idea is that it will be easier to expose his true colour when he gets to the chair, when the focus will be on him 24X7. He will be under constant scrutiny of Indians (including his shortsighted juvenile fan club). With a fractured mandate and the pulls and strings from so many regional parties it will be quite easy to make him fail. So while there will be a few hiccups here and there it will be over in next five years. He will become the victim of his own image. While a Modi failing to get to the chair will be more venomous and will play his mischief’ with even more viciousness. The longer he stays away from the top seat, the bigger his image will become. So it might be better to bite the bullet now and suffer for a short term and kill the demon for once and all than allowing this genie to grow so big that we can’t put it back into the bottle.
                  Let me see. Jai Secularism (Bishudh type)

              • @Jaipal
                @Cynical,If you appreciate Sanskrit, then why don’t you appreciate Hindu
                religion and culture?
                To have a meaningful discussion, far less a debate between two individuals the minimum requirement is an agreement on definition/meaning of the nomenclatures between themselves. You clearly don’t understand the difference between a LANGUAGE, a RELIGION and a CULTURE.
                Britain and Ireland both speak and admire (I hope) English language, but Irish culture is not British culture. And while most Britishers are Protestant, almost all Irish are catholic, at the same time both being Christian. Again while both Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia shares the same religion Islam but they speak different language and follow different culture.
                Now would you agree if an ENGLISHMAN or a PAKISTANI ask me to appreciate Christianity or Islam and British or Muslim culture, simply because, I love and greatly admire English and Urdu language? At least I won’t.

                • Shlok

                  @Cynical, sorry sir, your knowledge as usual is extremely flawed. Who told you that Ireland appreciates the English language. A majority in Nothern Ireland maybe, but then N Ireland has a Protestant majority. And it was chiefly this reason that made the northern counties that make up Ulster (N Ireland) decide to remain a part of UK. However Catholics in N Ireland and the people in Repulic of Ireland hate the British and hate them for imposing their English language upon them. The English prohibited schools from teachign the Irish language due to which the Irish language got destroyed. The same happened in Scotland and Wales. Though a revival in the Welsh language has seen the Welsh language march back. The point is that a majority of the Welsh, Scottish and Irish are not fond of the English language but are forced to speak it as their native languages were killed (except for the Welsh). So your example is wrong. You rasied a supposedly valid point as to why we the readers were not familiar with or did not speak Sanskrit. Obviously, with the kind of Nehruvian backward 3rd class education that is being taught to our students today,with emphasis only on English at the expense of even Hindi and regional langauges, how can we blamed for it? Of course, we could take private lessons but with a money-driven economy and with people fighting to survive, it is not easy to find the time and money to learn Sanskrit. Quality Sanskrit education should be made compulsory to all students, it cannot be an optional language

              • I’m a Hindu. Not in any orthodox way. However, Hinduism has absorbed me and made me one. I wanted to get the heart of the question: ‘Who am I?’. I could not find a satisfactory solution to this question except through Hinduism. Thus, I have been absorbed. I am a devotee of the Upanishads, Adi Shankara, the Gita, the Brahma Sutras, the Yoga Vasistha, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (who taught me how to meditate) and, most significantly, Sri Ramana Maharshi — unquestionably the greatest of modern sages.

                India and Indians must awaken to the Crest Jewel of their civilization and step forward. The knowledge held in the heart of Hinduism can and must liberate humanity. I believe that Hinduism, more than any other Knowledge, holds the key to the death of the ego-ghost. It is the ego that is killing our planet. Hinduism holds the answer to a direct and effective annihilation of the Ego — the ultimate source of illusion, ignorance and violence. One more thing: not every Indian or non-Indian who calls himself a Hindu is in fact a Hindu. Hinduism is not a club to belong to or to be born to; it is a way a Knowledge, a state of Being. It’s geographical source is India, but it can be embraced by anyone, anywhere on our planet. The quintessence of Hinduism is a state of Consciousness.

                • A Question

                  There’s no religion that withstood the test of time without being peaceful because to become part of God is to be peaceful and let others worship God in whatever forms or without forms in a peaceful way. I believe there was a time when the formless God incarnated in the form of human beings, animals and even stones to help life on Earth. Hinduism cannot be imposed upon anyone because Hinduism by nature is inclusive of everything. Ego remains in Human beings. There’s no I am better than you or I am the best in Hinduism. Those who claim to be I am the best or My God is the best are frauds or confused people who don’t know what they are talking about. There’s no best version of God because we cannot define God. Everyone seeks God in his or her own way. No one can truly understand God or own God because God is beyond all holy books written by its creation. It’s possible to define a human being but its impossible to define the origin of everything.

