Thursday, July 12, 2012

The Saraswati civilization:- 6.6.12 - The Pioneer


A fresh by a group of International scientist confirms the dominant role of Saraswathi river in sustaining the so-called Indus valley civilization  
Anew study titled, ‘Fluvial landscapes  of the Harappan civilisation’, has  concluded that the Indus Valley  Civilisation died out because the monsoons  which fed the rivers that supported the civilisation,  migrated to the east. With the rivers  drying out as a result, the civilisation collapsed  some 4000 years ago. The study was  conducted by a team of scientists from the  US, the UK, India, Pakistan and Romania  between 2003 and 2008. While the new finding  puts to rest, at least for the moment, other  theories of the civilisation’s demise, such as  the shifting course of rivers due to tectonic  changes or a fatal foreign invasion, it serves  to strengthen the premise that the civilisation  that we refer to as the Indus Valley  Civilisation was largely located on the banks  of and in the proximity of the Saraswati river.  More than 70 per cent of the sites that  have been discovered to contain archaeological  material dating to this civilisation’s  period are located on the banks of the  mythological — and now dried out — river.  As experts have been repeatedly pointing  out, nearly 2,000 of the 3,000 sites excavated  so far are located outside the Indus belt  that gives the civilisation its name.  In other words, the Indus Valley  Civilisation was largely and in reality the  Saraswati River Civilisation. Yet, in our collective  consciousness, numbed by what we  have been taught — and what we teach —  we continue to relate this ancient civilisation  exclusively with the Indus Valley. For  decades since Independence, our  Governments influenced by Leftist propaganda,  brazenly refused to accept even the  existence of the Saraswati river, let alone  acknowledge the river’s role in shaping one  of the world’s most ancient civilisations. In  recent years, senior CPI (M) leader Sitaram  Yechury had slammed the Archaeological  Survey of India for “wasting” time and  money to study the lost river. A  Parliamentary Standing Committee on  Transport, Tourism and Culture which he  headed in 2006, said, “The ASI has deviated  in its working and has failed in spearheading  a scientific discipline of archaeology.  A scientific institution like the ASI did  not proceed correctly in this matter.”  Yet, on occasion after occasion, scientific  studies have proved that the Saraswati  did exist as a mighty river. According to  experts who have studied the map of all relevant  underground channels that are intact  to date and connected once upon a time with  the river, the Saraswati was probably 1500  km long and 3-15 km wide.  The latest study, whose findings were  published recently in the Proceedings of the  National Academy of Sciences, too is clear on  the river’s existence and its role in sustaining  the ancient civilisation. The report said  that the Saraswati was “not Himalayan-fed  by a perennial monsoon-supported water  course.” It added that the rivers in the region  (including Saraswati) were “indeed sizeable  and highly active.”  Will the new findings lead to a fresh  thinking on the part of the Government and  an acknowledgement that the time has come  to officially rename the Indus Valley  Civilisation as the Saraswati-Indus  Civilisation? But the UPA regime had been  in denial mode for years, much like the Left  has been for decades. As the then Union  Minister for Culture, Jaipal Reddy told  Parliament that excavations conducted so far  had not revealed any trace of the lost river.  Clearly, for him and his then Government,  it meant that the river was the creation of  fertile minds fed by mythological books with  an even more fertile imagination. The  UPA Government then went ahead and  slashed the budget for the Saraswati River  Heritage Project — which had been  launched by the NDA regime. The project  report had been prepared in September  2003, envisaging a cost of roughly Rs 32  crore on the scheme. The amount was ruthlessly  pruned to less than five crore rupees.  In effect, the project was shelved.  However, despite its best efforts to do so,  the UPA could not completely ignore the  facts that kept emerging about the reality of  the river and the central role which it had  played in the flourishing of the so-called  Indus Valley Civilisation. In a significant shift  from its earlier stand that probes conducted  so far showed no evidence of the now  invisible Saraswati river, the Government  admitted half-way through its first tenure in  office that scientists had discovered water  channels indicating (to use the scientists’  quote) “beyond doubt” the existence of the  “Vedic Saraswati river”. The Government’s  submission came in response to an unstarred  question in the Rajya Sabha on whether satellite  images had “established the underground  track of Saraswati, and if so, why should the  precious water resources not be exploited to  meet growing demands?”  The Union Water Resources Ministry  had then quoted in writing the conclusion  of a study jointly conducted by scientists of  Indian Space Research Organisation,  Jodhpur, and the Rajasthan Government’s  Ground Water Department, published in the  Journal of Indian Society of Remote Sensing.  Besides other things, the authors had said  that “clear signals of palaeo-channels on the  satellite imagery in the form of a strong and  powerful continuous drainage system in the  North West region and occurrence of  archaeological sites of pre-Harappan,  Harappan and post-Harappan age, beyond  doubt indicate the existence of a mighty  palaeo-drainage system of Vedic Saraswati  river in this region… The description and  magnanimity of these channels also matches  with the river Saraswati described in the  Vedic literature.”  Interestingly, the Archaeological Survey  of India’s National Museum has been as  forthright on the issue. This is what a text  put up in the Harappan Gallery of the  National Museum says: “Slowly and gradually  these people evolved a civilisation  called variously as the ‘Harappan civilisation’,  the ‘Indus civilisation’, the ‘Indus Valley civilisation’  and the ‘Indus-Saraswati civilisation’.”  The text further elaborates on the importance  of the river: “It is now clear that the  Harappan civilisation was the gift of two  rivers — the Indus and the Saraswati — and  not the Indus alone.”  There is another interesting aspect to the  new study by the group of international scientists  that deserves mention. The report has  discounted the possibility of ‘foreign invasion’  as one of the causes of the ancient civilisation’s  decline. But, long before this report  was published, NS Rajaram, who wrote the  book, Saraswati River and the Vedic  Civilisation, had noted that the discovery of  the Saraswati river had “dealt a severe blow”  to the theory that the Aryans had invaded  India, which then had the Harappan  Civilisation. The theory supposes that the  Harappans were non-Vedic since the Vedic  age began with the coming of the Aryans.  But, since the Saraswati flowed during  the Vedic period, the Vedic era ought to have  coincided with the Harappan age. Rajaram  says in his book that the Harappan civilisation  “was none other than the great river  (Saraswati) described in the Rig Veda. This  means that the Harappans were Vedic.”  Not just that, experts have pointed out  for long that there is no evidence of an invasion,  much less from the Aryans who ‘came  from outside’. Rajaram, like many others had  concluded that the drying up of the Saraswati  river and not some ‘invasion’ was the principal  cause for the civilisation’s decline.  However, the latest study by the international  group leaves a question mark on  the origins of the river. The report claims  that Saraswati was not a Himalayan river.  But, several experts believe that the river  originated from the Har-ki-Dun glacier in  Gharwal. Let’s wait for the final word.  (The accompanying visual is a reconstruction  of the gateway and drain at Harappa  by Chris Sloan. Courtesy: Jonathan Mark  Kenoyer, University of Wisconsin-Madison and  www.sewerhistory.org) 

No comments:

Post a Comment