Magadha, Palibothra and Jones' Blunder

 

Contd.

 

         Sadly Dilip Chakrabarti forgets that the Chinese reports were written a thousand years later and hence are not valid documents for Mauryan history. That there was an India within modern Iran was noted by great scholars like A. Toynbee, Sir Aurel Stein and Sir Charles Eliot. Jonesian writers such as Chakrabarti and R.    

 

Patali near Jiroft was Pataliputra, capital of Chandragupta/Orontobates

 

Thapar seem to be unaware of the fact that Herodotus (Herod., I, 125) indicates that some of Cyrus' tribes were in fact Indian tribes mentioned in the great Epic Mahabharata.

 

 "The rest of the Persian tribes are the following: the Panthialaeans, the Derusiaeans, the Germanians, who are engaged in husbandry, the Daans, the Mardians, the Dropicans and the Sagartians".

 

      The Derusiaeans were related to the Druhyus and and the Panthialaeans are the Panchalas of a later era. The Sagartians seem to be related to the people of King Sagara who were linked to Sogar in the Gulf area which was 'India'. The Dropicans echo Drupada. The Daans remind one of Gotama Buddha whose name, according to Al-beruni, was Buddho-dana.

       Jones' view that the crucial state of Magadha was Bihar is baseless. The first epigraphic mention of Magadha is an Asokan edict in faraway Bairat and there is no warrant for an ancient Magadha in Bihar. Magan in west-Baluchistan must have been the early Magadha. Manu of the RigVeda was Manium of Magan (Mannu according to Poebel). The Sumerian records always cite Dilmun, Magan, and Melukhkha together which implies that they probably formed a confederation. Manu was the king of Dilmun, Magan and Melukhkha. Also, Rama was Ram-Sin (Rim-Sin) of Larsa, ruler of Sumer, Elam and Indus-Saraswati. The true hinterland of Sanskrit was not only the Indus-Saraswati area but also Magan. Although the Sishunagas or Kakavarnas of Magadha have no trace in Patna, the In-Susinaks and the Kak-kings like Kak-Siwe-Tempti are well known from Magan.

     Great thinkers such as A. Coomaraswamy had no qualms to write that little is known about the origins of Chandragupta. Appian wrote that Androcottos the Indian king dwelt near the Indus, not Patna where R. Thapar places him. Androcottos was Sandrocottos or Chandragupta Maurya (Moeris of the classical writers) who was being chased by Alexander through Gedrosia. The king later rejoiced his 'victory over the Indians' at Kohnouj near  Patali (28°19'58" La., 57°52'16" Lo.). Patali in the Jiroft area dates from the 4th millennium B.C. and must have been Pataliputra, Moeris' capital. Jiroft, or Djiroft, was Dvaravati, capital of Kamboja. Nearby cities like Multan, Kohnouj, Konarak, etc. show that this was the true India of

 

The Palace of Palibothra may be under the ruins of Patali (Courtesy CHN )

 

yore. Excavations here may unearth the lost Royal Palace of Palibothra and Alexander's relics.

        Although a Palibothra at Patna crippled Indology by banishing figures like Chandragupta, Rama and Manu, it became very popular as it brought Palibothra near the Imperial capital Calcutta. However, a high price had to be paid for the boon. The true geography of ancient of India became obscure. The great archaeologist A. Ghosh criticised Cunningham's unscientific approach in the identification of ancient cities like Vaishali, Sravasti etc. as these were based on local tradition, not genuine archaeological finds of Buddha's era. It is shocking that apart from Gotama's mortal remains, which were brought from the North-west, no Indian Buddhist relic is older than the third century B.C. To circumvent this Dr. A. Fuhrer was let loose by the British colonial administration and he established forgery as an important tool in Nepalese and Indian archaeology. Gotama's birthplace was hijacked to Nepal and this has now been legitimised by a United Nations stamp. The so-called Rama Janmabhumi at Ayodhya in Eastern India and the Rama setu are also upshots of Jones' error which has corrupted the basis of Indian archaeology. B. B. Lal's identification of a site near Delhi as Hastinapura of the Mahabharata has also been doubted by A. Ghosh and many others.

     Chronology became a bane of Indology. Despite a century of research and two London conferences, the date of Kanishka is still uncertain. Unaware of Jones' error, R. L. Basham and R. Thapar have reduced Rama into a minor tribal king bloated up by poetic fancy. Gotama came down to the 5-4th century BC and Kalidasa, who used to be dated to the 2nd century BC, has been labelled as a Gupta age poet. Even the Bhagavad-Gita, ascribed to the 2nd century B.C. by J. L. Brockington and others, has been dragged down to the Gupta age. 

      Jones had a high regard for Indian culture and his mistake was unintended, but as T. A. Phelps writes, there were others in the colonial government who aided a thug, Dr. A. Führer who moved pillars and other relics and produced fake inscriptions to locate Gotama's birth-place in Nepal. The great Buddhist scholar B. M. Barua dismissed Chandragupta of Patna and Vincent Smith strongly criticised Führer. Dilip Chakrabarti, author of a book on Indian Archaeology, mentions some lapses of the colonial era but whitewashes the atrocious frauds in Nepalese archaeology. M. Witzel, who claims special familiarity with Nepal, also suffers from visions of a Nepalese Gotama and makes a spirited attempt to defend Palibothra at Patna.

       Jones' blunder and Führer's skullduggery have severely distorted world history but once the heap of untruth accumulated over the centuries is cleared, a renascent Non-Jonesian Indology emerges which ushers in sweeping changes in world history. In the Buddhist texts Magadhese is said to be the earliest language which is absurd in case of a Magadha in Bihar but if the scenario is shifted to Baluchistan-Kerman the situation changes radically. This is the area where some of the oldest scripts and languages of humankind have been found. A Magadha in the North-West also solves some long-standing puzzles in the history of the Pali language.    

      The new Non-Jonesian Indology reveals a totally unknown Zoroaster and exposes grave flaws in the mammoth Encyclopedia Iranica which underrates the Indian element in Persian history and omits the Pali sources. No sane discourse on world history can ignore the priceless evidence of the Indian texts.