            • cnm

              @Dear cynical

              You response is not coming.

              • I have to do other things to elk a living. So I choose my own time, my own pace and of course the issue/context/post I want to reply. Never mind, I think I have send the response you are particularly waiting for (other than beef eating matter)

                • cnm


                  I apologize for having disturbed you while you were busy earning your livelihood. Who am I to disturb you? But when I saw you responding to others under different posts in this blog I could not imagine that you were busy eking a living. Hence the above line. I again tender my apology.

            • @cnm
              “Can you explain me something how a nomadic and barbarian tribe as the aryans …could manage to develop such a flawless and beautiful language?”
              There lot of assumptions here. I have mentioned many times before of ‘rhetorics’. Any ways you are assuming that ‘Aryans’ (used as noun and no mischief here, just following you) were nomadic and barbarians. You may be right as well. But again a tribe may be nomadic but without being barbarian (ex. Roma Gypsies). And some barbarian tribes like Mongols, or Turks were not nomadic. Again some, though barbarian in a war situation and in treating their enemies were quite cultured and patron of art and literature back home. Mahmud of Ghazni for example. It seems you assign these two attributes to the ‘Aryans’ to spice up your argument. I have no pretention of being a historian, but my understanding is that the ‘Aryans’ were quite a developed society when they arrived in India and the development of a language take place over a period of time.
              “Besides, It is more intriguing to apprise when did they get time to develop Sanskrit in view of the fact that after their arrival in India all the time they were busy annihilating the Dravidians?”
              How do you think women at home cook, sew, wash along with so many other chores, and still find time to do their heir and bear a child? Or on another level, how the successive Muslim rulers of India found time to build palaces, forts, mosques on one hand and were patronising artists, court historians to right memoirs etc., while they were allegedly busy destroying temples and annihilating hindus? It was simply a division of labour, watson! While foot soldiers were busy screwing Dravidians, those with scholastic aptitude were working on academics. As simple as that.

              • Ramesh

                The world famous historian, Will Durant has written in his Story of Civilisation that “the Mohammedan conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history”.

                India before the advent of Islamic imperialism was not exactly a zone of peace. There were plenty of wars fought by Hindu princes. But in all their wars, the Hindus had observed some time-honoured conventions sanctioned by the Sastras. The Brahmins and the Bhikshus were never molested. The cows were never killed. The temples were never touched. The chastity of women was never violated. The non-combatants were never killed or captured. A human habitation was never attacked unless it was a fort. The civil population was never plundered. War booty was an unknown item in the calculations of conquerors. The martial classes who clashed, mostly in open spaces, had a code of honor. Sacrifice of honor for victory or material gain was deemed as worse than death.

                Islamic imperialism came with a different code–the Sunnah of the Prophet. It required its warriors to fall upon the helpless civil population after a decisive victory had been won on the battlefield. It required them to sack and burn down villages and towns after the defenders had died fighting or had fled. The cows, the Brahmins, and the Bhikshus invited their special attention in mass murders of non-combatants. The temples and monasteries were their special targets in an orgy of pillage and arson. Those whom they did not kill, they captured and sold as slaves. The magnitude of the booty looted even from the bodies of the dead, was a measure of the success of a military mission. And they did all this as mujahids (holy warriors) and ghazls (kafir-killers) in the service of Allah and his Last Prophet.

                Hindus found it very hard to understand the psychology of this new invader. For the first time in their history, Hindus were witnessing a scene which was described by Kanhadade Prabandha (1456 AD) in the following words:

                “The conquering army burnt villages, devastated the land, plundered people’s wealth, took Brahmins and children and women of all classes captive, flogged with thongs of raw hide, carried a moving prison with it, and converted the prisoners into obsequious Turks.”

                That was written in remembrance of Alauddin Khalji’s invasion of Gujarat in the year l298 AD. But the gruesome game had started three centuries earlier when Mahmud Ghaznavi had vowed to invade India every year in order to destroy idolatry, kill the kafirs, capture prisoners of war, and plunder vast wealth for which India was well-known.


                In 1000 AD Mahmud defeated Raja Jaipal, a scion of the Hindu Shahiya dynasty of Kabul. This dynasty had been for long the doorkeeper of India in the Northwest. Mahmud collected 250,000 dinars as indemnity. That perhaps was normal business of an empire builder. But in 1004 AD he stormed Bhatiya and plundered the place. He stayed there for some time to convert the Hindus to Islam with the help of mullahs he had brought with him.

