Talk:The Story of India

Just some disagreements and comments on the first three episodes.

Episode 1==

1. There was a discontinuity from the Indus though it is not mentioned in the documentary.

2. Brahmins or Brammons were not the only carriers of knowledge. Brahmins were hereditary as it is today. There are disputes even in the upanishads. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Nm4Gfs1y8ZsC&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=brahmin+monopoly+knowledge&source=bl&ots=xJSwv4w_bf&sig=s_gYFRZWdWVXl_c3MnQxaQeH4FM&hl=en&ei=Ac7hSaD8CJKBkQWa9PnbCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA102,M1

According to one of the last Gurus (identity not given) who died, Brahmins or Brammons meant anyone who was learned and it was not just a hereditary thing. It was not the property of any group of families.

According to: http://www.geocities.com/lamberdar/dalit_becomes_brahmin.html Brammon was a vocation that anyone could adopt.

3. Indians are not Aryans but a mixture. No nation is pure. Indra an Aryan despised the black native skin in Rig Ved... this shows that there was an Arya-Dravir divide even though there are those who deny vehemently. Reading the stories of Indra also sheds light on an Aryan conquest over the Indus Valley Civilization.

4. Sanskrit is not the mother language but a mixture of the Aryan language and a major native language and probably developed much later than what religiously motivated people want us to believe.

5. The documentary does not refer to the Gangas – without whom the story is incomplete.

6. Arya does not actually mean noble as some Indians say or civilized as in the documentary – those are the meanings later attributed. Arya was the name of a people.

7. Bricks do not exist in the Rig Ved but Wood believes that the writers of the Rig Ved lived in a “mud brick” settlement. Interesting.

There are many other Indus items missing in the Rig Ved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_India_theory#Items_not_in_the_Rigveda

These may be missing because Rig Veda was composed before the Indus Civilization or simply by non-Indus folk.

Episode 2 1. India had great empires before the Mauryan Empire. One was of the Gangas -- Gangaridae.

2. When Alexander came to India he was faced with the army of Gangaridae (Gonga or Ganga) and the Ganga army was intimidating... Wood fails to mention this. The Gangaridae is mentioned by Homer and Virgil. After the Indus there were some empires... Gangaridae was the longest surviving of them and probably the most expansive. The documentary avoids Gangaridae.

3. Ashok probably never became a Buddhist as Buddhists claim. Ashok was cruel as was Jaluka... he is great to the Indians who came later to India. The story of Ashok in the documentary is the one that North Indians and Buddhists wish to propagate and turn a monster into a hero. It is one sided at best. May be Wood should read the Jain version.

4. Does the flag really bear Ashok's wheel of law?

Episode 3: This episode was much better. 1. I am particularly glad the Kushans were mentioned. They are a key to understanding Indian history and how Buddhism evolved to its present form. Wood rightly says that they were foreigners... but very important foreign rulers.

2. Kerala and Tamil Nadu are mentioned too which is a good sign. However, he has missed the Pal empire of Bengal.

3. He forgot the ancient Muslin fabric. Apparently he missed everything connected to Bengal.

NOVO

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.25.69 (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

While the documentary is not complete, in fact none can be, given the vast history India has, he has done a fair job in the 6 episode slot he had. I firmly believe that 6 episodes are a not enough to cover Indian History. 8-10 would have done proper justice to the subject.

While most of your points are correct, a few of them are fringe POVs. The Documentary never states that India is purely Aryan. Its does state that India is predominantly Aryan in the north and Dravidian in the south. What can be a bone of contention though, is the fact that he implicitly accepted the Aryan Invasion theory, something which has been debated for long by many.

The term Arya in sanskrit literally means "excellent, worthy, honorable, noble". It also refers to a linguistic group or a race of people today in India. So none is explicitly incorrect.

I agree that the empires of Bengal should have been discussed, but as I said 6 is not enough.

The rest of the points by you are absolutely correct. The documentary ignored a vast and important part of Indian history and has a subtle biased view. It chose to show certain parts of Indian history relating to the Mughals and the British in a rosy tone, which it certainly was not in most cases.

I saw 1st episode of this series on Discovery channel yesterday. There are some serious objections to finding root of so called Aryan people in Turkmenistan based on Victor Sarianidi's archeological excavations.

