apr 1
the previous post, from the guardian, included maharashtra in 'south india'. which brings up something i have been puzzled by.
because of geography and language, maharashtra should properly be in the south: it is after all mostly in the deccan, ie dakshin, plateau and forms a part of the peninsula. in fact, old brit writings used to talk about bombay, the *southern* indian metropolis.
and whenever i go to maharashtra i am amazed that spoken marathi sounds so much like malayalam or kannada, not like urdu or hindi. i mean the sounds and the cadences.
but maharashtrians so far as i can tell have consciously decided to look down upon the south, sniffing that they are superior and part of 'western india'. oh well, that's fine, whatever turns you on.
i wonder if it's not maharashtra, but only *bombay* people, especially all the 'beautiful people' from punjab and bihar who have descended upon the place, and who have evidently decided that hindi imperialism is the right way to go.
i was reminded of this when abhiha marathe commented on a post about the south and brought up the issue of maharashtra, in effect sort of asking why i hadn't included maharashtra when talking about the south. my silent reaction was, 'well, no offence, but you guys go out of your way to tell us true southerners you are different and superior. that's fine, no skin off our nose'. well, the shiv sena used to go on bash-*madrasi* binges, right? so said 'madrasis' got used to thinking of you guys as biharis :-)
what do you guys think? is maharashtra part of the south? this is not a flame-bait question, just curious what people think, so kindly be calm in your responses.
45 comments:
On this count, let me introduce you to another issue, that might have had a great positive influence on National Integration, and one regarding which BJP or RSS don't seem to have done anything at all. The three-language formula introduced in 1956 or so stipulated that every Indian learn three languages. South Indians would learn their mothertongue, English, and Hindi whereas those who have Hindi as their mothertongue would have to learn one of the four South Indian languages (Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, or Malyalam) as third language.
Did BJP, the supreme nationalist party with the good of the country at their Heart, do anything about it? No. Mind you, Narsingh Rao knew 8 languages. What good can you say about BJP leaders from Hindi heartland as far as this issue goes?
Yes, Maharashtra is part of south, it always has been.
Iam gonna be a little frank now. Iam sorry to say this but Rajeev, though i agree that you know a lot of things about india and i agree with most of your write-ups, I have noticed that your knowledge of india's history is not so good, to be more pecise baseless. So here is a quick lesson on our history for you and all other who may tread here. Ancient india was divided into 6 regions (and even todays indian subcontinent as we now call it, has this virtual regions).
1. Uttarapatha (North) - This is mainly the whole Punjab basin & adjacent areas (excluding Multan), from Kabul, Peshawar to Delhi and Agra.
2. Aparantha Desha (West) - This mainly is the Indus-Saraswati basin & adjacent areas consisting of Sindh, Multan (Seraiki) Area i.e. Ancient Sauvira kingdom, Kucch, Suarashtra and western rajasthan (which today is mainly the Thar desert).
3. Madhya desha (Central) - This is mainly the Gangetic basin & adjacent areas consisting of rest of Rajasthan (i.e. excluding the western parts), Nepal, UP (excluding its western parts), MP, Bihar and Northern Jharkhand.
4. Purva desha (East) - Eastern Bihar, Assam, Bhutan, Arunachal Pradesh, Orissa, Bengal & rest of the NorthEast
5. Dakshinapatha (South) - [Dakkin in prakrit corrupted to Deccan in english] ...All areas south of the vindhyas (except Orissa). Konkan, Mah-arashtra, Chattisgarh, Nothern AP (Telengana, Andhra) and Northern Karanataka
*** So Rajeev , Once again ..Maharashtra is part of the south *****
6. Dravida (the deep South) - Southern karnataka, southern AP, Kerala, TN and Sri Lanka.
I could go through the janapadas and mahajanapadas of the other regions but i am not gonna do that as it would make my comment look like a lecture. But as the south is the topic at hand i will go through those of this region.
Maharashtra had Bhoja, Assmaka, Vidharba which were the main. there were othe small ones too.
Konkan had Kuntala, ie Goa, Belgaum region.
Northern Karnataka & western Telengana formed Kishkintha ().
Rest of Telengana, Chattisgarh, western orissa, and southern jharkand formed Dandakaranya (again not actually a kingdom but a forest with tribal areas)
AND Andra (Noth Eastern and EastCentral AP)
Dravida has the kalabhras (in southern karnataka), Pallavas (in South AP ie. RaayalSeema regions), Cheras, Cholas and Pandyas ( in TN), Kerala and Lanka
***NOTE: There is common misunderstanding that Chera Nadu is Kerala. This very very wrong. Saying Kerala is old 'CheraNadu' is like calling India as Persia Or Turkey or Afghanistan. Chera Nadu is the Kongu region of TN, ie. Coimbathore, Erode, Ootty and adjacent areas. During a time when the various fiefdoms in Kerala where fighting each other like crazy and total chaos prevails, it is said that the Namboodiris brought in a guy from the neighbouring Chera dynasty to rule Kerala and restore order. Malayalam historical literature knows this person as Cheraman Perumal. Then the cheras were also having a very bad time, having been totally devastated by the rising Cholas and their kingdom reduced to a few mere villages. Anyway....Please note that he was NOT the Chera King but a member of that dysnasty and was known to be very wise and noble man and good administrator. He did not rule all of Kerala but only the central regions (ie. Palakka, Thrissur, Ernakulam, Alleppy Idukki). Thus these parts of kerala fell under the chera rule for a few centuries. It is said that hence every heir to the throne bore the honorary title "Cheraman Perumal". Ofcurse later they were routed as the southern Venad gain power. Now coming back to my point.... just because the cheras ruled of some part of kerala for a few centuries we cant call the whole of kerala as chera nadu. Just like we dont call India as Mughalistan/Turkestan/Persia/afghanistan because they ruled us for a thousand years out of our 7000yrs of know history.
Back to the main topic..
Initially all areas south of the vindyas were known as part of dakshinapatha. But as aryan migration into the region began from madhya desha and which was later followed by a 2nd wave from the west after the complete dry-up of the saraswati this region became more aryanized society. As a concequence Dravida emerged as a distinct region as it remained unaffected by the aryanization of dakshinapatha. Later even the karnataka, pallava nadu, kerala and lanka were culturally sanskritised to an extent but not as much as their northern neighbhours. But the cheras, cholas and pandyas remained untouched all thru history. Even Ashoka who could have easily defeated the pandyas made truce with them on the condition that they remain a satrapy of the Mauryan empire. Hence the special distiction of Tamil as the least sanskritized language of the south. Similarly there is one more region which Ashoka left untouched, - Dandaka or Dandakaranya. This may be because it was a thick forest and full of tribals whom he has no interest in as they would not be a threat. It is fascinating that this region remains untouched and under-developed to this day. (ie. chattisgarh, telengana as western orrisa)
****NOTE: I know Rajeev, that you get irked at the very mention of the word "aryan" or "dravidian" as you dont believe in the theory. But sorry guy, this is the truth. I really dont understand why you hate this idea, all together. They did come in. Let me make some things clear...
1. The Aryans were people who lived on the banks of the Amu & Sir Darya rivers.....in the areas of todays Northern afghanistan, tajikistan, kyrghistan and uskbekistan. They were the ORIGINAL central asians. and NOT mongoloids and certainly NOT blue-eyed blonde-haired europeans as the NaZis think. So there is nothing for the bloody europeans to be proud of or take credit for.