                In 1008 AD he captured Nagarkot (Kangra). The loot amounted to 70,000,000 dirhams in coins and 700,400 mans of gold and silver, besides plenty of precious stones and embroidered cloths. In 1011 AD he plundered Thanesar which was undefended, destroyed many temples, and broke a large number of idols. The chief idol, that of Chakraswamin, was taken to Ghazni and thrown into the public square for defilement under the feet of the faithful. According to Tarikh-i-Yamini of Utbi, Mahmud’s secretary,

                “The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously [at Thanesar] that the stream was discolored, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it. The Sultan returned with plunder which is impossible to count. Praise he to Allah for the honor he bestows on Islam and Muslims.”

                In 1013 AD Mahmud advanced against Nandana where the Shahiya king, Anandapal, had established his new capital. The Hindus fought very hard but lost. Again, the temples were destroyed, and innocent citizens slaughtered. Utbi provides an account of the plunder and the prisoners of war:

                “The Sultan returned in the rear of immense booty, and slaves were so plentiful that they became very cheap and men of respectability in their native land were degraded by becoming slaves of common shopkeepers. But this is the goodness of Allah, who bestows honor on his own religion and degrades infidelity.”

                The road was now clear for an assault on the heartland of Hindustan. In December 1018 AD Mahmud crossed the Yamuna, collected 1,000,000 dirhams from Baran (Bulandshahar), and marched to Mahaban in Mathura district. Utbi records:

                “The infidels…deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river…but many of them were slain, taken or drowned… Nearly fifty thousand men were killed.”

                Mathura was the next victim. Mahmud seized five gold idols weighing 89,300 missals and 200 silver idols. According to Utbi, “The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naptha and fire, and levelled with the ground.” The pillage of the city continued for 20 days. Mahmud now turned towards Kanauj which had been the seat of several Hindu dynasties. Utbi continues: “In Kanauj there were nearly ten thousand temples… Many of the inhabitants of the place fled in consequence of witnessing the fate of their deaf and dumb idols. Those who did not fly were put to death. The Sultan gave his soldiers leave to plunder and take prisoners.”

                The Brahmins of Munj, which was attacked next, fought to the last man after throwing their wives and children into fire. The fate of Asi was sealed when its ruler took fright and fled. According to Utbi, “…. the Sultan ordered that his five forts should be demolished from their foundations, the inhabitants buried in their ruins, and the soldiers of the garrison plundered, slain and captured”.

                Shrawa, the next important place to be invaded, met the same fate. Utbi concludes:

                “The Muslims paid no regard to the booty till they had satiated themselves with the slaughter of the infidels and worshipers of sun and fire. The friends of Allah searched the bodies of the slain for three days in order to obtain booty…The booty amounted in gold and silver, rubies and pearls nearly to three hundred thousand dirhams, and the number of prisoners may be conceived from the fact that each was sold for two to ten dirhams. These were afterwards taken to Ghazni and merchants came from distant cities to purchase them, so that the countries of Mawaraun-Nahr, Iraq and Khurasan were filled with them, and the fair and the dark, the rich and the poor, were commingled in one common slavery.”

                Mahmud’s sack of Somnath is too well-known to be retold here. What needs emphasizing is that the fragments of the famous Sivalinga were carried to Ghazni. Some of them were turned into steps of the Jama Masjid in that city. The rest were sent to Mecca, Medina, and Baghdad to be desecrated in the same manner.

                Mahmud’s son Masud tried to follow in the footsteps of his father. In 1037 AD he succeeded in sacking the fort of Hansi which was defended very bravely by the Hindus. The Tarikh-us-Subuktigin records: “The Brahmins and other high ranking men were slain, and their women and children were carried away captive, and all the treasure which was found was distributed among the army.”

                Masud could not repeat the performance due to his preoccupations elsewhere.


                Invasion of India by Islamic imperialism was renewed by Muhmmad Ghori in the last quarter of the 12th century. After Prithiviraj Chauhan had been defeated in 1192 AD, Ghori took Ajmer by assault.

                According the Taj-ul-Ma’sir of Hasan Nizami, “While the Sultan remained at Ajmer, he destroyed the pillars and foundations of the idol temples and built in their stead mosques and colleges and precepts of Islam, and the customs of the law were divulged and established.”

                Next year he defeated Jayachandra of Kanauj. A general massacre, rapine, and pillage followed. The Gahadvad treasuries at Asni and Varanasi were plundered. Hasan Nizami rejoices that “in Benares which is the centre of the country of Hind, they destroyed one thousand temples and raised mosques on their foundations”.

                According to Kamil-ut-Tawarikh of Ibn Asir, “The slaughter of Hindus (at Varanasi) was immense; none were spared except women and children, and the carnage of men went on until the earth was weary.”

                The women and children were spared so that they could be enslaved and sold all over the Islamic world. It may be added that the Buddhist complex at Sarnath was sacked at this time, and the Bhikshus were slaughtered.

