Scientific Validation of Vedic History

In a startling development Mahesh Keshavam, Gangadhar Yadav and Akbar Patel have announced that they’ve deciphered the Indus Valley script. Their task was made simple by the discovery of an Indian equivalent of the Rosetta Stone. For those who don’t know, the Rosetta Stone, an ancient Pharaonic-Egypt decree discovered in the 18th century, helped decipher the ancient Egyptian script.

The Indian equivalent of the Rosetta Stone, called the Naga Stone by the trio who discovered it, has a message from a king who lived many millennia ago, inscribed in three different scripts. One of these is the ancient Brahmi script, which as we all know, has been deciphered already.

“We discovered the Naga Stone in Nagaland, and hence the name,” explained Mahesh. “It appears to be a message from a local ruler, prescribing that a certain festival celebration be followed strictly. It has the same message in three different scripts, one of which is Brahmi, which we can read. Since the message is the same across the other scripts, it was a simple job of matching words to decipher the other scripts.”

Interestingly, all three scripts including Brahmi can be identified as Indus Valley scripts since they contain symbols commonly found in Indus Valley seals. The Indus script (which is a hieroglyphic script, like that of Mandarin) has largely been found to be inscribed on small seals that were probably used for trade and, some say, for inspirational quotes as well.

Akbar said, “What we have discovered is that there was not one uniform Indus Valley script. There were many, each differing from the other quite a degree, even if some of the symbols were similar. In fact, one of the scripts is even written right to left!”

It is a common view among linguistic experts that there should be one standard Indus Valley script. It seemed logical as everything within the Indus Valley civilisation seemed to be rigidly standardised, from the dimensions of the bricks used in construction to the broad layouts for cities. It appears that the linguistic experts were wrong. Different regions did use different scripts. But was the language common?

“Yes, the language was common even though the scripts were different” said Mahesh. “And the language was Sanskrit.” At the look of surprise on my face, Gangadhar stepped in. “You know,” explained Gangadhar, “the practice of using the Devanagiri script for the Sanskrit language is a relatively recent phenomenon. In ancient times, many other scripts were used, including the Brahmi script. In fact, ancient manuscripts have been found in Kerala wherein Sanskrit had been written in the Malayalam script. So the idea of using different scripts for the same language is not new in India. Of course, originally, Sanskrit had no native script and was primarily an oral language.”

But this obviously raises questions about the version of history taught to us. We are taught that the Indus Valley people were Dravidians who were indigenous Indians. They were, apparently, overrun by Sanskrit-speaking Aryan invaders and pushed to the south. So how can the script of a defeated people be used for the language of the victors?

“If you read the message on the Naga Stone itself,” said Akbar, “your doubts will be cleared. There was no so-called Aryan invasion. Unbiased historians have always marveled at this strange dichotomy in ancient Indian history-the Indus Valley civilization, the largest, most urban and richest civilization of its time, purportedly left behind no literature or markers of high culture; whereas the so-called Aryan invaders from Central Asia, who didn’t build any great cities and were apparently barbaric warriors, left behind the largest body of literature when compared to any other people of the ancient world. The only logical explanation is that the Indus Valley civilisation and the Vedic-erroneously called Aryan-civilisation were one and the same.”

“In India, the study of history is unfortunately heavily politicized, with left- and right-wing ideologues making arguments based on their ideological positions rather than facts,” said Gangadhar. “They both, sadly, allow their ideological leanings to cloud their thinking. Therefore, today, we have to turn to Westerners or non-professional Indian historians who are still untouched by the politics that plagues our history departments, to find unbiased interpretations of our history which are based on facts. Most Western historians have already junked the Aryan Invasion Theory as colonial-era, European myth-making.”

But the convincing proof is the Naga Stone itself. The message written on it is unambiguous. The local ruler of that time, Vasuki, said that the ancient Naga celebration of Panchami must be followed since it had come down to his people (whom he called Vedic people) from an ancient 10,000-year-old tradition from Sangam and Dwarka. Since the stone itself is at least 3,000 years old, it makes the ‘mother cultures’ of Sangam and Dwarka more than 13,000 years old, that is, before the end of the last great ice age.

