Battles raging on many fronts

•August 12, 2007 • Leave a Comment

On the front of jIva-sUtra parama padAratha we had faced a terrible defeat due to the mechanisms of our current bhrAtR^ivya and old sudAnu. However, our romAka allies gave us a chance to strike through the gap. We ably aided by our best vIra-s on the battlefront broke through the gap and won a victory that for years we had yearned for. We also took the fortress of jIvasUtra kendra. Aided by our able senAdhyakSha we broke through the defenses of the lohita-dhara and sharkara-dhara and conquered them. But on yet another front we were pursued by the terrible kR^ityA-s of dhUmAvatI and rakta-jyeShThA. We tried to flee to gaja-laNDa-pura and from there to kAmasetu. Yet, the kR^ityA-s pursued us like a malarial infestation persisting in a victim. Still gripped by the kR^ityA, like the atri durvAsa being pursued by the chakra, we went before the younger brother of indra, who strides triply to crush the prahlAdIyas. The wielder of the chakra, who prowls like the dreaded lion in the mountains, revealed to us the prayoga of the haridra-lepa. With that we brought into control the attack of the kR^ityA powered by rakta-jyeShThA. But the fury of the other one pursued us even into our fortress– thus our last defense had been penetrated, like the vItahavya horsemen and chariots raiding kAshI. For several hours she remained on our path until we fled to the young yoddha-s fortification to evade the kR^ityA.


It almost appeared that Fourier functioned beneath his grave. Seeing that the third hero had achieved extraordinary feats in battle and had sacked piles of wealth, the partisans of the dead engineer of maNgalagrAma decided to launch an attack on the un-guarded sachiva of the 3rd hero. “The hammer of the crane” it is called or trailokya-stambhinI — normally fatal. But our amAtya using a dUra-dR^iShTi prayoga saw clearly that the terrifying vidyA was on its way. Our amAtya selflessly tried to intercept and sent forth a peculiar ulka-prayoga charged by the frightful vighna. As the texts say ” the devadatta’s hands, legs and then speech depart from him when a stambhinI-vidyA hits him” so it transpired. It looked as though he was being borne to vaivasvata. But then the counter-prayoga brought him back. Our sachiva and the amAtya of the third hero then combined to save the victim from destruction. But for the dUra-dR^iShTi prayoga he could have been history by now.

maruts as "para-skanda" and other elements of their mythology

•July 25, 2007 • Leave a Comment

Many deities undergo drastic changes when they move across the veda-purANa transition: Some lose status: e.g. indra; others lose status and change character e.g. varuNa; others rise to exalted heights e.g. viShNu and rudra. But their mythology is still rooted in large part in their vedic antecedents. The marut-s are one of the most important deities of the veda-s, praised by all clans of R^iShi-s in various hymns and rituals. But the maruts not only fade away greatly, they but also undergo a drastic shift in mythology. In the purANa-s the marut-s are minor deities and are actually called sons of the mother demoness diti, whose fetus indra cut up into seven pieces. Perhaps, this is a misinterpretation of the vedic term sudAnava (good-giver) as su-dAnava (the good demon). The maruts are reduced to mere winds in classical Sanskrit, often used in singular as a synonym of vAyu, a very different vedic deity. This synonymy is seen right from the rAmAyaNa, where hanumAn, while inheriting many features of the vedic maruts, is described as the son of vAyu/marut. As result of this, the maruts are thoroughly misunderstood by the common Hindu and their true nature remains shrouded. One point, while apparently rather obvious, is quite completely ignored by most students of the veda and mythology as far as I can see (The learned vaishya Prithvi Kumar Agrawala being a possible exception): this is the relationship of marut-s with skanda. Hence, I have decided to briefly outline the obvious:

1) skanda and maruts are sons of rudra
skanda is also termed the son of agni. rudra and agni are closely associated in the veda– if two distinct deities are ever strongly identified with each other in the veda, agni and rudra form that pair. In at least 2 mantras agni is said to have fathered the maruts: RV 1.71.8 and 6.3.8. In the shatapata brAhmaNa one of the manifestation of agni as rudra is termed kumAra (an epithet of skanda).
2) skanda’s mother is a river (ga~NgA) and the maruts are described as having a river for their mother (e.g. “sindhu-mAtaraH” RV 10.78.6).
3) skanda is described as being born as six distinct but identical children and united to form one body with six heads. The maruts are described as being all of the same age and identical to each other. In different mantras in the RV and AV they are described a many individuals united together (RV 8.20.1/21, AV13.4.8). skanda also preserves a degree of his multiplicity by existing with his identically formed brothers shAkha, vishAkha and nejamesha.
4) The youthfulness of skanda is emphasized: he described as being a playful child or a youth (bAla or kumAra). The maruts are also described as young playful children (shishu in RV 10.78.6; 7.56.16). Incidentally the term shishu is used in one of the earliest versions of the kumara story to describe an emanation of skanda (MBH 3.227 in Vulgate).
5) The primary weapon of skanda is the spear (shakti is the preferred epic term) and he is also depicted with a vajra. The primary weapon of the maruts is the spear (the preferred vedic term is R^iShTi) and they also use the lighting (vidyut) or vajra. Both skanda and the maruts are also occasionally depicted as archers.
6) Both skanda and the maruts are war gods par excellence. skanda is the victorious commander of the deva army, and the lord of shardhas, pArShadA-s or gaNas. The maruts are the one set of deities most commonly termed as gaNa-s/shardha, and in the veda are the constituents as well as leaders of the deva senA, leading it to a demolishing victory (RV 10.103.8 “devasenānām abhi-bhañjatīnām jáyantīnām marúto yantu ágram”).
7) skanda shatters the krau~ncha mountain with his spear and splinters the peaks of the shveta parvata by striking it with his deadly mace (MBH 3.224 in Vulgate). The maruts are frequently described as shattering mountains in their fury (RV 1.85.10 “chid-bibidhur vi parvataM” or RV 5.52.9 “ádrim bhindanti ójasA”)
8) skanda is described as born atop a mountain and seated atop a hill shortly after his birth (e.g. MBH 3.224 in Vulgate). The marut-s are also described as born on a mountain (“girijAH” RV 5.87.1) and dwelling atop a mountain (“mArutaM gaNaM giriShTAM” RV 8.94.12)
9) The maruts as archetypal “storm gods” are associated with roaring noises of thunder — their roars are said to terrify the denizens of the worlds. They are also described as making loud noises by blowing on organs termed vANa-s and bhR^imi-s (“dhamanto vANaM” RV 1.85. 10, “bhR^imim dhamanto” RV 2.34.1) . In the earliest version of the kaumAra myth a comparable aspect of skanda is described. He is mentioned as making a loud noise like a mass of thunder clouds, and repeatedly roaring and yelling terrifying war cries that frightened everyone. He is also mentioned blowing into a conch and making a frightful noise (MBH 3.224 in Vulgate).
10)The marut-s brightness is repeatedly mentioned and they are compared with agni in multiple places, and also said to be bright as the sun (svabhAnavaH, RV 1.37.2). They are also described as being bright like the lightning (ahi-bhAnavaH: snake-light=lightning or vidyut RV 1.172.1, 5.54.2). vidyut in the RV is mainly used as an epithet of the marut-s. This aspect is particularly highlighted in the early version of the skanda cycle where he is described as being bright as the sun, and agni (MBH 3.226, also 9.46). Specifically, he is also described as being like flashes of lightning from a mass of ruddy clouds (MBH3.224).
11) skanda is closely associated with indra, and is even described as his son-in-law marrying his daugther deva-senA, and skanda calls himself a servant of indra in the earliest version of the kaumara myth (MBH 3.228). In the veda, maruts are the closest companions of indra.
12) kumAra can be roguish (hence called dhUrta) and cause harm and disease with his agents. The maruts likewise can cause harm (RV 1.39.8, 1.171.1, 7.58.5) and are invoked to keep harm away.
13) The relatively infrequent verbal root skand, from which skanda is derived, the RV occurs in connection with the marut-s as “skandanti” (RV 5.52.3).
14) The marut-s are described as having a common wife, the goddess rodasI of the veda. In the earliest kaumara rituals associated with the atharvanic tradition, skanda is described as having a common wife with his brothers.