                Ghori’s lieutenant Qutbuddin Aibak was also busy meanwhile. Hasan Nizami writes that after the suppression of a Hindu revolt at Kol (modern day Aligarh) in 1193 AD, Aibak raised “three bastions as high as heaven with their heads, and their carcases became food for beasts of prey. The tract was freed from idols and idol worship and the foundations of infidelism were destroyed.”

                In 1194 AD Aibak destroyed 27 Hindu temples at Delhi and built the Quwwat-ul-lslam mosque with their debris. According to Nizami, Aibak “adorned it with the stones and gold obtained from the temples which had been demolished by elephants”.

                In 1195 AD the Mher tribe of Ajmer rose in revolt, and the Chaulukyas of Gujarat came to their assistance. Aibak had to invite reinforcements from Ghazni before he could meet the challenge. In 1196 AD he advanced against Anahilwar Patan, the capital of Gujarat. Nizami writes that after Raja Karan was defeated and forced to flee, “fifty thousand infidels were dispatched to hell by the sword” and “more than twenty thousand slaves, and cattle beyond all calculation fell into the hands of the victors”.

                The city was sacked, its temples demolished, and its palaces plundered. On his return to Ajmer, Aibak destroyed the Sanskrit College of Visaladeva, and laid the foundations of a mosque which came to be known as ‘Adhai Din ka Jhompada’.

                Conquest of Kalinjar in 1202 AD was Aibak’s crowning achievement. Nizami concludes: “The temples were converted into mosques… Fifty thousand men came under the collar of slavery and the plain became black as pitch with Hindus.”

                A free-lance adventurer, Muhammad Bakhtyar Khalji, was moving further east. In 1200 AD he sacked the undefended university town of Odantpuri in Bihar and massacred the Buddhist monks in the monasteries. In 1202 AD he took Nadiya by surprise. Badauni records in his Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh that “property and booty beyond computation fell into the hands of the Muslims and Muhammad Bakhtyar having destroyed the places of worship and idol temples of the infidels founded mosques and Khanqahs”.

                THE SLAVE (MAMLUK) SULTANS

                Shamsuddin Iltutmish who succeeded Aibak at Delhi invaded Malwa in 1234 AD. He destroyed an ancient temple at Vidisha. Badauni reports in his ‘Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh’:

                “Having destroyed the idol temple of Ujjain which had been built six hundred years previously, and was called Mahakal, he levelled it to its foundations, and threw down the image of Rai Vikramajit from whom the Hindus reckon their era, and brought certain images of cast molten brass and placed them on the ground in front of the doors of mosques of old Delhi, and ordered the people of trample them under foot.”

                Muslim power in India suffered a serious setback after Iltutmish. Balkan had to battle against a revival of Hindu power. The Katehar Rajputs of what came to be known as Rohilkhand in later history, had so far refused to submit to Islamic imperialism. Balkan led an expedition across the Ganges in 1254 AD. According to Badauni,

                “In two days after leaving Delhi, he arrived in the midst of the territory of Katihar and put to death every male, even those of eight years of age, and bound the women.”

                But in spite of such wanton cruelty, Muslim power continued to decline till the Khaljis revived it after 1290 AD.

                THE KHALJIS

                Jalaluddin Khalji led an expedition to Ranthambhor in 1291 AD. On the way he destroyed Hindu temples at Chain. The broken idols were sent to Delhi to be spread before the gates of the Jama Masjid. His nephew Alauddin led an expedition to Vidisha in 1292 AD. According to Badauni in Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, Alauddin “brought much booty to the Sultan and the idol which was the object of worship of the Hindus, he caused to be cast in front of the Badaun gate to be trampled upon by the people. The services of Alauddin were highly appreciated, the jagir of Oudh (or Avadh – Central U.P.) also was added to his other estates.”

                Alauddin became Sultan in 1296 AD after murdering his uncle and father-in-law, Jalaluddin. In 1298 AD he equipped an expedition to Gujarat under his generals Ulugh Khan and Nusrat Khan. The invaders plundered the ports of Surat and Cambay. The temple of Somnath, which had been rebuilt by the Hindus, was plundered and the idol taken to Delhi for being trodden upon by the Muslims. The whole region was subjected to fire and sword, and Hindus were slaughtered en masse. Kampala Devi, the queen of Gujarat, was captured along with the royal treasury, brought to Delhi and forced into Alauddin’s harem. The doings of the Malik Naib during his expedition to South India in 1310-1311 AD have already mentioned in earlier parts.

