4 ms·

relatedly there is some recent debate and discussion on gunpowder in india vs china Indian Gunpowder – the Force Behind Empires https://2ndlook.wordpress.com/

relatedly there is some recent debate and discussion on gunpowder in india vs china Indian Gunpowder – the Force Behind Empires https://2ndlook.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/indian-gunpowder-the-force-behind-empires/ https://2ndlook.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/indian-gunpowder-th... h/t https://mobile.twitter.com/wiavastukala/status/1022469132871032832 https://mobile.twitter.com/wiavastukala/status/1022469132871...

shripadk 8y ago
Surprisingly this sort of coverup is a common occurrence with any story/history that originates from Ancient India. And it's not just the Western authors who did this. Indian archeologists are to also partly take some blame. The best example is that of the submerged city of Dwarka: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVIsjx5X3QM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVIsjx5X3QM If it had been any other country, there would be lot's of excavations (example: Great Pyramids of Giza in Egypt) and in-depth study of the artefacts recovered. Strangely, most archeological excavations in India start with a lot of brouhaha and then die down almost immediately. Then rumours spread about possible cover up (with the involvement of Government officials in pilfering these historical artefacts and selling them in the black market).
- srean 8y ago
  I will attribute those things to lack of funding, lack of interest of the general populace, and lack of competence and less to malice or conspiracy (as it is often made out to be) -- they stabbed us in our back. Where I went to college in the US there was this house about a hundred odd years old. They would be absolutely drooling at that 'historic' artifact, there aren't as many (physical historical artifacts). People had a lot of time to care and funds to attend to it. Compare that with any run of the mill old city in India, or compare its capital, Delhi. It would be hard to throw stones far and not hit constructions that are 100 years old. The city is strewn with these and people are to busy fighting for their day to day needs. In such a scenario it is hard for the populace to agree that significant funds need to be allocated for preservation and restoration. Add the political agenda to it that selectively directs the attention to artifacts that fit their agenda -- then this is what you get.
  - sumedh 8y ago
    We are not talking about 100 year old houses, pretty much every Hindu knows about Dwarka. So lack of funding and lack of interest are not good excuses.
    - srean 8y ago
      I think you missed my point -- we have so much historical artifacts strewn around that we don't value them as much or fund their upkeep as much.
      - cryptozeus 8y ago
        Yup thats a good point. Forget about the submerged dwarka, there is so much old architecture all around in india and no one cares for it or take care of it. We just simply don’t care. Go look at the forts in rajasthan ans how they are treated vs forts jn all around Europe.
        sumedh 8y ago
        > Forget about the submerged dwarka Why, submerged dwarka is more important to Hindus than all those forts.
        cryptozeus 8y ago
        Because its believed to be of krishna the gold himself. Other forts are of kings
      - sumedh 8y ago
        No I did not miss your point but on the other hand you missed mine, yes we have historical artifacts but Dwarka trumps all the other artifacts.
        srean 8y ago
        That would be an opinion though. That said, there would be significant number of subscribers in Gujarat and among the Krishna school. I have the strongest suspicion that there would be a significant population of people who self identify as Hindu but would have at best tepid interest. There would be people who would be unhappy that their taxes are going in that direction. Day to day mundane matters and relative importance of other artifacts according to their judgement will trump it (Dwarka). From your comments in the thread it seems you are a shade touchy about Dwarka and were taking obvious metaphors literally, but I couldn't figure out how it (Dwarka) fit in what we were discussing in the thread -- lack of wide interest among Indians on historical artifacts. So I let it ('but, what about Dwarka') go as an instance of whataboutism. My personal belief/opinion is that it makes a lot of sense to explore that(Dwarka) than throw money at the stupid idea that the geological formation connecting main land India to Srilanka is a man made bridge built by Ram's army.
iamshs 8y ago
Author of the article:- StPTBarnum. That sure lends credibility to the theory. https://twitter.com/StPTBarnum https://twitter.com/StPTBarnum

shripadk 8y ago

Surprisingly this sort of coverup is a common occurrence with any story/history that originates from Ancient India. And it's not just the Western authors who did this. Indian archeologists are to also partly take some blame. The best example is that of the submerged city of Dwarka: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVIsjx5X3QM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVIsjx5X3QM If it had been any other country, there would be lot's of excavations (example: Great Pyramids of Giza in Egypt) and in-depth study of the artefacts recovered. Strangely, most archeological excavations in India start with a lot of brouhaha and then die down almost immediately. Then rumours spread about possible cover up (with the involvement of Government officials in pilfering these historical artefacts and selling them in the black market).

srean 8y ago
I will attribute those things to lack of funding, lack of interest of the general populace, and lack of competence and less to malice or conspiracy (as it is often made out to be) -- they stabbed us in our back. Where I went to college in the US there was this house about a hundred odd years old. They would be absolutely drooling at that 'historic' artifact, there aren't as many (physical historical artifacts). People had a lot of time to care and funds to attend to it. Compare that with any run of the mill old city in India, or compare its capital, Delhi. It would be hard to throw stones far and not hit constructions that are 100 years old. The city is strewn with these and people are to busy fighting for their day to day needs. In such a scenario it is hard for the populace to agree that significant funds need to be allocated for preservation and restoration. Add the political agenda to it that selectively directs the attention to artifacts that fit their agenda -- then this is what you get.
- sumedh 8y ago
  We are not talking about 100 year old houses, pretty much every Hindu knows about Dwarka. So lack of funding and lack of interest are not good excuses.
  - srean 8y ago
    I think you missed my point -- we have so much historical artifacts strewn around that we don't value them as much or fund their upkeep as much.
    - cryptozeus 8y ago
      Yup thats a good point. Forget about the submerged dwarka, there is so much old architecture all around in india and no one cares for it or take care of it. We just simply don’t care. Go look at the forts in rajasthan ans how they are treated vs forts jn all around Europe.
      - sumedh 8y ago
        > Forget about the submerged dwarka Why, submerged dwarka is more important to Hindus than all those forts.
        cryptozeus 8y ago
        Because its believed to be of krishna the gold himself. Other forts are of kings
    - sumedh 8y ago
      No I did not miss your point but on the other hand you missed mine, yes we have historical artifacts but Dwarka trumps all the other artifacts.
      - srean 8y ago
        That would be an opinion though. That said, there would be significant number of subscribers in Gujarat and among the Krishna school. I have the strongest suspicion that there would be a significant population of people who self identify as Hindu but would have at best tepid interest. There would be people who would be unhappy that their taxes are going in that direction. Day to day mundane matters and relative importance of other artifacts according to their judgement will trump it (Dwarka). From your comments in the thread it seems you are a shade touchy about Dwarka and were taking obvious metaphors literally, but I couldn't figure out how it (Dwarka) fit in what we were discussing in the thread -- lack of wide interest among Indians on historical artifacts. So I let it ('but, what about Dwarka') go as an instance of whataboutism. My personal belief/opinion is that it makes a lot of sense to explore that(Dwarka) than throw money at the stupid idea that the geological formation connecting main land India to Srilanka is a man made bridge built by Ram's army.

iamshs 8y ago

Author of the article:- StPTBarnum. That sure lends credibility to the theory. https://twitter.com/StPTBarnum https://twitter.com/StPTBarnum