** The ethnic/racial and lingual distribution gives enough proof of this. But not to a good extent, i must admit. Because 'unfortunately' for us, these areas have been raided and migrated over and again by others like the shakas (mongols from siberia) then the Hunas (white huns from russia/europe), then the yavanas (alexander and gang), then the Tartars (the Gengis Khan mongol gang), then the persians and Turkhas (Turks and the synthians) and finally by the Russians .................. which have erased the ancient trails of our forefathers. All we can know is from what ever is left of the trail and from the books our forefathers wrote.
2. I DO NOT think they invaded, but certainly MIGRATED into afghanistan first and later spread westwards deeper into Iran and eastwards into India. UNLIKE the bloody 'christian' european settlers who wiped out the native americans, the aryans mixed with the natives peacefully.
**Think of it, what would you do if the area you live is turning arid and the river is drying up slowly and the shakas from north (siberia) in search of warmer lands are raiding your land. Very simple, MIGRATE. Our own scriptures talk about this and so does the Avesta.
- - The story of Ishu, then Manu and his great great great grandson 'Bharata' after whom our land is named.
- - The stories of the first settlements of kambhoja, gandara, keyeya and kuru who talk about the land "arya loka" of their ancestors (parama kamboja, uttara kuru etc) beyond the hindukush and meeru ( the pamirs). Infact they also say that 'deva loka' is much far beyond the aryan lands. So it is very clear that they think of devas as different from them. May be some groups left northward in search of this 'deva-loka' towards europe. May be this group of aryans who went the other way, came upon germany and austria which are known to be very serene & beautiful and thought they has found the mythical blissful 'deva loka' their fathers talked about. That may be the reason Germany is called 'deutchland' meaning "land of gods'. In latin 'deus' means god, which is similar to 'deva' which again means the same.
- - The reference to "mlecchas" (natives) and the discouragement of mixing with them in the beggining. But later these mlecchas were aryanised and accepted as part of soceity. The more surprising thing is that by this time their very own original lands up north saw the coming of the hunas and shakas and were de-aryanized. Hence though the early manusmriti forbids mixing with mlecchas (locals) it has accepted them the fourth layer of society. BUT totally forbids marrying the women of the north with "red hair". Even later books forbid marraige with the kambojas (afghans) who though initially aryan had by the invasion by the shakas and hunas become un-aryan in culture.
** rajeev this one is specially for you as you are mallu and seem to know a lot about the state --- Why do think 'Panchavaadyam' is called 'Asura naadam' in otherwords "Music of the asuras"? This is because the migrating northerners saw the southern dravidians who were still to be aryanized as Asuras.
3. Inferority/Superiority COMPLEX - Just because it gets proved that aryans came in and have greatly contributed to the Indian system, there is nothing for us to be ashamed of (on the grounds that whatever we are is due to foreign contribution). India and Hindusim is a blend of Aryan & Dravidian (ie. native) systems. And they have mixed to such an extent and in such a way that you can make no complete distinction between the two. There is nothing today in any part of India as purely aryan or purely dravidian, BUT a continium of the blend. My use of the word 'continium' is deliberate. The more north you go, the scene turns more aryan BUT not completely aryan and similarly the more south you go the scene turns more dravidian but never completely dravidian.
By race we are more dravidian all thru india and less aryan, as the numbers of their migration couldnt have been big enough to dominate the natives ethnically. There are small pockets of people like the tamils, mundas, lambdas and gujjars who are still purely native.
By culture and religion we are predominantly aryansied, BUT still there are many things which are dravidian about hinduism (like god shiva & shakti) and even certain practices like " tantrik'ism " have been borrowed in from the natives.
By language we have to say that the north is more sankritized and south is native. But you see..even sanskrit evolved and matured by borrowing a lot of words from the natives of the north. As it said even today some pockets of the early past are left in the north amoung the peoples like the Brahwi (who speak brahui) in balochistan, the gujjars in Uttaranchal, and the Munda and Lambdas in MP and jarkhand. Today it will be hard to distinguish which works were borrowed in and which were pure aryan. And all dravidian languages (including Tamil, which is the least influenced) have been greatly influenced by Sanskrit. Iam from Kerala and i can say with full pride that Malayalam gets its beauty from Sanskrit. About malayalam we say "its mother is Tamil and its father is Sanskrit".
All authors right from the rishis who wrote the vedas and Manu and Vedavyasa and Valmiki to mordern day Kalidasa and Chanakya refer to the various kingdoms and the above mentioned regions and their people and culture etc. Rajeev...are you gonna say that they were all colluding with the european racisits, congress and leftists to twist our history make is feel inferior?
[BTW...I do agree with you on how the brits and later the INC & the left have coruppted our history books to tell less of our great hindu past and propagate the story about the false disunity of our land before the british arrived. This gives our children nothing to be proud of and demoralizes them.]
The list goes on and on....which proves these aryans did immigrate into the land. The moment you stop viewing our scriptures are holy books and start looking at them as mere literary works of our ancestors it becomes very clear that there was a migration and we also get good knowledge and picture about how the geo-politics between these peoples and kingdoms evolved from which todays India comes to be. BUT i certainly donot think it is something to be fight over and call blashphemy, like you do, rajeev. The right thing to do is to accept things as they are and be proud of the amazing blend of culture and language we have inherited. If you actually look at the whole scene now, one might even feel that there is more Dravidian element in us all than anything else. No amount of foreign migration or foreign rule can ever erase the Native element in us.
"well, the shiv sena used to go on bash-*madrasi* binges, right?"
Well dunno about that....how do you feel when 'Christists' & 'Mullahs' grab your land & your economy...making sure they profit their own people only regardless of the native population ? Tamilians have the same track record in Mumbai. And same goes for the Gujuratis, Biharis & Punjabis.
As someone said earlier in the comments, Maharashtra is most democractic, melting pot esp. Mumbai. Although it is tilting towards 'Hindi-imperialism' these days...
And if there is a North & a South...wont a East & a West exist ? Maharashtra comes under West India. The 'superiority complex' of Maharashtra or Mumbai is actually more of 'inferiority complex' of non-Maharashtrians or Mumbaikars ! And this may sound trivial & petty (but so many petty things drive people anyways !) SI's have a WHOLE lot of jealousy towards Mumbaikars because of the more liberal lifestyle there. Belive me I have lived among both !
I always find this hilarious inferiority complex among non-Mumbaikars....why do they assume that just because someone tells them that he/she is not a SI or a part of South/North does it that he/she is looking down upon them ?
Maharashtrians have always thought of Maharashtra as located on the Western part of India, like MP is in Central India...and thats what it looks to me. The 'complex' is that of SI's for thinking of this fact in any other way than the intended !
And I am disappointed to read that you think that because MH doesnt come under SI for whatever reasons you assume, you will not mention its importance...see thats where a MHian defers from a SIian...if this was how MHians thought, SIians or any other 'ian' wont have got a fair chance to succeed in Mumbai. But anways what did SIs do in return for their success ? ...Get in more of their 'Madrasis', promote & profit them & form their own ghettos in Mumbai.
Perhaps you should change your blog desc to South Indian Perspective rather than the current Hindu Nationalist Perspective.
so many posts, so interesting, and
some quite long, it's going to
take me all day to read.
i did glance through and would
like to add my thoughts.
i do believe there was migration,
that there was a native race who
originally lived here, and their
cultures were different. the
migration led to mingling of
people. how else do you explain
the widely varying color even
within any single community or
even within a family, and this is
probably more so in South India.