                THE TUGHLAQS

                Muslim power again suffered a setback after the death of Alauddin Khalji in 1316 AD. But it was soon revived by the Tughlaqs. By now most of the famous temples over the length and breadth of the Islamic occupation in India had been demolished, except in Orissa and Rajasthan which had retained their independence. By now most of the rich treasuries had been plundered and shared between the Islamic state and its swordsmen. Firuz Shah Tughlaq led an expedition to Orissa in 1360 AD. He destroyed the temple of Jagannath at Puri, and desecrated many other Hindu shrines. According to ‘Sirat-i-Firoz Shahi’ which he himself wrote or dictated,

                “Allah who is the only true God and has no other emanation, endowed the king of Islam with the strength to destroy this ancient shrine on the eastern sea-coast and to plunge it into the sea, and after its destruction he ordered the image of Jagannath to be perforated, and disgraced it by casting it down on the ground. They dug out other idols which were worshipped by the polytheists in the kingdom of Jajnagar and overthrew them as they did the image of Jagannath, for being laid in front of the mosques along the path of the Sunnis and the way of the ‘musallis’ (Muslim congregation for namaz) and stretched them in front of the portals of every mosque, so that the body and sides of the images might be trampled at the time of ascent and descent, entrance and exit, by the shoes on the feet of the Muslims.”

                After the sack of the temples in Orissa, Firoz Shah Tughlaq attacked an island on the sea-coast where “nearly 100,000 men of Jajnagar had taken refuge with their women, children, kinsmen and relations”. The swordsmen of Islam turned “the island into a basin of blood by the massacre of the unbelievers”.

                A worse fate overtook the Hindu women. Sirat-i-Firuz Shahs records: “Women with babies and pregnant ladies were haltered, manacled, fettered and enchained, and pressed as slaves into service in the house of every soldier.”

                Still more horrible scenes were enacted by Firuz Shah Tughlaq at Nagarkot (Kangra) where he sacked the shrine of Jvalamukhi. Firishta records that the Sultan “broke the idols of Jvalamukhi, mixed their fragments with the flesh of cows and hung them in nose bags round the necks of Brahmins. He sent the principal idol as trophy to Medina.”


                In 1931 AD the Muslims of Gujarat complained to Nasiruddin Muhammad, the Tughlaq Sultan of Delhi, that the local governor, Kurhat-ul-Mulk, was practising tolerance towards the Hindus. The Sultan immediately appointed Muzzaffar Khan as the new Governor. He became independent after the death of the Delhi Sultan and assumed the title of Muzzaffar Shah in 1392 AD. Next year he led an expidition to Somnath and sacked the temple which the Hindus had built once again. He killed many Hindus to chastise them for this “impudence,” and raised a mosque on the site of the ancient temple. The Hindus, however, restarted restoring the temple soon after. In 1401 AD Muzaffar came back with a huge army. He again killed many Hindus, demolished the temple once more, and erected another mosque.

                Muzaffar was succeeded by his grandson, Ahmad Shah, in 1411 AD. Three years later Ahmad appointed a special darogah to destroy all temples throughout Gujarat. In 1415 AD Ahmad invaded Sidhpur where he destroyed the images in Rudramahalaya, and converted the grand temple into a mosque. Sidhpur was renamed Sayyadpur.

                Mahmud Begrha who became the Sultan of Gujarat in 1458 AD was the worst fanatic of this dynasty. One of his vassals was the Mandalika of Junagadh who had never withheld the regular tribute. Yet in 1469 AD Mahmud invaded Junagadh. In reply to the Mandalika’s protests, Mahmud said that he was not interested in money as much as in the spread of Islam. The Mandalika was forcibly converted to Islam and Junagadh was renamed Mustafabad. In 1472 AD Mahmud attacked Dwarka, destroyed the local temples, and plundered the city. Raja Jaya Singh, the ruler of Champaner, and his minister were murdered by Mahmud in cold blood for refusing to embrace Islam after they had been defeated and their country pillaged and plundered. Champaner was renamed Mahmudabad.

                Mahmud Khalji of Malwa (1436-69 AD) also destroyed Hindu temples and built mosques on their sites. He heaped many more insults on the Hindus. Ilyas Shah of Bengal (1339-1379 AD) invaded Nepal and destroyed the temple of Svayambhunath at Kathmandu. He also invaded Orissa, demolished many temples, and plundered many places. The Bahmani sultans of Gulbarga and Bidar considered it meritorious to kill a hundred thousand Hindu men, women, and children every year. They demolished and desecrated temples all over South India.

                AMlR TIMUR

                The climax came during the invasion of Timur in 1399 AD. He starts by quoting the Quran in his Tuzk-i-Timuri: “O Prophet, make war upon the infidels and unbelievers, and treat them severely.”

