Thanks for joining the RBSI Dr.Pal. I'm sure your Blog will generate an interesting discussion among the many historians and scholars in this forum having different views of Indian history.

This is a rare moment for me. I have some recognition in the West but this is the first time it is an Indian Society has stood by my side. I have been waging a difficult battle for nearly three decades and initially many people thought I was insane. But there were Angels too. I am a Ph. D. from IIT Kharagpur, but it was a very learned scholar, Sukumari Bhattachrya, Head of the Department of Sanskrit, Jadavpur university, who, before embarking on an airplane to Paris, contacted me from the Calcutta Airport over the telephone and urged me 'take some time off my professional work and start writing'. This I did but the result was a near disaster. Had it not been for the patronage of great scholars such as Sukumar Sen and Prof. N. G. L. Hammond, doyen of British history and archaeology and the discoverer of Vergina, the ancestral abode of Alexander the Great, very few would have cared for what I wanted to say. Thank you Sir!

Hello Dr. Pal, Thank for your touching message. What can I say other than that you have earned my respect as a great historian! It is undoubtedly a lonely journey requiring great mental grit and conviction to take the less trodden path as you have done. Even then, the collective disbeleif for something new, however credible it maybe; would be definitely overwhelming. It is in such situations do we understand that history has got to do more with politics than the search for truth. Let me clarify about RBSI here. I have a great passion for collecting rare books on India and its history. So I started this group on FB last year. The idea is to post rare books and prints on India which can be downloaded and give life to those lost words once again and also encourage people to start their own digital rare book collections.... regardless of the fact whether the book can be considered as history, propaganda or plain curious. What started of as group for rare book collectors has slowly got transformed ino a 'adda' for history buffs, scholars and the like. Comments range from sanguine, educative or plain irreverence at times. But it is an interesting cerebral stimualtion on a daily basis. In case your blog generates disagreements from other members, kindly bear with them with great patience. I am neither a scholar nor an academic.... and feel blessed for being so, after seeing the fixed stands learned souls seem to take here. I aspire to be a perpetual student of history where all new findings would be seen with a sense of wonder than as a threat to ones's beleifs. Hence I conclude that in history there is more than one truth.... and to learn history you must have the capacity to unlearn too. Many Regards, Subbiah

good!

You wrote > history has got to do more with politics than the search for truth<. Gandhiji wrote about Satyagraha but I had the growing feeling that in most of our Universities and other educational institutes, Satyagraha is a dirty word.

Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2007.12.39 There is a dearth of new ideas in Alexander studies, and Ranajit Pal proposes to fill the gap with data from the Pali and Sanskrit texts. This is the most stimulating recent work on Indo-Iran and Alexander and not only challenges the prevailing linear perceptions but also offers new solutions. Pal sees Alexander from an eastern perspective and his method is not a cut-and-paste one. His canvas is wide -- in fact there is so much that only a brief outline of the major points can be given here. To start with, the term 'Non-Jonesian' is a new coinage with radical overtones. This invites the reader and the scholar to reconsider the geography of India as it is so closely linked to history. http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2007/2007-12-39.html

I have perused through your website for a while...and must say it turns our accepted versions of history totally upside down. The historical geography of India we have believed till now and the one you have presented in your paper have no connection at all ! Its a totally different world and version ! Since your theories are largely based on linguistics and the Babylonian history which many of us are not aware.....it makes it sound all the more incredible !

What I am saying basically is that India was a much wider territory. If you take out Jones' Palibothra at Patna and Lumbini in Nepal the rest follows from simple logic. I have recently written a paper claiming that Buddhsim, Zoroastrianism and pre-exilic Judaism all originated from Indus-Afghanistan-Seistan. This paper has been published in the Journal Mithras Reader III. I am saying that Suddodhana was a 6th-century B.C. Yadu. I first noticed the name of Sudda-Yauda-Saramana in 2000 and it has taken me ten years feel confident enough to write that Sedda-Saramana and Sudda-Yauda-Saramana were Siddhartha and his father.

I have no reason to suspect names in Gujrat, Sindh and Punjab. Somnatha was Somnatha frm a very early period. But I suspect that there was an early Medini (pur) in Gujrat-Sindh area. Modern Medina may be an echo of this. Have you noted the name Cape Maceta near Dubai? There is Magadh in Arabia also. Recently I had gone to Kuwait and while in Dubai I was haunted by the feeling that ancient Lanka may have been near Bandar-e Lengeh on the other side of the Gulf.