There was also mingling of culture
and languages.
But I dont think Sanskrit was
influenced much by the native
languages of India, though they
were influenced by it. It is not
easy for sanskrit to change. (on
the other hand English is a highly
assimilative language. Maybe the
word "Bangalored" is already in
the dictionary..).
incidentally, the name of my
my subsect which is "vadamal"
actually means "people from the
north". (vadaku). so there was
migration.
but i dont think there was aryan
invasion by europeans (where did
the blue eyes and blond hair go ?
and how come they have so little
cultural similarity with us ? )
-
lazysusan/subhadra, you *are* getting your knickers in a twist for no good reason. look at the context. i was talking about the south explicitly (the title of the post was "on temples and on cholas -- and on the south in general") and if maharashtra is not in the south, why would i talk about it in that context?
as for jealousy, i don't know. i have personally never felt any jealousy for mumbai people or any great affection for mumbai. i in fact had a row in print about this with my good friend, the militant maratha varsha bhosle. i said i found mumbai disgusting, and would be happy to never ever go there again. she threatened to beat me over the head with a blunt object. this is the way i feel, incidentally, about new york and los angeles and london too. i think it's because i find huge cities in general disgusting :-)
also, i think mumbai is on the decline relatively speaking. just think, ten years ago the metros in india were: mumbai, delhi, chennai and kolkata. now it is these plus hyderabad and bangalore. the action is in the south. the old mumbai industries such as textiles and organized crime and cinema are not quite where its happening.
so i personally dont feel that mumbai people have any particular justification to feel superior in any way. besides, speaking of cosmopolitanism, i would say bangalore is a lot more cosmopolitan than mumbai is.
and you can't talk out of both sides of your mouth: on the one hand lauding mumbai's alleged cosmopolitanism, and on the other hand saying non-locals have no business being there. in that case, why don't you secede from the union too? you can also handle your defense on your own, just dont call the indian navy when dawood ibrahim appears off the gateway of india with a few pakistani gunboats.
the only reason i think mumbai people's attitude is important is because of the soft power wielded by hindi cinema. films have the power of molding people's opinions and so that becomes an important issue especially with the wide popularity of hindi cinema.
and your attitude is not sensible. this bumiputra business is idiotic. notice that if there is a level playing field the most enterprising people will win: this is a fact of comparative advantage. if you get all the non-locals out of mumbai, it will be like idi amin kicking out the indians: a disaster.
for instance, bangalore is dominated by biharis :-) from mumbai, tamils, and all sorts of outsiders. this is partly because the kannada people are nice, kind and sort of relaxed, whereas some of the outsiders are pushy and aggressive. this has in the long run helped the kannada people. it's all well and good being proud of your ethnicity, but realize that others have a pretty good case too.
i have spent this time responding to you because i think you are amenable to reason. if you're not, well then, i wont waste my time on you any more.
whoa kashyapagotri, that was a serious sermon/lecture. you remind me of an uncle of mine to whom i have patiently explained all the reasons why the 'aryan' theory is bunkum, and at the end of it he says, 'the aryans came to india blah blah blah' as an axiom. in fact, you may even be that uncle :-)
you exhibit a lack of clear thinking, and have filled your head with a hodgepodge of myth, legend, and bogus history including the gokhale theory of the siberian origin of 'aryans', the max mueller theories, the evramaswamy naicker theories of 'dravidianism' etc, and at the end of the day, you are one seriously confused and prolix person.
alas, a sad commentary on the very poor 'modern' education system in india that does not teach people to question authority, but to accept received wisdom as the truth. the old emphasis on tarka, rhetoric and logic is sadly absent in today's indians. we don't know how to question authority.
for instance, the six-fold division you mention here, whose is it? since it does not include the major indic culture of tibet, i think right there it is deficient. indians have had a mania for classification and taxonomy, and there are any number of texts that merely exhibit the author's prejudices. an excellent example is the manu smrti. it's basically one rather ill-tempered medieval guy's opinion, but it has been given the status of scripture by interested parties such as christists who are using the old rhetorical device of a strawman. they set it up and then, conveniently, demolish it. the fact that manu's wet dreams about brahmin domination were never the reality anywhere in india is conveniently forgotten.
similarly, the weight of evidence is increasingly swinging to the side of no invasion or migration INTO india within the last 60,000 years based on pretty good genetic evidence. and you hold on to your silly theories of 'indians seem to be mixed race, so the "aryans" -- and these are now not white people but some central asians -- came into india'. central asians came into indian in numbers only with mughals and the mongols.
fact: you cannot come up with grand theories based on superficial observation of skin color and features. for instance, many 'white' people in america have significant 'black' genetic makeup, and vice versa.
more later if i feel up to it. but it's hard to debate with someone who is not open to evidence. i am quite willing to change my mind if i am provided with convincing evidence, but i find many others are not.
who is subhadra ???
Chitrakut, re:
"Now Ms. Daisy, could you please enlighten us here as to what might be the reasons why these great sanskrit scholars have chosen not write about this migration at all in their books??"
--- The migration I am talking of
is from the upper-north,
southwards.
I did not mean migration from
Central Asia into India.
-
By the way folks, the Krishna we
love so much, Sri Krishna....
The meaning of Krishna is "dark" or
"black".
Who was he ? An Aryan God from
Europe ? (definitely not).
An Indian from India ? A
northerner ? or a southerner...?
Or merely a relatively dark person,
wherever he lived....?
To me this is still a fascinating
mystery.
-
Original ancient India of the
Mahabharata times included
Afghanistan, or at least refers
to it.
Gandhari means "she from Gandhar",
and Gandhar was Kandahar
(Afghanistan).
That is the meaning I know of. If
any others are there, would like
to know.
-
Re:
"explained all the reasons why the 'aryan' theory is bunkum"
--- I am not sure why aryan is
being referred to in single
quotes, as 'aryan'.
The word "arya putra" does
occur in Mahabharata - I've
heard such references.
It can't have been conjured
up by recent historians.
-
"and you can't talk out of both sides of your mouth: on the one hand lauding mumbai's alleged cosmopolitanism, and on the other hand saying non-locals have no business being there."
NY, no I am not talking from both sides of my mouth. Cosmopolitan nature is great ! But the immigrants have to adjust & respect native culture & people and not keep promoting their own people all the time.
For example, the Silicon Valley of USA, is very cosmo but I do not like the attitude migrating Indians here have of we run the Silicon Valley & USA's economy, and we are in some way superior or better than Americans and we dont have to adjust. Its is two way street...Indians are skilled manpower but if SV didnt hire them, where would they be ? Similarly SV shouldnt think that they are doing a favor to the Indians by hiring them.
It just becomes a unpleasent situation for the natives & immigrants to live together in the long run. And in such a case my sympathies would be with the natives.
And why the 'subhadra' against my name ?
rajeev,
whats your problem? on one hand you talk as if you are the sole defender of hinduism, but dismiss everything i say about our ancient books. The references i said do exist, go read them if you want.
Just because tibet is not included ..u say the 6 division is crap? Are you crazy? Tibet was never a part of india. India ends with the himalayas. Just because kailash & Manasarovar is there tibet wouldnt become india's. Its like saying baluchistan is ours because hinglaj is there. We all know balochistan is beyond the kirthar range in the iranian plateau and always fell under the persian sphere of influence. If you say tibet is ours..then there is no difference b/w you and the chinese maoists.