But where were Sangam and Dwarka? “We believe that Sangam refers to an ancient Tamil civilisation and Dwarka to an ancient Gujarati one,” said Akbar. “It would seem that the British writer, Graham Hancock, was right. He had postulated that there were many ancient civilisations spread across the world before the end of the last great ice age, when the sea levels were a lot lower. Two of those civilisations were based in India -one off the coast of modern Tamil Nadu and another off the coast of modern Gujarat. These civilisations were destroyed when the ice age ended and the sea levels rose. The survivors escaped to the north and established what we call the Vedic civilisation. So, according to Graham Hancock, the ancient Vedic civilization descended from an even more ancient Tamil and Gujarati civilisation. The Naga Stone has just confirmed this theory.”

 Clearly, our history books need some rewriting!

– Amish Tripathi



Click here to post a comment

  • Great Article. It would be even better if you can also provide some credible and established reference to the facts you have produced here.

    Also about the writer, Amish Tripathi, is that the same guy who wrote the shiva trilogy?

  • It is a very interesting and good article debunking Aryan Invasion myth. Hope that our learned historians of liberal mindset pay heed to discoveries of these kind and realise the true import of unbiased history writing.

  • just for the intellect if we read the 10 avtars of Vishnu and relate it with ground facts the 1st fish avtar took place in Ragestan which had the sea then, and thus rest can be correlated with each avtar the last of which was in UP.

  • It is pleasant surprise for me that Indus Valley civilization is in fact a Dravidian civilization and not brought by Aryans and the ancient Tamil and Gujarat culture really contributed to the Indus Valley civilization. I wish to know more about it. Of course it seems our history books should be re-written.

  • @ K.J. Thomas. The fake Dravidian theory is a hoax which most people who think they have an identity (when it’s fake) have a deeply embeded inferiority complex. The fake Dravidian Theory was made up by Robert Caldwell. He created the fake theory which was to sow divide and attempt to cause another form of partition (which didn’t happen). Tamil is not fake Dravidian. Not anymore. The Book ”BREAKING INDIA” exposes the fake Dravidian myths. It’s finished. The Vedic Arya civilisation spanned most of Bharath itself. It is homogeneous to the region. The first region where the Vedic Aryas expanded into was iran and into Eastern Europe via Central Asia (genetics has proven and only adds to it that it is from Bharath to these places and onwards onto Southeast and Far East Asia and the Americas and not the other way round). Those who believe in the fake Dravidian myth are sorely outdated. Just like their paymasters. The truth is the Vedic peoples are the Aryas themselves. The two things that would keep Indians from their real identity which they expanded with all over is this. The civilisational homogeneity was separated from the people who made it themselves. The ones who made this identified themselves as the Arya which is said clearly in the Vedas (the Sangam literature itself says this which was written by those who had descended from Agastya himself who was an Arya). most Indians (Both North and South) are of ANI ancestry. 76% of Tamils have ANI ancestry (this is the least out of all the South Indian regions where the ANI ancestry of South Indians is much higher in the rest of the South Indian states). Only some Indians in the North have ASI ancestry. A Ayya is used as Arya in the South. Anyone who believes in the fake Dravidian theory is proudly suffering from their complex of opposites. That being shown by their inferiority complex of Suffering against foreign backwardness and false pretexts being superimposed unto them. Dravidianists are reducing (they are reducing significantly fast). Dravida is but an adjective of a geographical term denoting the South. It originates from the Sandi of two words which is Thra and vidh (where the three oceans converge). It’s a Sanskrit term. The Vedic Aryas were the one’s who formed the Sarasvathi civilisation and the civilisation of Dvarka themselves. Agastya’s descendents created the Sangam civilisation much before the end of the last Ice Age.

  • WHERE is the Naga stone? …what is it authenticity? where was it found ? where is the photograph of the same ? has it been verified for antiquity?