The final, very significant element of this connection comes from a conversation between rudra and skanda in the oldest version of the kaumAra myth (MBH 3.230 in Vulgate):
athaabravIn mahAsenaM mahAdevo bR^ihad vachaH | saptamaM mAruta skandhaM rakShanityam-atandritaH ||
And then mahAdeva said these weighty words to mahAsena: “You must watchfully command the seven-fold troops of maruts.”

skandovAcha: saptamaM mAruta skandhaM pAlayiShyAmy-ahaM prabho| yad-anyad-api me kAryam deva tad-vada mAchiraM ||
skanda replied, “Very well, my lord! I shall command the seven-fold marut troops. Now tell me quickly if there is any other task of the devas to be done.”

Hence, at least in the earliest kaumAra cycle, kArttikeya was specifically seen as the leader of the seven-fold marut troops (7 fold as described in the RV: sapta me sapta śākina; RV 5.52.17).

Thus, we see that there are many specific similarities between the later deity skanda and the maruts suggesting an evolutionary relationship between the two. However, unlike brahmA and prajapati, the marut-skanda connection is not ancestor-descendent. They appear to exist as paralogs, with the marut-s under going degeneration and a functional shift. How do we explain this?
To answer this we take a detour:
If we go farther afield in the Indo-European world we encounter two skanda-like deities: Ares of the Greeks and Mars (*Martis as in Dio Marti – god Mars) of the Romans. skanda and these deities share some iconographic similarity: depicted as vigorous youths and holding a spear in hand. One could object that these are generic features of war gods, but they do have deeper connections between them. As per the tradition of the AshvalAyana-s the graha-s are associated with pratyadhi-devatA-s and the pratyadhi-devatA for maNgala (Mars) is skanda. Further, the shiva purANa preserves a tale that occurs just before the kumAra saMbhava section that describes the birth of maNgala (Mars) as a son of shiva (SP 3.10, rudreshvara saMhitA, pArvati kANDa). This myth appears to be a paralogous version of the kumAra cycle — Mars is born from drops of shiva’s tear/sweat falling to the earth and his iconographic characteristics are described as similar to those of skanda. While there is a prevalent view that the word Mars had an Etruscan origin, this is erroneous because of the homology of the deities Ares and Mars (the Greeks had no Etruscan contact). In this regard the early Indologists Kühn and Müller were correct in astutely observing that Martis, Ares (0-grade) and marut are likely to be derived from the same ancestral Indo-European root. Thus, these deities were derived from a common ancestral deity present even in the early Indo-European period.

We note that skanda preserves some primitive features with Martis and Ares the cognates from other other IE cultures, but has specific similarities with the vedic maruts. Hence, we argue that skanda did not directly descend from the maruts in the late vedic period, but was a homolog of the maruts in a para-vedic culture. This para-vedic culture merged with the Hindu mainstream in the late vedic period, and thus brought in skanda as a paralog of the maruts in the Hindu world. We also suspect that in this para-vedic culture the maruts were mainly winds and this induced the trivialization of the vedic maruts in the epic/paurANic period. Who were these para-vedic people? Some Indologists of perverse understanding might push them to the historical Kushana-s. This view is incorrect, for skanda’s presence definitely preceded the coming of Kushana-s among the Indians as suggested by numerous early texts. Instead, we suspect that this people were associated with the late vedic period, and probably corresponded to the “pANDava-s” of the bhArata who inserted themselves into kuru-pa~nchAla realm.