Also, you are right. Manu was expressing his opinion. But mind you ..that he was addressing the people and society of his times, NOT ours. Every author writes books to express his views on the topic he is writing about. That is what he did too, So you saying he does not have that right? Your problem is that you view all the old scriptures against the current background.
Whatever he wrote he did so thousands of years ago when it had been only a few generations after the migration started. May be he was trying to conserve the uniqueness of his people, by discouraging mixing? Just like today we are against the converions to christianity and islam.
BUT my point is he did so for the people of his time. Now ..if we are still are trying to follow it and seek guidance from the manusmriti..thats entirely our problem. I think if Manu were to come back now.. he himself would rewrite his work to suit the society of today.
This reponse again proves that you dont know a sqat, what you talking about. I have seen this time and again in your blogs, that you either praise something as a whole or totaly booo it as a whole. Nothing is perfect, rajeev. We have to see what part of the subject we are discussing and in what context.
I was just using the manusmrti as one of the items of proof, as it has indirect, references to the migration.
also, did i ever mention the word 'skin color'? NO. so why u using it against me? cant you read english? But anyway..if you want to know, they were fair skinned than the natives. Not because any race factor ( which by the way can contribute) but mainly because the natives who lived in more humid and hot tropico-equatorial conditions are bound to be dark skinned. And it is true that the new comers refer to the natives as dark skinned. But mind you when alexander..came in he called the natives dark skinned too, even the predominatly aryanized punjab ( which could have been a result of mixing). But what iam trying to say is that it is all relative. Alex'r being from europe was much fairer than the aryans, who inturn were much fairer than the natives. And skin color cannot be used as factor to argue such a old happening.
and iam not coming up with grand theories. rememeber i said ORIGINAL central asians. Todays central asians are a mix of turks, grecko-persians and mongols who raided these lands. Its funny that you say they came in only with mughals and mongols... ha ha ha. What about the shakas? (The shaka republic of yakutia still exsits in siberia.. these people were and are mongols.) And what about the later invasion by the kushans? Dude go learn your history well and i mean the true history and NOT the congress/left version, which we all hate.
Now this is for this chitrakut guy.. go read the books dude. You just want to argue without reading them. Atleast go and read the english translations. The references to the old lands in central asia exist, OK. let me know if you need to know where.
And why would valmiki write about the migration? You certainly dont have a sense of time scale of history. the migration would have happened atleast a thousand years before him. And he was writing about Rama. So why would he go out of his way to write about the migration which is not related to his topic and when he belongs to the N'th generation and is completly a naturalized indian. Are you nuts? Are you saying that if one sets about writing a book on electricity, then he should cover the whole realm of Physics right from the origin of the universe? Just dont talk rubbish. Ok !?!
daisies... the compilation and standardization of sanskrits grammar was done by Panini around 600 BC. Till then it was very much flexible and each grammarian and associated groups followed their own set of rules and style. By this time it had also borrowed in many native words. Thats why you see a great difference b/w early vedic and later vedic sanskit. But not much has changed after that. Infact panini himself states that "though early vedic sanskit was still understood in his time, it was totally outdated and not in use".
There are two unrelated things i wanna state here ..just thoughts. would like your opinion.
1. I think sanskit should have been the national language. This would have been evenly fair on all regions of india. This is the only common 'ligual' thread which binds us all. I know the tamils would still have a problem, but it would be a much better deal that the current Hindi.
2. I think Madras, bombay, karachi, lahore, delhi and calcutta (and even Kanpur) should have been made Union territories. All the people under these four presidencies paid taxes to build these cities and its administrative offices and infrastructure. They were the melting pots for the people of their respective regions. So why should just the states where they physically fell, reap the benefits? while the other had to build new capitals? I said Kanpur as that was the major town for the gangetic basin. And i said lahore and karachi 'coz i still think india should have stayed as one piece.
Rajiv,
Given that I am from Mumbai but also spent considerable time in other parts of India and abroad, I want to say the following:
1. If one considers India as the country that British ruled then I would include Maharashtra in South India. As for present borders, one can call it Western India and I wouldn't lose my sleep.
2. Your knowledge of Mumbai - esp. what happened in the past - indeed is poor. I don't particularly mind if you'd rather not come to Mumbai but clearly the several lakh who live there are not fools. I could say a few more things about how in certain ways Mumbai leads progressive thinking but your obvious bias will preclude you from being able to appreciate that.
3. Shiv Sena has and continues to make many mistakes. Anti-south movement was wrong for the way it was carried out but at the same time the issues were *very* real. Just like SS was wrong in digging up Wankhede pitch but their anti-Bangladesh and anti-PakiSatan protests have always had merit. I identify myself more with sambar than varan (daal as we maharashtrians call it) and my family includes tamils but I will call a spade a spade.
4. Demise of Mumbai has been predicted for quite some time but I am not convinced. What matter is the political interference that supresses good intentions and measures. That too shall change.
5. I take it you have overlooked the India-US CEO forum identifying Mumbai as the future financial hub for trade with US.
6. I also take it that you are not intimate with the recent plans announced by Reliance about a mega city across the Thane creek.
The last few points are not in-line with the main theme but do address some other comments you have made. As for culture, language and script, others before me have already written about that so I will not repeat it.
Lastly, not all Mumbaikars feel superior wrt those from other cities (TFOC) and not all TFOC consider themselves equal to Mumbaikars. Some immigrants love Mumbai more than their origins while some hate it beyond their belief. The +/- exists all around so not much point in mouthing off on that. Heck, just look at the banter that goes on between Pune and Mumbai...again +/- all around.
And sorry but I cannot resist saying that "bangalore is a lot more cosmopolitan than mumbai is" takes the cake but I won't lose sleep over it. Those who do not know much about Mumbai are bound to make such ill-informed comments.
Kind regards.
I would say Maharashtra is unique. Their gods are unique , their kings were different etc...
And about similarities those are contextual ,and I don't see any significant south or north indian influence in maharashtra.
eg. you argue that their eating habits are like south indians ... Well, I don't see why the closest relative to marathi thali seems to be gujrathi thali....
I am pretty sure if I dig deeper , the types of eating items served on a mahar ashtrian thali are very similar to gujrathi thali.
Use of jaggery = also found in gujrath and maharashtra.
I think what you would want to distinguish though is the bordering states like belgaum, solapur which has mixed people. By mixed I mean there are many karnatak people living there.
Also the old classification is Maharashtra is to the south of narmada and hence in south. technically its called "path to south" or Dakshina -patha
But then I don't think that classification holds , since at that time maharashtra was really a forest called dandak Aranya.
Why its not north ? The essential character of north india is they are generally poor citizens of the country in terms of duties , this is because of the religious tumulus and bad rule by muslims for much of their time.
Although I would say that at least some of them are related in some way to some groups in maharashtra.
For example consider pronunciation of "Nali" (tube).
Majority south indians would use the heavy ळे.
One would think no north indian uses it. ? but its extremely wrong. All ethnic rajasthanis use that same L when saying nail, same for people of hariyana.
same for heavy na.
Gods famous in maharashtra that aren't found in much of north in general. Ganpati and Dattatreya
Dattatreya has also got considerable following in Gujrath.