Does Part-3 of Michael Wood's 'Story of India' partly explain your theory. The drying up river Sarawati and the decline of Indus Valley civilization etc. : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYcQwNJ8q9w

Yes to some extent. I have written in the website about the so-called 'stream capture' due to which the eastern streams gained at the expense of the western ones. As S. G. Darian writes in his book "The Ganges in Myth and History" the Ganges later appropriated the mythological attributes of the Saraswati. From place-names such as Gangro Daro in Sindh it can be surmised that a river in Sindh was once called Ganga. I do not agree with Wood's model of Language evolution which is Jonesian. I have written that the language of the seals is a mixture of Proto-Sanskrit and Proto-Dravidian. These are not two exclusive branches. I tend to agree with Trubetskoy who denied the existence of exclusive language trees

The fundamental error in ancient Indian history is due to definite neglect of Saraswathy river and its civilization. The existence of teh river and over 2000 archeological evidence along its banks is clear on a continuous civilization. Saraswathy and later indus valley civilization was the cradle of known and studied civilization in india.Scholars and later findings also rate Ganfes and deccan civilizations equally old.The aryan invasion is amyth and when they found the myth unsustainable they now shift the boundaries - for example RAMA and his capital ayuthhya is in india , referred to one of the wives of tutunkhamen who was a Mithani (sindhi) princess and Thailand.Obviously the name was as common as Mary at time of Jesus. The rig veda period falls in place when it describes the drying up of saraswathy. The drowning of Dwarka (now proved by carbon dating) gives weightage to the literature. yet we have jokers (secular) who contnue to harp on aryans, caspian sea etc. just turn the history around - why couldn't all these names of cities arise due to movement from India. The only error we must avoid is that india as referred to included areas west of Balichistan and afghanistan - remember gandhari of kandhahar? To that extent relocating places may be right. The biggest hoax on humanity has been created by the jews who have made the world believe that the history of mankind is of the 12 tribes of Israel.all evidences beyond the tower of babel (2550 years is discredited) and when forced to accept you still strat with babylon and israel i think i am getting too emotional .Let me stop

Extraordinary----the threads made interesting by a whole new set of determinants--almost as if we are going to be faced with another "Book of Revelations'"The first revelation about Alexander from an Eastern perspective-----would question-mark the whole theory that the "Greek ''Civilization" -with present day ruins in Athens and all over the Hellenic world -were not an independent entity but an extension of India--what ever its form-and Macedonia is as Indian as Makdumia---and Alexander or Sikander as Indian as 'dal-roti" Some more ideas that are jostling for space in my mind---the Gandhara and Mathura school of art ARE two faces of the same coin--Indian civilization---perhaps because the" Unnanis"-i.e Greeks -ran riot in the then Parthian /Scythian Empire---while the "Guptas "(No relation to the present vibrant business community)-did the same in the Mathura area--and" neither the twain did meet"--and the "Didarganj yakshi" is a combo of both cultures ---Head above--Greek----head below--till waist--Mathura--we love big busted women---waist below--again Greek Revelation-2---The Saraswati-River---and its existence--a thorn in the sides of scholars--Indologists(Im not being patronising) but pure bliss for millions of Hindus-for the "Kumbh Melas"--and scattering of ashes of the "dear departed'-specially when we believe" its there somewhere''---other wise the "Sangam" at Allahabad--Prayag--would'nt be there -now would it? But satelite pictures taken after the 'Bhuj' earthquake clearly show the river flow in subterranean swathes--so is it the River Saraswati? Revelation 3 @-Muthuswamy Jayaram--The hoax played by the Jews---etc---Why inject a dose of anti-Semitism in a scholarly / average history student-- FB thread---if we are as proud of our "much touted 5000 yrs 'of civilization--and officially acclaimed by the Govt of India's Tourism Ministry IN ALL ITS BROCHURES--ADS-MEDIA--AND THE PRESENT -CWG--why castigate the Israelis for" tom-tomming their ancient past'" Let me share one and the only one piece of data-I have stayed in Israel for 6 months--and believe me their claim is much more stronger-fullproof--and visible--because every little piece of history has been preserved and documented--unlike ours where hundreds have been destroyed--turned into public toilets--documentationless--andwhat remains are due to the efforts of" Fhirangs'"--like Cunnigham--Ferguson-Daniells--Kramrich--Boner-Sister Nivedita-etc