1. BMAC complex excavation which is refered in the episode started in 2200 BC & extinguished in 1900 BC i.e. for some 300 - 400 years. There were gold/silver jewelery finds there. Before South African Gold mines findings in recent times, there was only one source of Gold and that was India. So,how come intricate Gold & Silver jewelery came to Turkmetistan ( i.e. BMAC ) area ? BMAC shows seals that are found in Indus Valley Civilization excavation in large sum. So, it shows that IVC had bigger contacts with BMAC.

No mention of such points ? But, arbitrary acceptance of some Aryan people migrating to India.

2. There is no mention of IVC people's achievements which was unparallel of concurrent civilizations of Egypt or Iraq or China. IVC had all planned towns with bricks of ratio 4:3:2 which is best ratio & that's used even today. Finding of maths ruler with smallest unit and uniform weights & measures throughout IVC towns which encompasses more area than W.Europe. IVC's famous bronze dancing girl statue & small terracota statues of persons in Yoga asans postures are not mentioned ?

When you are telling about India's true story then why are you hiding this very important thing ?

3. How such advanced & cultured people accepted so called Aryan language of Sanskrit which is hard to learn even for current Indians ? So, how ancient Indians accepted this `foreign' language and changed all their teminology of maths & science & astronomy in which they were quiet advance than any other civilization ?

If any term is new to some culture and that word's equivalent is not found in their language then it's accepted directly. Like Yoga , Karma , Dharma etc. Sanskrit words in today's western world.

4. Mentioning of Soma plant but it's portryed wrong that Aryans came with Soma plant from central asia. Infact RigVeda or any Sanskrit do not remember anything about so called central asia motherland or migration in India which would have been very significant for any aryan people who happaned to change language of ancient indians.

5. Mention of now outdated Western interpretation of Indra as god of Aryan people & destroyer of forts. In the same episode it's mentioned that Indian people's whole life depends on Monsoon and people eagerly wait for monsoon rains. The same episode mentions Kolkata's Asiatic Library's lady mentioning that Indra is god of rains & thunder. So, do Mr. Woods who narrates Aryan Migration in India from Central Asia as some truth - can not understand that Indra as god of rains as RigVedic god and also mentioned in Iranian Avesta is india specific, as central asian people's life don't depend on rains. But, it's Indian subcontinent people's life which is totally dependent on Monsoon rains. Hence, Indra was glorified in RigVeda. But, Krishna had adviced Gokul's villagers to stop praying Indra ( refer to Govardhan parvat episode in Krishna's childhood ) and during Mahabharat time Saraswati has ceased to flow till ocean and she ended at Vinasana in desert. During Krishna's time weather & geolocial changes had already effected life of indian people and hence He had adviced to stop praying Indra. This shows people's faith shifting from Indra of RigVedic times.

Infact series of events mentioned in RigVeda & other vedas,Puranas, Upnishad & other ancient Sanskrit scriptures indicate period much ahead of 1500 BC. Also, when DNA testing of south indian is shown in the episode then why it's not mentioned that there is no genetic change in Indians' DNA from 4500 BC to 500 BC period.

Aryan theory is theory and not a scientific fact. So, the episode is not portraying the True Story of India.

The opinions expressed by the author in the series are highly controversial,objectionable and biased.The above text describes just an example of the controversial views of the series.The series also depicts distorted version of Indian history and is hostile to vedic culture & customs and highly pro-Islamic. especially the fifth episode. WIN (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

When will this show be screened in the US?