vaimAnika shAstra

•July 23, 2007 • Leave a Comment

As kids we had a fascination for the vaimAnika shAstra. Our companions dvipakSha-kesha and kalashajA were endlessly fascinated by it. Later it almost became a refrain of ridicule used to deride Hindus who were sympathetic towards the knowledge of their ancients. It was used a strawman to argue that every claim of traditional Hindu knowledge was a hoax. Goaded by R and N we were keen to find out the reality about this unusual and notorious text. Our initial investigations several years ago the on vaimAknika shAstra led us to an edition of it by GR Josyer (This text has now been made available from the Sacred Texts Site). We were given a clue in the early 2000’s by a knowledgeable Hindu author named Vishal Agrawal that a second transcript of it existed in the Royal library of Baroda. However, he was unable to furnish any further details, saying merely he had read so somewhere. Following on this with R and N we discovered a second earlier publication of the same text by the Arya Samaj of Dayanand and obtained a copy of it. Not surprisingly the Arya Samaj claimed that it was a proof for Dayanand’s assertion that all knowledge lay in the vedas. However, an examination of the Arya samaj edition shows that it was not based on Josyer’s transcript, but based on the Baroda transcript.

Thus, we have have the following history of the transcripts:
1) As per Josyer we learn that the smArta paNDita, subbarAya shAstrI was a learned, poor brAhmaNa from South India. He claimed to have “seen” an lost text titled the vaimAnika shAstra, fragment of the yantra sarvasva by bhAradvAja and began dictating it. A certain veMkaTAchala sharman copied this down in notebooks between 1918-1923. Eventually Josyer, a saMskR^ita paNDita from Mysore got hold of these notebooks and published it with a translation in 1973.
2) A transcript of the text was made from an unknown source in 1918 and deposited in the Baroda Royal library.
3) Transcripts from Pune (I do not know where they are currently housed, but photographed by Arya Samaj and stored with them) have the marking “transcribed by go. veMkaTAchala sharman in 19/8/1919 and 3/6/1919” on them. The latter two transcripts were used in making the Arya Samaj edition of which Josyer seems to be blissfully unaware.

Now all the confirmed transcripts, while widely distributed over peninsular India, appear to date roughly from 1918 earliest. These point to a common source, which could be either subbarAya shAstrI or someone from whom he obtained it in turn. We may note that the around WWI the importance of air force and aviation was on the rise and catching popular imagination. It is possible that subbarAya shAstrI, a traditional Hindu, might have seen the parallel between the newly invented airplanes and the descriptions of vimAnas in old Hindu lore. So this might have inspired him to think in terms of a shAstra that Hindus might have had to make those vimAnas described in their lore. Josyer also mentions that subbarAya shAstrI had friend named sUryanArAyaNa rao who had some interest in physics. This man published some journal on scientific topics in which subbarAya shAstrI wrote. It is not surprising if they developed an interest in airplanes and the like together, with rao providing shAstrI some rudimentary ideas about physics.

Some points of note:
Even though it is termed a shAstra in reality it is structured unlike any traditional shAstra. While composed in shloka meter it actually contains sUtra-s attributed to bharadvAja and a commentary on the sUtras by a certain bodhAnanda. The sUtra-s themselves are very vague with most specificity coming from the commentary part. This is not true of genuine sUtras (e.g shrauta sUtra-s or darshana mUla sUtra-s), which while laconic are not entirely obscure. The bodhAnanda vR^itti part is laden with citations of many texts, the most important of which are never mentioned in any other Hindu work and are not found in manuscript form anywhere in India. Examples of these are: vimAna-chandrikA, vAlmIki gaNita, vyomayAna-tantra, yantra-kalpa, yAna-bindu, kheta-yAna pradIpikA, vyomayAnArka-prakAsha, amshu-bodhini, yantra-a~NgopasamhAra, R^ik-hR^idaya etc. This is the main point which makes the whole vaimAnika a work of fiction rather than anything even close to a genuine piece of traditional knowledge. The invocation of shiva at the beginning and subsequent description of shiva as the founder of vaimanika vidya, suggests that shiva was the author’s personal devatA.