I would say Gujrath and Maharashtra cluster more closely . than Maharashtra with any neighboring state.
lazysusan said...
"well, the shiv sena used to go on bash-*madrasi* binges, right?"
Well dunno about that....how do you feel when 'Christists' & 'Mullahs' grab your land & your economy...making sure they profit their own people only regardless of the native population ? Tamilians have the same track record in Mumbai. And same goes for the Gujuratis, Biharis & Punjabis.
*************************
And what have Marathis done to non-Marathi territories?????????
Marathis dominated much of India in 18th century - at that time what was Marathi contribution to rest of India - be that North or South.
Pindaris, extortion in name of CHAUTH, Plundering raids, devastation....This is what Marathis had given rest of India.
In comparison, migrants from other parts of India developed Mumbai but Marathis still had not given up old habits of plundering other people;s hard earned money.
If you kick out immigrants from Maharastra, Marathis would starve to death. They have neither enterprise nor hard-work like Gujaratis, Telugus and Tamils. Maharashtra purely Marathi will become most backward part of India in no time.
Before u rant and rave about NATIVE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS, see how ur own ancestors have treated native peoples of North and South India. After that gives us all these lectures.
"Pindaris, extortion in name of CHAUTH, Plundering raids, devastation....This is what Marathis had given rest of India."
Yeah as opposed to Mughals who were treating people gloriously or the Brits who were starving millions to death?
I guess you rather your ancestors paid jizya and send their women to muslim harems?
That was what would have continued happening if it had not been for the Marathas liberating Bharata from Muslim tyranny. You might even have a circumcised dick today & be reciting namaz like a billion other zombies.
Julian said...
"Pindaris, extortion in name of CHAUTH, Plundering raids, devastation....This is what Marathis had given rest of India............. today & be reciting namaz like a billion other zombies.
----------------------------
BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA
What did Marathis do before Shivaji? They licked feet of Deccan Sultans and paid Jaziya and did chamchagiri for them.
Marathis supported Deccani Sultans when they attacked Vijayanagara Hindu empire.
Vijayanagara was much better than Marathi empire. Vijayanagara not only saved South India from Muslim rule, but provided peace and prosperity.
And Marathis what did they do? They gave help to Deccani Sultans to destroy Vijayanagara.
Should we South Indians forget this?
What do you take us for?
We must forget all the stabs in the back done by you, but must join u in praising yourself!
If it had not been for a Shivaji, you would have still been licking feet of Deccani Sultans.
For your info - even with or without Marathas, Mughals would have declined. Because all Mughals after Aurangzib were weaklings. It does not require geniuses to defeat a weak and dying enemy.
India and Hindu religion lived even before and after Marathis. So dont make exaggerated claims.
------------------
Is Maharashtra in South India?
Marathis dont like non_Marathis. So they are not South Indians. If any Dravida is to say that Marathis too are South Indians, I will ask him -
after all those harassment by Sena and venom they spit on us......Dont you have any self respect left?????
"Pindaris, extortion in name of CHAUTH, Plundering raids, devastation....This is what Marathis had given rest of India."
-------------------------------
But you must see larger picture.
If not for Marathas, India would have still been under Islamist rule.
It is true that there was plundering by Pindaris, but this should not dull our sense of proportion. Destruction brought by Mughals and British were much more than by Maratha raids, which were done out of military necessity rather than with intent of exploitation.
You must accept that best administered states in India before Independence were Baroda and Indore. While I agree about raids, we should not forget persons like Sayaji Gaekawad and Ahalya Bai Holkar.
One reason why Pindaris behaved so cruelly was because they were mostly Afghans. It was due to Peshwas after Baji Rao I that Pindaris were let loose. But even Marathas themselves detest rulers that followed Baji Rao I.
"For your info - even with or without Marathas, Mughals would have declined. Because all Mughals after Aurangzib were weaklings. It does not require geniuses to defeat a weak and dying enemy."
Listen up you scumbag.
Every group has a history of collaboration.
You seem to conveniently forget the fact that early assistance provided to the Brits by Southerners. Many soldiers were recruited from the South as the Vellore mutiny exemplifies.
Or how about that coward Veera Pandya's assistance to Malik Kafur?
And "Mughals would have declined anyway" what a funny claim from an utter retard. It was the Marathas who broke the back of the Mughal Empire, for 27 years after Shivaji's death Aurangzeb launched the great Jihad with his massive armies trying to crush the Marathas which saw them emerge victorious and the Mughals nearly bankrupt. Keyboard warriors like you would have been hiding behind womens sarees back then.
Unfortunately for you the Southern chronicles tell a different story. It was Akkanna & Madanna who saw in Shivaji the hope to finally restore the South to Hindu rule and worked covertly with him to achieve that.
http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/the-scope-of-shivajis-plan-of-svarajya/
It was when Shivaji conquered the Southern areas that he finally abolished the trade of Southern Hindus as slaves by the Dutch & Muslims.
"A final example of the intimate connection of Shivaji’s ideologies
to his practices, or of the nigh impossibility to separate the two, is the
following passage from his qaul granted to VOC ambassador Herbert de
Jager in 1677. In it Shivaji puts his proscription of the slave trade discussed
above in the context of a radical (and ideological) break with the past:
In the days of the Moorish government it was allowed for you to buy male slaves
and female slaves here [the Karnatak], and to transport the same, without anyone
preventing that. But now you may not, as long as I am master of these lands, buy
male or female slaves, nor transport them. And in case you were to do the same,
and would want to bring [slaves] aboard, my men will oppose that and prevent it in
all ways and also not allow that they be brought back in your house; this you must
as such observe and comply with.
92
92
Contemporary Dutch translation of qaul Shivaji to VOC 26.6 accounting year 1078 (i.e.
1088 A.H.)/26.8.1677, VOC 1339: 1010; a copy of this translation (with two minor errors)
from the Amsterdam Contractboek is published in Heeres, Corpus, 3: 61-5. A somewhat
different version is found in the Zeeland Contractboek. Since many of the local terms differ
between these translations, it is possible that Shivaji’s qaul was issued in two languages
(which was not unusual), possibly Persian or Marathi and a language common in the area,
either Telugu or Tamil, and that the translations are based on different language versions.
Where “Amsterdam” has diwan and kotwal, “Zeeland” has hawaldar and talaiyari respectively.
The latter would seem to be the local language version as the last term is of Tamil origin (see
Yule and Burnell, Hobson-Jobson s.v. Taliar) and hawaldar a Persian term that had come into
general usage along the northern Coromandel coast in the Qutb Shahi period. "
What's funny is that you assume that I am Maratha.
nee daggara emi aadhaaram undi nenu marathavaadinanataaniki?
(What proof do you have that I am Maratha?)
ninnu evado Marathivaadu baaga chitakkottinattunnaadu, andukenemo maratha anna peru vinagaane anta avesam.
(Some Maratha must have beat your ass bad, that's why so much anger when you hear about them).
nee laanti chakkaagaaLLa vallane mana desanni turakoLLu telloLLu elindi, nee laanti eddi naayaLLu thoti hinduvaluto godavapadutunde vaaru kaani mee aadavaaLLani turakoLLakicchavaaru.
(It's because of eunuchs of like you that our country came to be ruled by Muslims & Brits, idiots like you were busy fighting other Hindus while giving your women to Muslims).
Now go figure out which Southern language my mother tongue is you worthless tard.
