Saturday, April 01, 2006

maharashtra is in 'south india'?

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.

44 comments:

Rajiv said...

Every culture mixes with other cultures, to a large extent due to geography. Maharashtra is probably as close to Punjab as it is to Tamil Nadu, and its culture similarly has a mixture of what we consider to be North and South Indian culture.

As far as language is concerned Marathi does have a very large North Indian influence (It does use the devnagri script after all).

Historically it has been part of both North Indian Empires as well as South Indian Ones and the Maratha Empire's remenants are seen in both North India and South India as well. The Shindes of Ujjain, the Gaekwads of Barodas are Marathis as are the Raojis of Tanjore

Frankly it makes no sense to call modern Maharashtra a part of South India either -- it would mean accepting Hindi (the lingua franca of Nagpur) as a south Indian language. On the flip many parts of Maharashtra are mainly Kannda /Telugu speaking, so it makes no sense to describe it as North Indian only.

The only way out is to either accept labelling as a meaningless exercise or to create a new label for Maharathra -- snd here western India is as good a label as any.

P.S. Bombayites *are* superior side different, even when (or maybe especially when) they are Madrasis :-)

chitrakut said...

The idea that marathi uses devanagari script is wrong here. The original script for marathi that was use

over more than 500 years was a script called MODI. This was killed by the morons in maharashtra purportedly

because they could not create their own technology to print documents in MODI. It is a real shame that they

chose to abandon something as close to your own culture as your own script.

I am a maharashtrian myself. But have never lived in maharashtra. Marathi people are somewhat unique. 500

years ago, they definitely had more in common with the people in karnataka than they do now. The chalukyas

used to rule from a place close to Pune. Vast parts of Maharashtra used to speak Kannada before. That

influence still exists. Even today when you go to a place near sangli, you will find a lot of kannada speaking population.

The words used in Old marathi are very different from the words used by the marathi speaking people today. If you did not notice already, marathi has about 30 to 40% persian words within it today. Words that did not exist in it before the entry of the muslims and portugese. So this has changed the character of the people of this region. About the old marathi language, I believe it evolved from prakrit. It may even have had words that exist in kannada today. Strictly speaking, marathi is not even a truly Indian language today due to the persian influence. If you talk about the marathi that Gyaneshwar used, then that would be the true Indian Marathi. But nobody uses that anymore.

Marathi language has been bastardised, just like Hindi had been at the time Urdu was created. But it still has enough Indian words and structure to make it sound and feel indian

The eating habits of traditional maharashtrains is more similar to those in the south. Except that they do not cook dosas, idlis, or vadas, which only people in the deep south cooked (which does not include telugu people). sambar is said to have been invented by Sambhaji. Sambar did not exist in the south indian cuisine untill about 200 or 300 years ago.
the dish called amti that maharashtrains make is very similar to sambar. Maharashtrains probably use similar spices like other south Indians like mustard seeds, curry leaves, turmeric, methi, tamarind etc. It certainly is not close to what north Indians cook there. One distinction of maharashtrian cooking is they use a lot of jaggery.

There is one thing very unique about marathi people. A lot of them dont like to speak in marathi. As a proportion, you will find more marathi people will not even speak marathi even though they live in maharashtra than anywhere else in the country. That self respect does not exist among marathi people which certainly exists in other south Indians and also in North Indians.

I think Marathi people are also the most democratic in India. Maharashtra is probably the place in India where the rule of law was followed for a very long time and still is being followed. Overal, marathi people are nice and usually want to carry on with their own lives and not get into trouble. Their role in the freedom movement was significant. At one point in time, they even threw out the mughals out of India.Their existance at that time certainly has helped people in the south retain their distinct identity.


the presian influence in marathi perhaps was inevitable at that time. But I think now some corrections are necessary. Marathi language as it exists is already falling out of fashion. In my opinion, serious reform needs to be brougth to improve the language and make it more Indian.

Marathi is also similar to konkani. Marathi and konkani people have frequent arguments as to weather konkani is an independent language or not. Konkani has not survived so much in maharashtra as most konkani speakers in maharashtra switched to marathi since there is so much in collon between them. But konaki has survived as a distinct language in Karnataka.

There is also an intermingling of communities between karnataka, maharashtra and andhra. Deshastha brahmins are known to be mostly marathi speakers. But they also exist in Karnatake who now speak kannada. There are also telugu speaking deshastha brahmins. Lingayats are both marathi speaking and also kannada speaking depending on where they are currently at.