The text is aware of tAntric prayoga-s for the purpose of flights, such as guTika-s and pAduka-s, which have a long history in India. But it does not detail any such prayoga-s other than mentioning a few by name like ChinnamastA, bhairavI and bhuvaneshvarI. The author was clearly familiar to a certain extent with tAntric practices. The text does not have any principles of aerodynamics or physics, but is of a descriptive kind with long lists and enumerations. The author seems to follow the tantra and purANa-s in a general sense in listing ingredients for vimAna making. In one place in describing the extraction of metal he lists: gUnjA, ka~Njala, tajadabhanga, ku~njara, and kara~Nja, prANa-kshara, hingoo,parpaTa, ghoNTikA, jaTA-mAmsI vidArA~Ngini, and matsyAkShi as plant material with which the metal is heated. The author has a vivid imagination enumerating devices like cameras and solar power, but not really providing constructional details in many cases. All in all these issues make it a piece of Hindu science fiction, albeit finding expression in a peculiar fashion as a shAstra.

Dinosauromorphs and the beginnings of dinosaurs

•July 21, 2007 • Leave a Comment

The crocodilians and birds are the only the surviving representatives of the two great lineages of archosaurs that diverged in the Triassic. The “crocodile line” (depending on definition pseudosuchians or crurotarsans) appear to have undergone the first great adaptive radiation in the Triassic spawning an enormous diversity of predatory and herbivorous forms that mimicked the dinosaurs and later crocodylomorphs in many ways. By the Jurassic, the only survivors of the crocodile line were the crocodylomorphs, which radiated throughout the Mesozoic into a diverse array of forms — both terrestrial and aquatic (freshwater and marine) predators and some herbivorous forms. On the other hand was the “dinosaur-line” (typically defined as ornithodirans) which included the pterosaurs, dinosauromorphs and dinosaurs. They too arose in the Triassic but were marginal in their ecological role to start with. But in course of of the Mesozoic, beginning from the Jurassic saw the meteoric rise of dinosaurs replacing all the older archosaurs and other amniotes as the dominant terrestrial vertebrates. There are several unclear issues concerning this macro-evolutionary phenomenon: 1) Are the pterosaurs really related to dinosaurs to exclusion of other archosauromorphs? 2) How did the dinosaurs replace the earlier dominant Triassic faunas? 3) What was the diversity of the closest sister group of the dinosaurs– the dinosauromorphs ?

The dinosauromorphs are a fascinating group of archosaurs that are critical to the understanding of the origin of dinosaurs. Colloquially we are using the term here to include only non-dinosaurian dinosauromorphs. The first bona fide dinosauromorph to be studied was Lagerpeton from South America described by Alfred Romer. Subsequently Sereno named Marasuchus. The earlier described Scleromochlus has also been suspected to be a dinosauromorph, though Benton believed it might be closer to the pterosaurs. Both Lagerpeton and Marasuchus had been described as small predators with a generalized morphology from which the more specialized dinosaurs emerged later. However, in the past few years the diversity and spread of dinosauromorphs is better understood. This is largely due to several new fossils: 1) The exquisite fossils of Silesaurus from Poland. 2) Sacisaurus from Brazil. 3) Most recently Dromomeron from New Mexico.

An analysis by Irmis et al of Dromomeron and several other forms from the Late Triassic Chinle formation suggests the following: 1) There was a wide spread and diversity of dinosauromorphs over the world. Dromomeron was found to be closest to Lagerpeton and another form unfortunately named Eucoelophysis to be a sister taxon on Silesaurus. The later two are likely to have been herbivores similar to the ornithischians 2) They coexisted with basal theropod dinosaurs like Coelophysis and even more primitive basal saurischians like Chindesaurus, a Herrerasaurid. 3) The appear to have persisted with dinosaurs from the Carnian through the Norian epochs of the Late Triassic period. A parallel analysis by Irmis, Nesbitt and co has shown that the North American late Triassic was bereft of ornithischians, though there were many pseudosuchians that imitated the former. In a parallel analysis of Eocursor a very primitive ornithischian from the Norian of South Africa, by Butler et al also suggested that the great radiation of ornithischians was only after the Triassic. Based on this it is proposed that the replacement of dinosauromorphs by dinosaurs was gradual an asynchronous in different parts of the globe. It is also implied that at least in North America that the dinosauromorphs like Eucoelophysis and “crocodile-line” archosaurs like Revueltosaurus might have occupied the niches related to herbivory in place of the ornithischians.