                He continues: “My great object in invading Hindustan had been to wage a religious war against the infidel Hindus…[so that] the army of Islam might gain something by plundering the wealth and valuables of the Hindus.” To start with he stormed the fort of Kator on the border of Kashmir. He ordered his soldiers “to kill all the men, to make prisoners of women and children, and to plunder and lay waste all their property”. Next, he “directed towers to be built on the mountain of the skulls of those obstinate unbelievers”. Soon after, he laid siege to Bhatnir defended by Rajputs. They surrendered after some fight, and were pardoned. But Islam did not bind Timur to keep his word given to the “unbelievers”. His Tuzk-i-Timuri records:

                “In a short space of time all the people in the fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers. They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground.”

                At Sarsuti, the next city to be sacked, “all these infidel Hindus were slain, their wives and children were made prisoners and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors”. Timur was now moving through (modern day) Haryana, the land of the Jats. He directed his soldiers to “plunder and destroy and kill every one whom they met”. And so the soldiers “plundered every village, killed the men, and carried a number of Hindu prisoners, both male and female”.

                Loni which was captured before he arrived at Delhi was predominantly a Hindu town. But some Muslim inhabitants were also taken prisoners. Timur ordered that “the Musulman prisoners should be separated and saved, but the infidels should all be dispatched to hell with the proselytizing sword”.

                By now Timur had captured 100,000 Hindus. As he prepared for battle against the Tughlaq army after crossing the Yamuna, his Amirs advised him “that on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolators and enemies of Islam at liberty”. Therefore, “no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword”.

                Tuzk-i-Timuri continues:

                “I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolators, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasiruddin Umar, a counselor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives.”

                The Tughlaq army was defeated in the battle that ensued next day. Timur entered Delhi and learnt that a “great number of Hindus with their wives and children, and goods and valuables, had come into the city from all the country round”.

                He directed his soldiers to seize these Hindus and their property. Tuzk-i-Timuri concludes:

                “Many of them (Hindus) drew their swords and resisted…The flames of strife were thus lighted and spread through the whole city from Jahanpanah and Siri to Old Delhi, burning up all it reached. The Hindus set fire to their houses with their own hands, burned their wives and children in them and rushed into the fight and were killed…On that day, Thursday, and all the night of Friday, nearly 15,000 Turks were engaged in slaying, plundering and destroying. When morning broke on Friday, all my army …went off to the city and thought of nothing but killing, plundering and making prisoners….The following day, Saturday the 17th, all passed in the same way, and the spoil was so great.that each man secured from fifty to a hundred prisoners, men, women, and children. There was no man who took less than twenty. The other booty was immense in rubies, diamonds, garnets, pearls, and other gems and jewels; ashrafis, tankas of gold and silver of the celebrated Alai coinage: vessels of gold and silver; and brocades and silks of great value. Gold and silver ornaments of Hindu women were obtained in such quantities as to exceed all account. Excepting the quarter of the Saiyids, the Ulama and the other Musulmans, the whole city was sacked.”

                Contributed by Rajiv Varma

              • Anonymous

                “Any ways you are assuming that ‘Aryans’ (used as noun and no mischief here, just following you) were nomadic and barbarians”

                I am sorry I am not assuming that the Aryans were nomadic and barbarians. This is what we are taught in India. Read this-

                “The Indo-Aryans were not originally agriculturalists. They were pastoral nomads, involved in cattle-rearing, cattle herding, breeding and capturing. A cattle raid was a common form of agression, a form of warfare. The Indo-Aryans were skilled in bronze metallurgy and weaponry and went to battle in highly effective two-wheeled chariots.” (vedic age page 2)
                Also read this-

                Those Aryans who immigrated through the mountain route of the northwest into the watershed of Indus and subjugated in continuous fight the prior residents of the north-west corner of India in the 2nd millennium BC, were warriors of a youthful group of herdsmen, who did already some farming, but knew nothing of town planning and fine artistic work.”( L V Glassenap The Vedic Period page 32)

                The point I want to make by putting this question is simple.It is my firm belief that a nomadic and barbarian tribe can never create or develop such a sublime and flawless language like Sanskrit. Why? Because any people which is engaged in war for its survival always lacks time for cultivating inner culture or turning itself inward and in my opinion without an awakened inner faculty it is just impossible to create a language like Sanskrit.

                “I have no pretension of being a historian, but my understanding is that the ‘Aryans’ were quite a developed society when they arrived in India ”

                I am also not a historian but I feel a strong urge to know about the History of India. You say your understanding is that the Aryans were quite developed society when they arrived in India. May I ask you how do you come to such a conclusion or what is the basis of your believing like that? Beside, what is the evidence that prompts you to believe this?