No, I do not know about Nirmal Mukherji or his elder brother but it is interesting to hear about fellow travelers. If they have any published work I shall be interested in studying them. I take the Indian notions of Satya, Treta, Dwapar and Kali eras with a little skepticism. The Kali era, according to a very learned authority, started in the fourth millennium B.C. Even many western scholars have accepted this as credible but I am not sure. In the Dasaratha Jataka, for example, Rama is said to have ruled for sixty thousand years which I promptly round off to sixty years. This fits in my scheme because Ram-Sin (or Rim-Sin, Sin= Chandra) of Sumer ruled for 60 years. Warad-Sin or Bharat Chandra ruled for 12 years before him which agrees with the Jataka figure. Valmiki gives 14 years. In my view Hanuman was a normal human being probably differing in facial features from Rama who probably had Monkey totems. In the history of Alexander there are reports of a group of people wearing monkey masks or head dresses. More specifically I have written that Ilu-ma-ilu whose name can also be read as Anu-ma-anu was Hanuman. Are you aware that there is an ancient site in the Kurangun area of Elam named Sutala (Sih-Talu) ? I have the idea, which may be wrong, that the names Aramaic and Arabic are linked to Rama and Ravana (Ravi-ana). I also think many of the Ram-names of Arabia are linked to Rama of Valmiki. If the Muslims care for history then they should not treat Rama as a mere Hindu God. It may even be that in the olden days many more of the people who later converted to Islam worshipped Rama than present day-Hindus. I was struck by your reference to Sita being 'sosagara dharitrir rani’ because this is what I also think to be very important’. In many ancient societies a queen was considered to the owner of the land and the king ruled only through a special covenant. This may have been true of Draupadi or Krishna and the Pandavas all had to marry her in order to get legitimacy. Among the Celts also a similar system prevailed'. In my view (I would beg for your indulgence for taking this view), Laxmi was the regent. I do not think Moinier-Williams’ explanation of her name is right. Laks in many Indo-European languages meant ‘fish’. Coming as I do from an Indian Institute of Technology, I would violently contest the idea that the Mahabharata society was the most technologically advanced in history. Thank you for your thoughts.

Well, I did not make my point very clear. Laks meant 'fish' as did 'Min' so you have Lasksmin which is Lakshmi.

Sorry for so many typing errors. Laks+Min= Laksmin

I may point out that Draupadi was called Panchali which has a five-fold aspect some scholars link to the Aryans. It may not be coincidental that she had five husbands. The Persian kings such as Darius-I wore a five-pointed dentate crown which I think was linked to the Panchalas. His name is given as Spentadata. Herodotus lists the Pentathelai among the subject of Cyrus (or Kurash) who were the Panchalas. Gotama Buddha may also have been a prince who wore a five-pointed denatate crown

@Kanu Chatterjee I have written in my book and also in a resent paper in Mithras Reader III that the Yadus were the forefathers of Abraham. This was also stated by D.P. Mishra, father of Brajesh Mishra, whose writings on history are a class above the SOAS-JNU concoction that Indians are being forced to swallow today.

Oh "recent paper", "not resent paper".

I am amazed by Lars Fogelin's recent book "Archaeology of Early Buddhism". Although Fogelin has done an excellent job he misses the full implication of the finds. Surprisingly he omits Nepal which in his scheme is the earliest centre of Buddhism. I wish to refer to Prof. G. Schopen's recent youtube video on "The Buddha as a Businessman" which takes a similar shallow approach. The UCLA professor boldly refers to many incidents in Buddha's life without realizing that these are absurd in Nepal. Pavurlakonda is certainly echoes Baveru or Babil/Kapil. My review of the book is in Google books. This discovery shatters many falsehoods that mire the history of Indian Buddhism. The monks must have come to Thotlakonda from Deval near Karachi. Romila Thapar and many others have written about the Bhakti movement originating from the south which is superficial. Thotlakonda, which is the oldest Buddhist site in modern India, explains why the evidence comes from the south but this was only the part of the story. The name Pavurlakonda reveals the link with Deval and Sindh-Baluchistan which was the true centre. This integrates the Bhakti movement with Sufism and Buddhism.