However, there is a suggestion by Langer et al that the notch and anterior structure of the dentary in the Silesaurus and Sachisaurus like forms might be the precursor of the predentary, a synapomorphy of the ornithischians. This raises the possibility that after all these forms might represent very primitive ornithischians (?).

A notable parallelism in Hindu inscriptions

•July 20, 2007 • Leave a Comment

After the whirlwind of Islam under the dreadful Alla-ad-din Khalji had blown through India and flattened the Hindus, one of the first Hindu fight-backs began under Prolaya Vema Reddi and the Kamma chiefs Kaapaya Nayaka and Prolaya Nayaka in the Andhra country. In the North, in the 1400s a significant figure in rolling back the horrors of Islam was the great Rana Kumbha of Mewar. He pounded the Moslem tyrants of Gujarat and Malava. One thing that caught my attention was a striking parallelism in the language of the two Hindu liberators in describing their victories against the Moslems.

Prolaya Vema Reddi’s inscription of Kondavidu remarks: “I am indeed an Agastya to the ocean which was made of the Muslim”. He uses the phrase “mlechChAbdi (Moslem ocean) kumbhodbhava (the pot born)” referring to the two mythological elements: 1) Along with manA and vasiShTha agastya was born from a pot (=urvashI) into which was discharged the semen of mitra and varuNa. 2) When the asura-s fleeing from indra and other deva-s hid in the ocean, agastya drunk up the ocean to render the asuras vulnerable to the deva attack.

The famed kirtistambha of Rana Kumbha was erected to commemorate his victories over various Moslem rulers like those of Gujarat and Malava. It contains a long inscription describing these victories. In verse 171 there is a play on kumbha’s name and describes him as the pot-born agastya who drunk up the armies of the suratrANas (laTa evaM mAlava suratrANAnAM senAh).

These parallels represent the remarkable cultural unity of Hindu expression even in a period when the Islamic violence fragmented the land.

The geopolitical observer

•July 16, 2007 • Leave a Comment

Sometimes one watches history form around you. You wish it would happen differently but like an enormous phantasm it rolls along its own course. There are many current geopolitical events that are of considerable interest . Hindus by and large appear to be imbeciles — it is hard to believe they once produced a viShNugupta and a viShNusharman. There are no signs they using the opportunities, and probably will let them pass by them.
The points to note are:
*The sole superpower, the US, has been hijacked by a small powerful group that wishes to use the American military might for its interests. This group covertly collaborates with what is known to outsiders as racial supermacism or Isaistic evangelism. This is apparent to any discerning observer but the average American is not such. Like the average Indian, the average American is very ordinary and can be easily fooled, lulled into a sweet slumber or made to dig his own grave. He hardly has a realistic view of the countries in which the interest group controlling his government is primarily interested. Sadly, for the Americans the interest group controlling their government uses the media to its full advantage and keeps them busy with nonsense. Even more frighteningly, this interest group is filled with a characteristic arrogance over their strategic brilliance, and hardly bothers about ground realities. On the other side the Americans are not the people who are willing to take military losses on any large scale. As result the Americans are really out of depth in Iraq, stuck in a futile situation.