It is said that PBS will carry this series. Does anyone know the dates yet? Nandt1 (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My review of Story of India by Michael Wood I would rate this -10 if possible! It's full of pretty photography a la NGC and stupid interviews of street vendors and equally ignorant, half-knowing people. It's full of personal impressions and gives very little of factual information. less than what could fit in a 30min documentary. This so called "Documentary" is spectacularly superficial. Hides millions of atrocities that the British caused in south Asia (for example financial frauds with kings, cheatings, forceful conversions by the so called "fathers"). More Surprisingly Mr. Wood does not mention one single freedom fighter from India apart from Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah!! No Phule, No Gokhale, No Tilak. No Ambedkar. No Netaji. No Azad. No Bhagatsingh, No Lajpat Ray, No Savarkar!! And each of these names have to perhaps have an episode in a real “story of India” Even Gandhi comes in one sentence without any mention of his three biggest ideas (Civil Disobedience, “Chale Jao, British” (British Leave Now!) or Sattyagraha). And no reflection on how he influenced the world – Non-violence/Influence on American History etc.! It completely neglects the important overseas connections of the freedom struggle - like the Gadar party in USA. It neglects role of social reformist movements like Raja Rammohan Roy, Brahmo Samaj, Vidyasagar, Agarkar, Vivekananda, M N Roy and does not even a passing mention Ravindranath Tagore - the first Indian Nobel prize winner and his role in educating Indians. It does not even mention the role Indians played in First and Second world war. But very "cutely" it showcases a very "adorable" old historian - whose ancestors worked for British and (hence??) he justifies the British raj in one sentence saying the British gave India its geographical unity! Thank God, it does not show that the British built the Himalayas for the sake of poor Indians and brought Monsoon with them! In a very sugar-coated way, the director, claims to love Indian root culture and completely bypasses the large portions of history. Is BBC bent on re-writing Indian history? Earlier episode 5, completely neglects the Maratha Empire, the Rajput fighters, the Sikh Rebels and Tipu, and the last Mughal emperor who was cheated and forcefully exiled. It mentions Rani Lakshmibai as "Rani Jhansi" (as if her name was Jhansi!) and cleverly hides what happened to her! (Lord Dalhousie annexed her kingdom with a fraudulent claim saying her adopted son cannot be a heir!) ...and hundreds of other kingdoms that were completely eaten up forcefully by the so called "Queen". British - barring some glaring exceptions - never treated Indians as even a civilization - forget the vast achievements in literally every field of human activity. ...as for the "united" geographical map, it is torn in three pieces courtesy British. Two of those will perhaps never reconcile and both have already gained Nuclear powers! Some other examples of British "looting" were the Koh-E-Noor and many historically important pieces and jewelry that lie in London's museums and the reduction in India's share in the World Trade ~23% before British (largest in the world) to less than 1%, the vast number of forceful conversions ! No mention of any of these? I wonder why... The BBC is trying to completely shrug off the burden of historic blunders that the British people have made, but the world knows better and more than a one hour documentary spanning 200 years of "British efforts of building a united India" as the episodes try to portray! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.61.191 (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Chandragupta Maurya rose to kingship just after Alexander the Great left India. He was probably the first king to unite the northrn India and rule a vast empire. Actually he was fully guided by his powerful brahmin Guru Chanakya. Chanakya had a vision that all the city state rulers should get together and defend "India" against all the invaders from north east frontier. If they fail to unite themselves then India should have a ruler who would be able to defend against the foreign rule. That foreign invader happenned to be Alexander the great. He was the first person to envision "India" as One Nation and advocated "We should defend India as a Nation since the culture is carefully handed over to by our ancestors. "Chānakya (Sanskrit: चाणक्य Cāṇakya) (c. 370–283 BCE) was an master to the first Maurya Emperor Chandragupta (c. 340–293 BCE), and generally considered to be the architect of his rise to power. Traditionally, Chanakya is also identified by the names Kauṭilya and Vishnugupta, who authored the ancient Indian political treatise called Arthaśāstra.[1] It is important to identify Chanakya as a great Indian because his cultural significance has reached far and wide, and his words are just as internalised in other parts of South Asia. Chanakya has been considered as the pioneer of the field of economics and political science.[2][3][4][5] In the Western world, he has been referred to as The Indian Machiavelli, although Chanakya's works predate Machiavelli's by about 1,800 years.[6] Chanakya was a teacher in Takṣaśila, an ancient centre of learning, and was responsible for the creation of Mauryan empire, the first of its kind on the Indian subcontinent. His works were lost near the end of the Gupta dynasty and not rediscovered until 1915.[3]" Arthshastra could be the world's first treatise on political science and economics. I was disappointed by the total abscence Chanakya and how the Maurya empire was found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.206.56 (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The public no doubt waits with bated-breath for your own 120-part TV series on your version of The History of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)