I look forward to reading stuff on Dr. Pal's website, which RBSI has warned will bowl over many people. Has it bowled over people from the history department of JNU? Apropos Lakshmi: I thought Laks meant the sea and meen meant fish. Thus Lakshmi was said to be the daughter of the sea, who was the eighth ratna (before Rambha) to emerge from the Samudra Manthan.

Thanks Shekhar Sathe! Please elaborate. If you see any book on PIE (Proto Indo European) you will find that Laks or Lox stands for the Salmon. But Lakshmi's mythology, as we have it at present, does not mention the fish, but the sea is frequently alluded to. I have pointed out that Shiva was MinUksha ( husband of Minakshi) and it is only natural that his daughter would have a Min or fish connection. The older west Asian goddesses had exactly this. Are you aware of the archaeology of Lachish? Thanks for enriching the discussion.

As for JNU they prefer to duck. Dekhini Bujhini stuff.

In Sumer the Indian boats were called Magilum boats and these, I presume, had the design of Makara which has a deep significance. In our art the Goddess Ganga is depicted on a fish.

Are Shekhar Sathe aware of the Lakhmid Arabs? Their culture was Indian. it is tragic that they lost out.

Sorry ! Iit should have been "Are you Sekhar Sathe" etc.

It is intriguing that Moeris (Maurya) had so many names. Andragorus, Chandragupta, Shashigupta, Rantivarma, Androcottus... why should a king have so many names? Wordplay can be dangerously misleading eg if one were to link Pal with Pali and Palibothra with Pali (the prakrut language) and Bothra - a common surname in IndiaI But his basic thesis as seen from the review of his book contained in the Bryn Mawr Classical Review (link to which is given by RBSI above in the thread) that Geography must receive a determining place in history is very fundamental and interesting. Like the role of zero as a place holder in the decimal system, geography is the place holder of history!

He was not, as you think a man of Patna. He was a world figure and at times undertook dangerous missions which forced him to take cover under many aliases. Can you imagine he (Orontobates) married a lady whom Alexander the Great once wanted to marry?

@Ranajit Pal: I am but an amateur and had casual interest in history along with an interest in many other things. It was RBSI who sort of rekindled, and brought to the fore all the things I had read and heard in the past. So please do not expect any expert comment etc!

"Dekhini bujhini"??....on the one hand, and on the other? I do not know Bengali...

Dekhini - I have not seen. Bujhini - I have not grasped. By the way, are you Shekhar Sathe a Mumbai man? Have you ever thought that Mumbai could be a name of Lakshmi? Min-bai.

@Sekhar Sathe >Pal with Pali< Yes this can be true. In Persian and many other languages Bala Pala means city. Remember Bhusawal? Pali could have been "language of the city". Just could be.

The "min ' or fish connection has a link with the first /early Christians who wud communicate secretly with each other by the symbol of a fish to escape detection by the Romans---so in the final analysis what we are seeing is nothing more than Indian civilization having a vast spread that encompasses areas that were otherwise differently named---is that what u wud say is the overall essence of your research--Dr PAL Ganga on a fish is a new concept for me---the usual "vahana ' for her is"makara'(crocodile) as the "kacchap""(tortoise )for Jamuna as displayed in several TEMPLE SCULPTURES IN THE SOUTH

Yes, I am a Mumbaikar. But Bom Bay also has its origins. And, it is Mumbai not Minbai! Dr. Pal, you still have to comment and Palibothra. In Marathi, Pala means a small settlement..generally associated with the adivasis. Pala in Marathi also means the stem with roots. Pal in English means a friend and also a shadow like in "pal of gloom". So what? Languages are known to borrow from each other as and when peoples trade goods and services with each other. All these questions are not intended to belittle your thesis, but are palin questions to make sure that one is not drawing hasty conclusions and collect evidence to corroborate one's pet thesis.

I had not heard of Lakhmis Arabs, but I have heard of Laksha Dweep.