Julian,
You seem to be a more educated Telugu fellow than I am, atleast where our history is concerned. I have a question for you. When I was visiting relatives in East Godavari district a couple of years ago, the local historian (according to my kin) made this AMAZING? claim that most of the villages and towns in the Godavari Delta are less than a hundred years old. He was of the opinion that except Antarvedi, and a few other holy places, most of the area was uninhabited, and settlement was made possible only because of the evangelical engineer Arthur Cotton, and his grand schemes. We are rice eaters because of Cotton, he said. Otherwise we would still be eating jowar, and bajra, and other coarse grains. Is there any truth to this claim?
To best of my understanding, Maharashtra has a distinct identity - they belong neither to North nor South, but are a kind of bridge between North and South - you will see both characteristics in them.
I dont think Maharashtrians in general identify themselves with either North or South. And I think that is true - their characteristics make them a distinct from rest, North or South.
But it certainly will be news to many of you that till 1000 yrs ago, it was Kannada that was spoken in Maharashtra south of Godavari.
I think Maharashtrians are a proud and confident nation (with good reasons) and feel confident about themselves and hence dont like be part of a herd - be that North India or South India.
Marathas are not the only people in India who detest immigrants. As far as I know, there is quite resentment towards immigrants in all those states with large migrant communities.
There was large scale violence in Karnataka due to Kaveri Issue. Extremists in Assam also target outsiders. So to single out Marathas, I think is unfair.
At least look how many millions of people eke out a living in Maharashtra. Even at height of Shiva Sena's anti-South Indian campaign, there was heavy flow of South Indians into Maharashtra. Same about North Indians who go there in spite of M.N.S.
Nice Conclusion.
Marathas and Sikhs are big pretenders of bravery and always make stories of their super human strength and how they saved India........No one can tolerate their boasting as if only these people have courage and war skill.
You are right. Mughal empire would have fallen with or without Marathas. All those Mughal Badshahs who followed Aurangzeb were weakling. There was not even one NOT EVEN ONE strong personality.
And it was not only Marathas and Sikhs who fought Mughals - Jats, Rajputs, Thakurs, Satnamis and even Muslims of Afghanistan rebelled against Aurangzeb's rule. These rebellions much closer to Delhi and Agra meant that Mughals lost their main sources of revenue from North India.
Delhi Sultanate set up by Ghori and Aibak was almost extinct by time Timur invaded in 1399. Also same with breakup of Bahamani Sultanate in Deccan...Will Sikh and Maratha chauvinists go on to claim that they did these too?
Modern Marathas cleverly omit mentioning that they had been doing slave labor for Deccani Sultans for 300 years but instead chose only to focus on Shivaji and his successors.
300 years of collaboration with a foreign power does not speak very high of moral character of a nation. If it had not been of Shivaji they still would be washing feet and polishing boots of Deccani Sultans.
Marathas broke back of Mughal empire in 27 year war? Then what else was Rathore Rajputs under Veer Durgadas, Sikhs under Shree Guru Gobind Singh and Jats under Gokul, Rajaram and Churaman doing in North India during this period? They were waging life or death struggle in face of Islamic persecution. If North India had remained calm and quiet during this period and cooperated with Mughal rule, Mughal empire in North India would have survived.
At least think how Hinduism survived in India before Marathas arrived on scene in 1700 AD. India fell to Muslims in 1200 AD. So five hundred years of Muslim rule. If Hindus could have stuck to five hundred years of Muslim persecution (yes - Delhi Sultans like Alauddin Khilji were far more bigoted and brutal than Aurangzeb).
Have you heard about leaders like Rana Sanga, Maldeo and Hemu? They almost brought Muslim rule in North India to an end in sixteenth century.
Also Shivaji Maharaj's methods were inspired by tactics of Maharana Pratap.
So please give us freedom from this claim that Marathas saved India and Hinduism.
Thanks
Marathas cleverly omit mentioning that they had been doing slave labor for Deccani Sultans for 300 years but instead chose only to focus on Shivaji and his successors.
300 years of collaboration with a foreign power does not speak very high of moral character of a nation. If it had not been of Shivaji they still would be washing feet and polishing boots of Deccani Sultans.
Marathas broke back of Mughal empire in 27 year war? Then what else was Rathore Rajputs under Veer Durgadas, Sikhs under Shree Guru Gobind Singh and Jats under Gokul, Rajaram and Churaman doing in North India during this period? They were waging life or death struggle in face of Islamic persecution. If North India had remained calm and quiet during this period and cooperated with Mughal rule, Mughal empire in North India would have survived.
At least think how Hinduism survived in India before Marathas arrived on scene in 1700 AD. India fell to Muslims in 1200 AD. So five hundred years of Muslim rule. If Hindus could have stuck to five hundred years of Muslim persecution (yes - Delhi Sultans like Alauddin Khilji were far more bigoted and brutal than Aurangzeb).
Have you heard about leaders like Rana Sanga, Maldeo and Hemu? They almost brought Muslim rule in North India to an end in sixteenth century.
Also Shivaji Maharaj's methods were inspired by tactics of Maharana Pratap.
Simply being bankrupt will not destroy an empire. Akbar was weak and bankrupt when he came to throne but by time he died mastered whole of North India except Mewar of Rana Pratap. So theory that an empire will fall due to fiscal reasons does not stand test of reason.
But on contrary- there was not a single Mughal emperor after Aurangzeb who had strength of character and this was why Mughal empire fell apart.
So kindly dont terrorize us with usual Maratha exaggeration.
THanks
I dont know what is this language but indeed you are Maratha living on south Maharastra's border he he he. If not, do learn to take a more objective view of history and learn to take pride in one's own history rather than in some one else's attainments because Marathis dont care whether you praise them or not - they simply cannot stand of any non-Marathi....he he he
Thanks
Divakar Rana
Maharashtra is a kind of twilight zone where North India and South India overlap. They are a mix of both.
You does not seems to be a Marathi he he he, yet very rational analysis. THanks.
There are many Maharashtrian origin peoples in Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh -- ever heard about any violence of Maharashtrians in these areas?
Marathi allegation that outsiders have robbed them is baseless. Marathis are not ready to exploit opportunities present right in front of their noses. Who is to be blamed for that?
Maharashtra is the richest state in India but who made it richest? The migrants who are largely based in Mumbai-Pune regions. Far from being angry at emigrants, they should have realized that it was emigrants who bring so much wealth to Maharashtra treasury. If their own Marathi politicians misuse that, why blame migrants?
If all migrants are kicked out of Maharashtra, it will be a desert and richest state will become poorest in no time. This is the truth.
Maharashtra belongs to Peninsular South India and not to almost landlocked North India. Even Mughals called Marathis as Deccanis or southerners. Marathi people are similar to South Indians in character and temperament rather than with those north of Vindhyas. Though not South Indian in strict sense, they are closer to South Indians rather than with rest of Indian peoples and regions.
@Divakar and VR
Marathas are responsible for destroying Mughal supremacy on an all India basis. Aurangzeb left for Deccan in 1680 in the hope that he can destroy Maratha kingdom in a couple of years. But history is proof that for rest of his life for nearly 30 years he fought a terrible war against Marathas and he was absent from North India for rest of his life.
His absence from North India meant that Mughal rule became weak. This is because Mughal administrative set up revolved around emperor and his absence weakened Mugal government in North India. After all, Mughal empire was based in North India.