                “How do you think women at home cook, sew, wash along with so many other chores, and still find time to do their heir and bear a child?”

                I am sorry I could not make out anything from this sentence. Do you mean to say that doing hair or bearing child is something which a woman does beyond what is expected of her?

                “Or on another level, how the successive Muslim rulers of India found time to build palaces, forts, mosques on one hand and were patronizing artists, court historians to right memoirs etc., while they were allegedly busy destroying temples and annihilating hindus.”

                But dear the laborers who were commissioned to build those monuments were Hindus or converts to Islam. Do you mean to say that Dravidians were also engaged by the Aryans to develop Sanskrit?

                “It was simply a division of labour, watson! While foot soldiers were busy screwing Dravidians, those with scholastic aptitude were working on academics. As simple as that.”

                Hmmm division of labour. That’s great answer. What do you think what numbers of Aryans must have immigrated to India to effect a successful division of labour. Any information? By theway had there been any division of labour practiced in the land where aryans had been living before they immigrated or invaded India. Any proof? Or it was developed in India? Given that the aryans entered India around 1500BC how one will know when or by what time the aryans had perfected the art of dividing labour?

                • Jaipal


                  The Muslims never built anything in India. They simply appropriated
                  Hindu monuments and used them as mosques and tombs.

                  The Taj Mahal for example is a Hindu king’s palace that was usurped
                  by Shah Jahan for burial of his wife. This is admitted by the way
                  in Muslim records. Taj Mahal is Hindu architecture, not Muslim.
                  Same with Purana Kila, Red Fort ect. These are all Hindu monuments
                  that were appropriated by muslims from Hindus. There is no Muslim
                  architecture in India. Its only Hindu.

                  About the Aryans, there was no Aryan invasion at all.
                  There are three good books written by Shrikant Talageri
                  which exposes the Myth of Aryan invasion of India.

                  The Aryans were indigenous Indians who were not nomadic at
                  all. The Rig-Veda is the composition of an Ancient Indian
                  dynasty known as Bharatha Dynasty.

                  Cynical doesn’t know anything. Her understanding is based
                  on the false NCERT syllabus propagated in Government schools.
                  Its wrong.

                • cnm


                  A few more lines on Aryan Invasion.

                  The chimera of “Aryans super race” has only caused devastation and bloodshed in the world. The blood thirsty monster Hitler used this notion to implement holocaust on the innocent people especially the Jews. And back in India Dravidian chauvinists has used this theory to create an artificial Arya-Dravid divide.

              • Shlok

                @Cynical, jhoom barabar jhoom sharaabi, jhoom barabar jhoom. You should really get help. People like you are a danger to society

          • Shlok

            @Hindu friends, relax. Give the devil his due. For Cynical to praise Panini and even say that he was the greatest grammarian is a big achievement. If he had accepted that Sanskrit was the mother of all languages, we would have known he was being sarcastic. I am happy that we have already influenced him.

            • Don’t indulge in self-congratulatory mode. You influenced nothing. To appreciate something good one only need education, not religion. I appreciate English, Urdu, Punjabi language also and that does not make me a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Punjabi. Now have a drink and chill.

              • Jaipal


                You appreciate shit languages like Urdu and Punjabi but not
                golden languages like Sanskrit which is the actual language of
                Indian identity and culture/civilization.

                Urdu/Punjabi is nothing before Sanskrit on many parameters.
                Urdu is a bastardized and mixed language that was used by Muslims
                in a desperate bid to have some identity. Punjabi is not that well
                developed when compared to Sanskrit. Also Punjabi has been
                influenced by Muslim elements in its speech manners.

                English is a foreign language that doesn’t tell us who we are.
                It is just a commercial language for the most part, devoid of any
                real culture. It has nothing to do with Indian culture or identity.

                Cynical, you seem to be a perfect example of a deracinated
                Indian without any self-respect or knowledge about your own
                heritage. You should read the article above, written by Atish
                Taseer. He was referring to people like YOU.

                • Shlok

                  @Jaipal, with due respects, Punjabi is our heritage. It is a great language, derived from Sanskrit. All the native languages of India are a part of our heritage, no matter if it is Punjabi or Tamil, Gujarati or Bengali. Please don’t bracket Punjabi with Urdu.

              • Shlok

                @Cynical, jhoom barabar jhoom sharaabi. Well if a shit licking Commie like you praises Sanskrit, it clearly shows that we moderately influenced you. One of your dear friends, Kancha Ilaiah had famously said that he ‘would kill Sanskrit’ and his writings are regularly coveted by your Commie, ‘Dravidian’ and Christian friends

  3. Indian

    This is a great site. Fantastic article on learning Sanskrit, please go through lesson one and two.
    I am so proud of Sanskrit and my heritage.