The word "palin" in the second but last sentence in the second but last comment is a miss-spelling of "plain", a slip of tongue if you can all it that and has nothing to do with Sarah Palin of Alaska, nor has it anything to do with Pali or India.

@Kanu Chatterjee Yes, you are right. I should have written “In our art the Goddess Ganga is depicted on a Makara”, but the Makara was not always a crocodile, it often had a scaly body resembling a fish. What it actually stood for is difficult to gauge. It was often nature’s bounty. During the deluge when everything went under water, the fish saved humanity. In the case of Min and Shiva it may have been the procreative aspect. Prof. Sukumari Bhattacharya wrote with unfailing instinct in her famous book “The Indian Theogony” that Min was very similar to Shiva. I have pointed out that in the famous Proto-Shiva seal the symbol of the fish in the inscription implies that Shiva was called Min(uksha). My idea that Lakshmi may originally have had a fish connection came form her being the daughter of Shiva who was Min. But most other great Goddesses had a link with fish. In the famous Oracle of Delphi the fish goddess Themis was worshipped. The goddess Aphrodite was also linked with fish. The Egyptian goddess Isis was also a great fish of the deep. But I see that Min was Shiva but I have not said that the concept of the god developed first in India and was then transmitted to Egypt. We have the Amorites in common and I have said that the Amorites were in India. But I do not know whether the Amorites can be called Indians who spread into the whole world. Thanks for pointing out the slip.

@Shakhar Sathe Yes, you have every right to laugh at me for being a ‘’Bongo’ who is after all a ‘half-Bihari’, but I also have some entitlement to Mumbai. I first went there in 1963 and stayed with the Nadkarnis one of whom later became an India-famous Paudwal. That was at Santa Cruz. I know you would derive Mumba as Maha Amba and add Ai for mother but remember she was the patron of the Kolis or (fishermen) and at the end of the day Minbai may win. The ’I’ to ‘u’ transition should not hold you up for Min in Egypt became Amun.

Extremely sorry! I should have written @Shekhar Sathe. I was also in the Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics where Sathe, a student of Prof. T. K. Pradhan was my friend.

@Kanu Chatterjee For many years I have been splitting hair over an Indus symbol which resembles a fish but has four fin-like extensions. I think it is the Makara and that it may stand for Varuna.

Bongs and ghatis go well with each other and the rest. You have left a lot of fish for thought on the plate!

@Shekhar Sathe What is your take on the Ghatis? Does it have any special sense in Marathi? In Bengal this word stands for the people of West Bengal. Mohun Bagan is a Ghati club.

@Shekhar Sathe Coming back to Palibothra, I understand it as the city of the Bhadras, a clan probably linked with the Bothras. Toynbee says that the Bhadras were intruders which may be true but depends on how you delineate India. The Pratima Lakshana speaks of the Bhadra-manavas and indicates that they were taller than the average. They seem to be the Amorites who were half-Aryans. The Amorites are said to be Semites but this, in my opinion, is a blanket term which has become almost meaningless. In a previous post I have said that in my view a river of Sindh was known as Ganga. Ghaggar may have been Ghangar. There are important place-names such as Gangro-Daro in Sindh which point to the same direction. This would mean that Chandragupta's Suganga palace was at Banbhore near Karachi or a nearby location which is still undiscovered. Patali near Kohnouj is another site that seems to be linked to Indian history. Patali in the Jiroft area where splendid discoveries have been made in the last decade. I can only mention that in my book "Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander" I had suggested that archaeologists should dig in the karman area. This was before the discovery of Jiroft.

Ghatis are a sort of an "affectionate" term for people from the ghats (Western Maharashtra where you get onto the deccan plateau after climbing the ghats from Konkan). However, the terms ghati and konkanis are used with reference to simple folk from those regions. Do you think the Bhadras have anything to do with the Bhadra log of modern day Bengal? If Patali is a real place then Pataliputra can be a place settled by the prince of Patali. Or Patali has more to do with Patal as in pataal-loh of the puranas?

The very name Deval of the port near Karachi takes one close to Ashoka and the Mauryas. Banbhore where F. A. Khan and others have unearthed a splendid city and a high citadel may be Deval but there is one problem. Banbhore is dated to the 1st-2nd century B. C. which does not fit with Mauryan history. I have written that this was ancient Vangala which according to Taranatha was linked to the Mauryas. There are many references to a city named Bangavai in the Sindh-Afghanistan region which corresponds to Vangala. In my scheme this is an ancient Vanga in the north.