The Hindi influence in marathi is more toward its easter side. Nagpur used to be the capital of the central province during the british. There are more hindi speakers in Nagpur than marathi. But the surrounding villages and towns around nagpur are dominated by marathi speaking population. Nagpur is similar to Mumbai in this respect as both cities have minority marathi speaking populations. Very soon. pune also will become a minority marathi speaking city. I will not be surprised by that. It appears that right now maharashtra is more of a melting pot than a center of Indian culture.

iamfordemocracy said...

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?

hindu said...

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.

chitrakut said...

I would like to see the "proof" that "aryans" came to India. It certainly does not exist in Indian literature. From what is known, the contept of Aryans migrating to India only took birth in the mid 1800 after the arrival of the europeans into India. So I do not understand how much we can trust this theory. Probably as much as the biblical claim that the world was created in 7 days in 4100BC

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.

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 !

lazysusan said...

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.

chitrakut said...

The marathi people sitting on the border between maharashtra and karnataka dont think like the people in mumbai. they have different issues to think about. I would think their lifestyle was similar to that in northern karnataka.

regarding mumbai, I think when the economy in mumbai was doing very well, it attracted people from all over India. Soon people from outside the city flooded the city and there was a competition for resources and jobs. The inflow of people from other parts of Indian into mumbai was not regulated. That let to the mess there is still today. And it is now happenning to Bangalore now. When governments realize a city is growing, they should move quickly to expand the city and order large scale construction. People in India do not understande how to manage this growth.

But it must be noted that the policies of the maharashtra government did create more opportunities which people from all over india benefitted from. Same can be said about Bangalore also now. It was a very wise decision of the Karnataka government in the 1960s to let private trusts open large numbers of engineering colleges. The large number of government labs (BEL, ISRO, HAL, NAL, BHEL etc) also has helped bangalore. I think after 10 years another bangalore might be needed to be created.

chitrakut said...

Culturally the deshastha brahmins are the cousins of the madhva brahmins of Karnataka. Even today, the madhva brahmins also call themselves as deshastha, but do not speak marathi, but kannada instead.

The kokanastha brahmin community of maharashtrians is different. They arrived into maharashtra from somewhere in the north, but have adapted themselves very well. Initially they did not speak marathi, but their own language, but now they speak marathi exclusively. There are several communities among maharashtrians that have come there from the north a long time ago, I think to escape from the muslim rule there.

chitrakut said...

one important thing to mote about maharashtra is that at one time it was dominated by Jains. After Jainism collapsed, people started their hindu lives again. Maharashtra does not have the grand (And in my opinion the most beautiful) temples of Tamil Nadu. Classical dance forms like Bharat-natyam became absent. I dont think there was any temple music and dance culture there like in the deep south. This is unfortunate. It must have been there some time, and must have died. I hope they revive it.

It does have some very old temples like the krishna temple in Pandharpur, the lakshmi temple in Kolhapur, the temples in Nasik among many others.

daisies said...

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 ? )

-

chitrakut said...

If some migration did happen, then why is there no reference to such a migration in the Indian literature? Why did this theory have to wait untill the mid 1800s untill a german had to imagine it?? I dont understand this fascination about this aryan invasion theory. It just does not make any sense to suddenly start thinking that some people came to India from outside where there is no really evidence for it.

chitrakut said...

This is so hilarious. These people intend to convince us that kalidasa knew about aryans coming from outside india, but yet did not write about it. When Valmiki wrote the Ramayana, he too know about the Aryan invasion theory, but for some reason choose to not write about it. 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??

nizhal yoddha said...

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.

nizhal yoddha said...

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.

lazysusan said...

who is subhadra ???

daisies said...

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.

-

daisies said...

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.

-

daisies said...

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.

-

chitrakut said...

the feeling thatrajeev has towards mumbai is the same feeling a lot of people from Pune have towards mumbai. No one from Pune want to go to Mumbai. They are happy to stay at Pune. BTW.

And People from Bangalore are only happy at Bangalore. Not anywhere else.

daisies said...

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.


-

lazysusan said...

"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 ?

hindu said...

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.

Dadoji said...

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.

Illidari Counsel (anti hero) said...

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.

VR said...

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.

Julian said...

"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.

VR said...

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?????

Varun said...

"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.

Julian said...

"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. "

Julian said...

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.

Sujeev said...

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?

VR said...

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.

Divakar Rane said...

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?

Divakar Rane said...

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

Divakar Rane said...

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

Divakar Rane said...

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

Divakar Rane said...

Maharashtra is a kind of twilight zone where North India and South India overlap. They are a mix of both.

Divakar Rane said...

You does not seems to be a Marathi he he he, yet very rational analysis. THanks.

Divakar Rane said...

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.

Varun said...

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.

Varun said...

@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

Abhijit said...

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.

bijoy das said...

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.