So if absence of Aurangzeb from North India for 3 decades was responsible for weakening and fall of Moghul empire, and if Marathas were responsible for absence of emperor from North India, then logically, Marathas must be credited with destruction of Mughal empire!!!!
Jai Bhavani! Jai Shivaji
This country is only saved by Warriors and they were maratha
It is not so much Important<Maharashtra belongs to which india(South or North).I personally dont like to be part of north of india because the best cultureof south.I was unknown to south,bit south is the cool place as compare with north,on the basis of education and culture.south is best.And georaphically Maharahtra is in pennisular india,Which is Absolute south india,although Marathi People having their own identity.Maharashtra is so much close to south than North.
Maharashtra was a Dravidian country as per old religious scriptures. It was called Marhatta and an essential part of Pancha Dravida area which lies south of the Vindhyas. The language was also Dravidian but due to large scale borrowings from Sanskrit, the language changed to Indo-Aryan. The substrate of Marathi is essentially Dravidian.
There is one fundamental thing that we need to understand while trying to figure out where Maharashtra belongs. it is that every culture, however small it be, is never homogenous. This rule applies every culture within India. Be it UP, Gujarat or Maharashtra. Let's take the state in contention as the example. Maharashtra has five major zones, Kokan, Ghat (Desh), Vidarbha, Marathwada and Khandesh. Each has distinguishing features about their local culture. Within each of these zones, there are different blends of culture. For example, in Konkan area Agari-Koli culture is present in areas of adjacent to Mumbai. Whereas if you go to the parts of Thane district which is closer to Gujarat border, you have some distinct Gujarati, Parsee and Konkani blend of culture. Go to in raigad and ratnagiri districts, you have typical kokani culture. Further south in sindhudurga, you have distinct culture that we now call malavani culture. There is a proverb in maharashtra that our language and culture changes every 15 miles. Marathi itself has around two dozen dialects in which Ahirani and Varhadi (Dialect of vidarbha) are even more distinct. even in vidarbha you find Adivasi districts which speaks entirely different language than other vidarbhians.
Geographically speaking, Maharashtra state is a large one and therefore it comes in three geographic regions. Western, Middle and Southern. Culturally, it is more a middle Indian state with influence from and also on adjacent states such as Karnataka, Gujarat and MP. Linguistically, it is more related to Gujarati and Konkani. But if you really know marathi language as in what is used by villagers then it is a fundamentally different language with its roots going back to 2500 years with beginning of Jainism, and indigenous tribes. This was later influenced by Kannada. The distinct maharashtrian culture starts from shalivahans, whose origin is contented but they created a unique identity. from 6th century till 10th century, Maharashtra was influenced by southern and northern cultures but maintained its different culture. rulers were initially using kannada, but prakrit prevailed and eventually was picked up by royalties. Yadavas officially recognised Marathi as their language. But again in Muslim era, Persian came and influenced Marathi. Then the contact of maharashtra with northern areas increased in Maratha empire era so hindi influenced Marathi. British came and English influenced Marathi.
In fact there are also many Portuguese and french influences on Marathi. as they both had trade and other contacts with Maratha empire. In conclusion, Marathi is influenced by following languages: Sankrit, Gujarati, Kannada, Hindi, Persian, French, Portuguese, interestingly also of Oriya or eastern languages and also of many tribal languages, can't count many others. You don't know how much our languages are influenced.
Marathi culture has in turn influenced manyother cultures, such as Tanjore culture in tamilnadu, Karnataka, gujarat, MP(Indore, Dhar and Gwalior), Haryana (Rod maratha) and also Sikhs (Namdev poems in the holy Guru Granth Sahib and Nanded connection). There is very much interaction always going on than meets the eyes.
Hi Guys,
It's an Interesting topic. I have read all the content and it's great. I am a maharashtrian living in Pune and also spent 15 yrs In North India. I am also hunting these answers.
I have concluded few things:
1) Indian land mass has joined the asia only few million yrs ago. Earlier Indian landmass was joined to west africa via madagaskar. So we are newly recognised asians. Kashmir and arunachal pradesh and north pakistan are on eurasian land mass/techtonic plates. So Indian land mass/Indian plate here Is whole of remaining India, remaining pakistan, maldives, A & N Islands, Lakshdweep
2) Our south indian , lakshdweep, A & N Island Sri lanka genetics and appreances looks to be reformed from african genetics.
3) I agree that south Indians are the original natives plus pockets of baloch, gondwana, jahrkand adivasis.
4) I dont support Aryan Invasion but support In evitable Central asian migration(agnostic people) because of tough arid conditions theere they migrated here. long before valmikis and all kalidas and tulsidas. I also agree that centrl asians also migrated to europe also. Pls compare central asian people photos with tall and fair north Indians. They are caucausoids. South Indians are either australoids or negroites (more In A & N Island, Lakshdweep, maldives, sri lanka, and all india tribal zones.
5) Ramayana and mahabharata are true stories of Indian Kings without any supernatural powers as shown In serials. They were like Ashoka or Chandragupta stories. As chanakya wrote arthashastra economic management so the valmiki wrote ethical, social, and moral mangement lesons In form of the life stories of these kings. I agree with lord krishna again a native but disagree with sudarshan chakra flying. In the span all external Invasion fearing people grouped up and started worshipping these kings to get psychologial security and that continued. Even though they have their gran devatas they started worshipping these kings. This group today Is known as Hindus.
6) All kashmiri, punjabi, himachali, uttranchali, west UP, some rajastan, all north central north pakistan are a mixed generation of central asian genes and natives. some lineage remained pure and some got miixed.
7) all others are native genes or a million year old african genes. Few got reformed and mixed now.
8) So dravidian pride will aalways be there because they know their roots and they know they own this Indian land mass. So their character, behaviour, calmness is justified as they never had to migrate or invade.
9) In North there will always be a sense of insecurity,agression,fight for resources for safety because the mix gene wants to avoid and future invasion on them or need of migration.Take new lessons from Kashmiri pandits.
10) I agree that maharashtra Is In south India and now Is like USA of India due to economic, security, liberty, educational sense. I will say marathis are semi aryanised dravidians. They are somewhere In Mid dont want to be more disciplined like tamils and even dont want to be more free like north. The diff u know a southee take 20 minutes to do puja and a northie takes 4 minutes. Marathi will take 10 mins.
Pls respond.
@vr
MH contributes 14%to the indias gdp & it also got highest gdp per capita,other states barely makes 5-6percent of indian gdp with poor gdp per capita,
so if MH contributing this most highly to the union gdp & with highest gdp per capita & its 70-80% people are marathis then it suggest that marathis are independently capable of getting their own success & economy,
your self bragging is overestimation of your own importance because of your selfish,mean,self seeking thinking,
not every gujarathi owns company like ambani same with every other north or south indians
if they were so rich before they would never had migrated to MH,
most of the north & south indian migrants are just cheap labor hired by people of there own community & these laborers having no other option work for there north indian employer like slaves work overtime & underpaid & these north indian employers saves a lot of money on that ,
all these north or south indians who now owns an enterprise that is because the opportunities that l& of MH gave to them, which your people never had at your states,& on that you north or south indians got their riches,
but its just the selfish & ungrateful nature & ego of you north indians that makes them think that they are doing favor to the marathis,
these businesses of the north or south indians thrives on the money of marathis,as most of their customers & most of the tax payers are also marathis,
so no north or south indian did MH a favour, we never asked any north or south indians to move to MH,
but let me ask you if you north & south indians are such excellent businessmen with big enterprise then why you moved to MH?& why not with your expertise you make your own states rich?
if you north & south indian people are so excellent businessmen then go back to your state & do your business lets see who becomes poor & starves,
if you north & south indian people are so confident about you enterprises then move it back to you states where you came from & lets see how much profit it earns,lol
without north or south indians MH gonna become backward state?lol,
MH is a prosperous state not because of north or south indian or gujurathis migrants but because of the reformist,liberal culture & forward thinking & law obeying nature of the marathis, north indians lacks such qualities & thats why their states are backwards & poor,
maharashtrian culture gives immense importance to education & law,
unlike other mostly north indian who proud themselves by going on opposite direction & that why north indians are uneducated,lawless & bigoted,like you,
do you want to know why MH is not backward & your states are?