You are saying this Vanga has nothing to do with banga (of North).. vangal, bangal; considering V is B in bengali! I am getting lost and it may be a good idea to start with the scheme (an outline, a precis) of things in Dr. Pal's thesis. Can you help us in that Dr. Pal?

@ Shekhar Sathe I have said that Bihar became Magadha after the Mauryan age. Before that Magadha was in the North. The Indus cities were called Melukhkha which in my view is Maha-Uksha (Ulsha=Bull) a Sanskrit equivalent of Magadh (Mah-Gud, Gud=Bull). Magan which was southeast Iran and part of Oman was also Magadha. The proof of this is that the names of Magadha kings such as Sisunaga and Kakavarna are found in Magan. Now in many texts Vanga and Magadha are mentioned together which implies that there was an early Vanga in the north. In my website the map in the first article of the Persian gulf region shows that there were cities such as Katak and Konarak here showing that there was a Kalinga in this area. From your posts I get the feeling that my presentation in the website is not clear enough.

You are losing me somewhere on the way. But the fault may be mine. I will try again. In the mean time, here is something for everyone in a lighter vein! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI6Sx6iqLHs

@Sekhar Sathe What I wrote about Vangala, Dharmapala and Gopala has been intensely disliked by all and this made me very sad also. Do you know the Ektara and the Dotara? These are used by the bauls (wandering minstrels) of Bengal. I was surprised to find that the same instruments were used in Sindh and Afghanistan also by the Sufi singers.

In Maharashtra, it was called Ektari which was used by saints (sant) of the bhaktimarg which transliterated knowledge locked in the pristine sanskrit language into prakrut (Marathi) which common people could understand. That, sort of loosened the strangle hold of brahmins on knowledge and the social hierarchy in Maharashtra and later, in modern times laid the foundation for social reforms in Maharashtra to advance. The ektari symbolises the simplicity of the bhakti marg which also must be true of the Bauls. Song and music take you closer to "God" faster than the panditry of language sophistication?

Back to the Mauryas, Dr. Pal do you think the suffix 'gupt' (to Shashi and Chandra) has any significance?

I am surprised by that the Gupta surname is not adopted by any later Mauryas. Gupta means 'hidden' and this may be a reference to his elusive nature. His west Asian names were Orontobates, Moeris, Sashigupta etc. I have written that Mithradates of Pontus was Chandragupta. The name was taken by Bindusara (Amitrodates not Amitrochates) but not Asoka. The name is Zoroastrian and it is possible that before becoming a Buddhist Asoka was also a Mithradates.

Asoka never refers to Chandragupta but states that his ancestors were Devanampiyas which is the same as Devadatta or Diodotus. In my scheme Diodotus of Erythrae was Moeris. His name is in Alexander's diary. This is extraordinary.

In one edict Asoka refers to four texts one of which, Alya Vachani, is very mystifying. Is this a reference to Alexander? I do not know.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?created&¬e_id=157224144300635#!/note.php?note_id=157224144300635

@Shekhar Sathe If you notice Shiva in Shivaji then you would someday have to recognize the link of Mumbai with Shiva's daughter Lakshmi (Minbai).

http://ancientindiainanewparadigm.blogspot.com/2010/10/problems-of-chronology-and.html. Hope this works!

The problem with Parthian history is that the same name was adopted by a line of Kings. Chandragupta, Bindusara (and probably Asoka) were all Mithradates. As Ghirshman points out the name Arsakes was often written as Assak which is Asoka's name. Arsakes or Assak could have of Chandragupta. Asoka calls himself Vardhana and Vardanes of Armenia could be Chandragupta. In fact though it is his most popular name in Indian literature was Chandragupta, he was better known outside as Orontobates.