    • Indian Realist

      Thanks for the link. Fantastic knowledge about Sanskrit in the first chapter itself, especially how easy it is to invent new words. Sanskrit has no names for objects or people — but only of their attributes. This was an eye-opener for me. Can’t wait to read all the chapters.

      • Jaipal

        @Indian Realist,

        I want to thank you for putting up this great and thought provoking
        article on Sanskrit. Articles like this are necessary to convince
        our people on the importance of learning Sanskrit.

        Also articles like this help in mentally decolonizing our people’s

    • Jaipal


      Our self-respect, identity, feeling and pride as Indians is entirely due to
      the rich Sanskritic heritage.

      Make no mistake, without Sanskrit and Vedic civilization, we Indians
      would be nothing. Therefore all the more reason to work for
      Sanskrit’s cause and well-being.

    • Shlok

      @Indian, fantastic article.. Thanks for sharing. Bhagwan aap ko lambi aayu de

  4. som

    Sorry. ..simply misplaced.

  5. karan

    Again this is the directive principle of western ideologist to change every adjective into noun,Sanskrit is adjective as well Aryan or Arya is also adjective.
    This cunning ideologist are great danger of human civilization, specifically for india.
    They do not basics of Sanskrit ,and these so called scholars of Sanskrit ,are real
    danger for Sanskrit itself.

  6. just ordinary me

    why are you ppl fightin for facts that wil neva be known fr entire life? hw sure are you the facts being delivered to each of u is truthful? the truth itself maybe nt being the entire truth. wat eve we al being told is merely stories frm our anchestors who gotten their story out of dont knw which tom n dick….

    • Here are five true facts. 1. Hinduism is very ancient and originates in the sub-continent of India. 2. India was invaded violently by the Muslims, who killed Brahmins and destroyed Hindu temples, replacing them with mosques. 3. The British, French and Portuguese colonized India and suppressed Hindu culture and values. 4. Hindu India has an inherent right to re-assert itself, should it’s indigenous peoples so desire. 5. India does not need the consent of any foreign power or institution to do this.

  7. A Question

    India does have the right to reassert itself to its past but as long as there are sickulars, atheists, foreign religion agenda seekers and leftists who claim that “Aryans” invaded from Central Asia, and Sanskrit is a foreign language, people will look confused. This is due to the inferiority complex of some who still think that some non-existent Aryans are the first invaders of India. Time and again India got invaded but none of those invaders were known as Aryans. The only ones who called themselves Aryans were Persians and yes they did invade India only parts of it, and that too on the western part of the Sindh River. They couldn’t get in because of the powerful Kshatriya structures and Kings of ancient India. Warriors who fought for Dharma. They didn’t fight for Central Asian cultures, Persian Aryans or anything else. They fought to keep ancient India intact from the invaders. The birth place of Sanskrit is in India. Call it Indo European or Aryan, India is the birth place of Sanskrit because there’s no evidence of Sanskirt being formed even remotely in Central Asia or beyond. Even Indus Valley had structures which were built for vedic sacrifices.

  8. A Question

    Reading the posts above, the Aryan vs Dravidian bullshit should be thrown away. If people want to dwell in it, go ahead you own’t reach a conclusion. Stop weeping. Many Hindus fought invaders even before 1500 B.C. Mahabharat happened before 3000 B.C and Yudhistir went towards Central Asia to ask tribute. There were no Aryans there at that time only warring tribes of various origins.. No where in the Hindu text it says an Aryan is higher to a Dravidian or vice verse. When a Hindu says he’s above someone, then he isn’t a Hindu. Even the Persians who called themselves Aryans couldn’t take over India. Instead Persians were taken over by another religion which came from the deserts of Arabia. This is the result of continual war between Romans and Persians. The third party in Arabia took advantage of the weakness. These same converted Persians, Afghans, Mughal and Turks took advantage of the weakness of Hindu Kings who fought each other out of Ego and small things and invaded India. Rajputs fought hundreds of years. Without Rajputs who would’ve saved the whole of India from being converted to Islam? I want an Indian from any part of India to answer this question. Fools like Cynical, so many Hindus suffered and died to make sure that you are free today. I know the modern sickularists want the truth in their own way that pleases them but these are facts which happened in the past. You cannot erase it. Sickularists instead of trying to distort Indian history, go ask the middle eastern people why their destroyed their ancient religions and turned hateful? Ask them why their religions led to the systematic destruction of native cultures across the Globe? Why were so many enslaved in the name of religion? Why? You have an answer for that sickularists?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s