MH is called land of social reformers like mahatma phule who started first girls school of india,babasaheb ambedkar who wrote constitution of india,gopal krishna ranade who was teacher of mahatma gandhi,veer savarkar & rajguru who were freedom fighters & countless more,
north or south india never got such revolutionary people & thats why their states & people are backward & uneducated & that why backward traditions like female foeticide & child or forced marriage are rampant at your culture,
MH is also called land of saints,these saints helped for upbringing of castes & communities,
at north india despite being hugh centers of hinduism all north indians are more caste obsessed & more superstitious & fanatics & also politics there made it worse,
so you see that MH or mararthis do not need north & south indians & we are very much capable to built our state at our own,
ultimately its MH & it belongs to marathis if you dont like this fact then you people are free go back to your states where you came from,
so instead of making of overestimation of yourself learn that before lecturing & ranting to maharashtrian people.
vr said -
If you kick out immigrants from Maharastra, Marathis would starve to death. They have neither enterprise nor hard-work like Gujaratis, Telugus and Tamils. Maharashtra purely Marathi will become most backward part of India in no time.
---
thats bs , these enterprises do not represent north or south indians or gujurathis people , these enterprises are companys are situated at maharashtra to do business and to tap market , these enterprises are not here to represent north or south indians even if their owners are north or south indian ,
so take it out of your mind that you people get the credits of these enterprises contributions to the maharashtras economy ,
to give you an example , after you kicked out british , you celebrate 26th jan and 15th aug but if you kicked out british how is that their british companys remained here churning profits for uk ,
similarly if we kicked out north or south indians even then these enterprises gonna remain at maharashtra ,
if they dont local enterprises gonna spring up or else foreign companys to come here or remain here doing business and joint ventures with local companys ,
so dont bs .
You got it right. Except that many Marathis wouldn't want to associate themselves with Gujjus. But you're completely correct in your analysis. Although Marathi pronunciations like च़, ज़, झ़ are not present in any other Indian language that I know of. So you're completely right about our unique culture and language. Finally, many people who did settle in Dandakaranya (now Pashchim and Madhya Maharashtra) may not have even migrated from other parts of India but from completely different Central Asian countries (barring Chitpavan who're ofcourse Eurasian). As a result, this North & South classification would be inadequate in the case of Maharashtra. We are proud of our unique culture and also respect the people who respect it.
Would rather be poor than bow down to you. My ancestors had humble beginnings in the past and I won't mind it. But you can't take away our identity. Also, we aren't in some twilight zone, many of us are completely different from either North or South. Some are related to these areas and in that way, we do bridge north and south but we are far from being mix of these two people.
Panch-Dravid is not Vedic classification. It's based on Kalhan's (a Kashmiri) works. Marathi is loosely based on Sanskrit but it's pronunciations like ज़,च़,झ़ are more close to Middle Eastern and Central Asian languages than any other Indian language. Ethnically, many of us are completely different from Indians too and not at all related with Northern or Southern Indians. Central Asian substrate than can be found in many "Ghatis" is not correlated with the genetic makeup of UPites, which is why many people only like to marry within their own Marathi people. We are not related with people like you (Bengali) or other Indians for that matter, which is why despite belonging "Brahman" caste, I relate more with Marathas than with other "Brahmans" because ethnically, Deshastha Rugvedis are not even Brahmans. We followed the North Indian caste system that's all but ethnicity still remains distinct.
It kinda depends on the caste, many Deshasthas aren't related with other Indians at all and are a completely different genetic group, same can be said for Konkanasthas. Dark skinned Krushna Yajurvedis migrated from South for sure. Now, some Marathas, CKPs and few other castes also have a very distinct genetic makeup and correlate with the Deshasthas very well. But all in all, calling all Marathis Aryanised Dravidians would be an overstatement because people like me have no relation to the Indo-Iranians aka Aryans who settled in India, we are from a distinct genepool.
Ummmm okayyyy..certain things..there will be alot of spelling mistakess(i type really fast)...i just came cuz i wnted to know little history..tbh i dont care what caste or race i am ...and secondly i speak here as a mumbaikar whose a maharashtrian
My whole life i have known to be in the west not xuz we think we are superior ... Alot of maharashtrians are really sweet amd helpful..which is acrually bad sometimes cuz there are times we help people who stamp on us just for succes .....i tried to read as much as i could from the comments... Im not as smart as the others out here who literally wrote words ive never heard befote ..like not even 1%... What im writing here is what i feel .. U may think that we look down im sure those who look down arent really the marathi people who just look down at u for being SI... I know people who dont like SI who are marathi speaking maharasgtran ... And they dont like SI because they are from there they dont like many of them bcuz they took up jobs of the orignal dwellers at that time ... Marathi culture was dying and still is .. I barely have marathi speaking frnds.. And i as a maharashtrian feel that someone should atleast know little marathi if they are moving here .. For me maratji is my first language not hindi .. Tbh my hindi is shit and i dont even want to make it better cuz the only time i speak hindi is when i speak to taxi wala uncle or someone who asks me for directions..and i have done enough in school till ïth grade ... Og maharashtrans are not really mean they are reallt nice.. And tbh dont feel bad anybody ...i really hate when everyone comes running to mumbai and crowding the hell out of this city ...
I dont hate anybody nor do i dislike people from any culture ...we really ahould ll be equal especially now when all this crazy bat shit politics is goinf ... So instead of hating people or being rude to each other based on race or area of living or whatever ..lets just all be together than being sarcastic and being superior
I hope i didnt hurt anybody somehow im sorry if i did
Peace out
I am really happy with the explaination you have written over here.. I just want to add few things to it.
My dear Indians is it not possible that the Indian land at that ancient time as we see upto our knowledge alhand bharat was till Iran, it is possible that in ancient times Actual Indian land was upto the land were they say aryans migrated from. And upto that land was the hindu dharm spread and the aryans were hindu. Is it not possible that due to the europeian invasions these hindu aryans were pushed from the far west land of India towards the east as during the India pakistan separation the sikhs and the sindhis were migrated to the middle and todayd western India.
So my point over here is it is possible that the far western land of todays Asia was The land of India at that time and was of hindu or the sanatan dharm and just the colour of people was diffrent due to the climate.
So it is just that the Dravidians can say that they are natvis of just' Todays India' that does not deny the claim of aryans On India as they were the Natives of 'Ancient Indias western land'.. I hope i am able to keep my point. Please think over it.
Post a Comment