Greetings Sumedha Verma Ojha! It is a great relief to find fellow travelers. Ranajit Pal and Kosla Vepa are very different animals and for my part I have no quarrel with Greek chronology. I would have appreciated, however, if you had written about Palibothra at Patna. I would point out one error which is of great importance. You write, >Then there is Ashoka, his inscriptions and rock edicts, major and minor, and Buddhist sources to say nothing of Chandragupta Maurya ….< To properly read the Buddhist sources you would have to get out of the Jonesian mould. Take the Culla Kalinga and the Assaka Jatakas. Who is King Aruna of Potali? Potali cannot be Patna. Before rushing to Orissa would you kindly look at the map in my website under the picture of Sir William Jones. There are cities named Puri, Katak and Konarak (two) in the Gulf area which shows that this was an early Kalinga. Remember Pliny had written about three Kalingas. To recognize king Aruna or Arunadas you would have to go to the Mudrarakshasa which shows that Chandragupta was Rantivarma. This is Orontobates or king Aruna. His was with king Kalinga is the Seleucus-Chandragupta war. And at the end he marries Kalinga's daughter. Yes, we know Chandragupta married Seleucus' daughter. We know of Seleucus II Callinicus. This is the root of the name Kalinga. It is not right to say that Buddhist literature does not mention Chandragupta.

Oops! I wanted to write "His war with king Kalinga."

I am more than confident that we have early Christian history in the Jatakas but I have not been able to discover anything. This is world history and I hope others will succeed where I have failed.

Its great to have a ringside view of these most interesting discussions. I had no idea that these dates were based so much on conjecture and postulations until I came across the writings of Kosla Vepa. Very soon we discovered the work of Dr.Ranajit Pal. No doubt their arguments and proofs are quite literally Greek and Latin for most us....but they have opened up a hitherto unspoken world of dating of the ancient Indian history. Sumedha's patient critique acts as a guide for us to understand the scope of historic discoveries yet to be made.

@Sumedha Verma Ojha: Thanks for a brilliant restatement of the problem for historians as well non-historians to understand. Frankly, Dr. Pal lost me all the way as I did not understand the basic purpose of his argument and the sweep of the argument swept me off my feet to a point of exasperation. Your paper brings out what is at stake. Dr. Pal also complains about paucity of archeological evidence. Obviously, that is not the priority of GOI or the ASI. In that circumstance the main contenders should first state the outline (like you have done) and then argue point by point without meandering in geography and time. On this thread we talked about Pal, Pali, Palibothra, Bothra, Bhadra, Bangal and Vangal and what not. It is a good idea to put it in the note form so that we stay on the same wavelength. Or perhaps it would be better to put your note on the RBSI wall.

@ Shekhar Sathe Thank you for your kind words! And you have put the problem of vastness in a most entertaining fashion!:) Actually I had been feeling the same way as you and therefore spent these few days thinking about the problems and how to put such a vast sweep and scope of history in a more succinct and workable form. It would be a pleasure to do as you suggest. The note is also in the form of a blog the link to which is on the RBSI wall. We can continue the discussion there.

@Sumedha Verma Ojha I am at a loss. I may have lost Shekhar Sathe because he sees me as a Bong but your statements worry me. Some of my well wishers have complained that I jump from one subject to another too frequently and confuse the argument. This may be true. At times I see a mountain that has to be crossed. All my papers have taken more than five years to get published. The paper in Scholia (vol. 15) took seven years. It was returned back with the referee's comment that what I have said about Asoka and Diodotus was too important to be accepted on the grounds of data that I had provided. I started working again and fortunately found more to substantiate my point. Even after re-submitting it took another six years to appear in print. There are exceptions, however. During the 1993 Oriental Conference at Pune my paper on Diodotus-I and Asoka was accepted for submission within a week of submission. But that was probably due to the great scholar Prof. R. N. Dandekar who was carefully watching me from a distance and Malati Shendge who may correct me if she remembers. The experience at Pune had an electrifying effect on me. My regret is that my book "Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander" has not been reviewed in the Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental research Institute (or any other Indian newspaper) after eight years although two western journals have done than. On a lighter side I remember a Times of India journalist who boasted that he could finish reading my book in a day. The next day he must have thrown it into the litter bin.

I am aghast that no one has taken note of what I have said about the Jatakas and early Christian history in an earlier post. There has been much discussion on Jesus and India. I see no reason why Jesus could have gone to Kashmir. But as St. Thomas came to Seistan which was a part of Sindh, Jesus may also have been here. This is the heartland of the Jatakas and someday someone may even find Jesus Christ in the Jatakas.

Come on Dr. Pal. I merely asked you the meaning of Dekhini Bujhini. You introduced yourself as half bongo and half Bihari. And I called myself a ghati! I am pained to observe that you have accused by of communal bias. (These conversations are a recent history, well documented on this thread with all the unfortunate spelling mistakes!) I am not losing you because you are a Bong, Sir. I am losing you because you are not allowing me time to understand all that you have said after a decade of research. I am merely asking questions as I go along. My worry is, as studious and as meticulous as you may be, there is a possibility, that you are inventing "Badarayana Sambandhas" (a phrase in banter for far fetched connections). In the process you may lose the merit of your story on a lay person like me. I may not be a historian, but I will not accept something without question and study even if it were to take years for me to do so. What do you expect? From where I stand today, you are Dekhini Bujhini for me. When I asked you the purpose of several names of a single king, you said he was an adventurer and had to be incognito in different parts of the world where he campaigned and deigned to reign as a king! I have heard of no other king in history who had 6 different names who ruled six different territories in the respective name at the same time or at different times in his single life-time. Why would a king do that? Which other king has done that? (Except for Akbar, perhaps only in the fables associated with him - to find out what bothered his subjects most, and a couple of days at a time in the company of Birbal). When I asked you about the suffix "Gupt", you said gupt meant hidden. Granted. I have worried for the past 48 hours why Chandragupt or Shashigupt make it so obvious to the world (particularly is enemies) that his persona carrying that name is an assumed or secret identity. It is like me saying, "My name is Shekhargupt, but beware, it is only a secret name as the suffix gupt indicates." I am surprised that you did not draw attention to any discussion on the word "gupt" in your book. This seems to have come up only when I asked about it. At this stage I am not so much concerned whether Joneses' view was right or wrong. If historians committed a blunder by building their theoretical edifices on his false premise, should they commit another blunder by building another edifice on another doubtful premise? I am painfully aware that, even as a lay person, I may be unjust towards your seminal work. But let me please be satisfied. Were it not for this discussion, I was in the 'Unpadh" (illiterate) frame of mind "Sikander ne Paurus se ki thi ladai, jo ki thi ladai, to mein kya karun" - a rather irreverent song the UTube link for which I posted in my earlier comment. The song is a comic one where a boy forced to go to school complains "It is not my fault if Alexander fought Pourus as taught in the history books. Don't blame me for it"! So, Dr. Pal, please do not blame me if I yearn for help from a historian or a student of history. Sumedha Verma Ojha was kind enough to take the trouble of writing a note on the subject. You are at liberty not to engage in conversation with me. But I will be happy if you continue the dialogue with other historians who worry you. On my part, I will leave you to your machinations and will turn my gaze on other important matters. After all, the world is, where it is, today, irrespective of Joneses' history. I don't have to run to keep up with the Joneses.

@Shekhar Sathe Please! I apologize ! I was just joking. Nothing beyond that. I am surprised that you are hurt. I value your opinion so much and feel sad that I am not clear enough. Communal? No No I am also a half-Marathi in the sense that I was first given some recognition in Maharashtra.

@ Ranajit Lal With your permission, may I continue the discussion at link on RBSI where this note has also been posted? I am getting dizzy toggling between links and for some reason I am not getting notifications of your comments on this thread, therefore may have missed replying to some. Will re read all and see you on the RBSI link to the note, please. Ditto Shekhar Sathe.

Shekar : Well put. With no offense to Dr.Pal or his work...I think Shekar has expressed the collective angst of many of us who are trying to understand these revisionist viewpoints. I only hope something positive and concrete comes out of these discussions ultimately.

As I have already stated in a post above, I see no reason for rejecting the Sandrocottos - Chandragupta identification and as such I have no quarrel with the chronological framework that results from it. The Asoka-Diodotus-I identification, the Gaumata - Gotama identification and many other features of my work are dependent on this chronological frame which is essential in my scheme. I see Jones' identification of Patna as Palibothra as a blunder, but accept the identification of Sandrocottos with Chandragupta. The statement that the Buddhists do not mention Chandragupta is totally false. My disagreements with mainstream Indology are mainly geographical, not chronological though my dating of the Mahabharata is very different from that of Prof. B. B. Lal.