*Like in the African wild so also in geopolitics — Seeing the American elephant stuck in the quagmire, the hyenas, the cats, the crocodiles and vultures are going to make a bid for the meat. The foremost of these hyenas is China, licking its lips and biding its time with those bone-crusher jaws. Filled with civilizational consciousness and its resurgent chauvinism, it would not stop short of re-enacting its Tang glory. No one can match the Chinese in their arrogance regarding territorial claims (feature going back to the Tang days), and they back it up with a front-end of audacious propaganda (Like the African Nations conference, the satellite blasting displays, the Beijing Olympics to name a few). The US and the Leukosphere is in a delicate situation vis-a-vis China. They know it is an existential threat, but cannot do much because they are too entangled economically with China, and have a large dependency on Chinese skilled labor in their science and technology. The west has always tried to use Isaism as a subversionist mechanism against China. However, the disastrous incident of the “Chinese younger brother of Jesus” made the Leukosphere realize that it may be unwise to play the Christian card too hard. The logic roughly goes thus: the Leukosphere assumes that Isaism is its foundation and weapon of subversion. There must be no other power which should become the custodian of Isaism. There is a great chance the the Chinese convert to Messianic Isaism and thus challenge the very foundations of the Leukosphere by setting up an alternative Christian power center. Hence, the US cannot deploy its Christian attack dogs to the maximum on China. Further, US getting stuck in Iraq has reduced its ability to try other options to subvert China. This has definitely put the Chinese in an advantageous situation, giving them the chance to act with much greater impunity now.

*As we have discussed before the group that controls America from within, the Protestant Isaists, the Catholic Isaists and even the Moslems have an alignment of interests when it comes to the Russians. They aligned and cooperated extensively to destroy the Russian empire in the great Cold War by bleeding Russia through its weak underbelly. Average Russians like many other nations, including Americans and Indians are not particularly farsighted and can be easily beguiled by propaganda. What is worse is that the Russian intelligentsia and elite have lost faith in their nation due the effects of communists rule. So much so that now they are serving American interests and economy (from Google to the numerous science labs in the US), having emigrated in droves to the US. Hence, Russia is largely bereft of its human intellectual capital. But they have come under a relatively strong and nationalistic leader Putin, who clearly understands the devastation the Anglosphere and the its vassals have inflicted on Russia. He has been much vilified by the Anglospheric press (a very common tactic), but remains firmly in control. He also realizes how the anglosphere has broken up any possibility of a pan-Slavic unity while all the time building a Leukospheric front under the Anglospheric leadership. Seeing the Americans in trouble has clearly sent the signal for Putin to act bolder– he has rejected the old treaty with the Anglosphere and its vassals. The Russians will definitely work towards destabilizing the Americans, and Iraq+Afghanistan is an opportunity coming up for them. We would predict that they would use Iran as a proxy to have revenge on the Americans. In Afghanistan the Russian cards are not clear (Uzbeks?).

*The most interesting twist in the current situation is that of the Terrorist state of Pakistan. The marriage between USA and the Islamic terrorist state has been a long and lasting one, transcending many a dictator and prime minister. The hub of international terrorism and the beloved girlfriend of Chacha Sham, the leader of the Anglosphere, was the architect of their glorious victory against Russia, with the beards plying the CIA’s Stinger missiles to the cheers of the Americans. The same Stingers came back to be used against India in Kargil. Even 9/11 could not shake the dance of the lovers (after all they say all is fair in love and war :) ). We have many times in the past explained why this is so, and how much value TSP and Islamic terrorism in general has for the Leukopshere in keeping India (and to some degree other states) in check. Further, here the interests of Beijing and the Leukosphere, though normally in conflict, align perfectly. But now the usual dynamics of Islam are playing out– Islam is bloody within and without, and the gore within is coming to fore in the past few days ! The Moslems unsurprisingly are killing each other and the US is unable to do much here. Any realist state will not pass such an opportunity such as this to flatten the thorn placed by their rivals in its path. But India is not realist state — the Leukosphere acts at many levels. It has nearly made India a soft state or worse a whore state. Thus, we see history passing around us unable to make much of it (I hope I am wrong). Realist states like Israel have exploited similar gore within Islam pretty effectively to emasculate its proximal Islamic threat (the recent Fatah-Hamas conflict).


A Moslem apologist in Akbar the Mogol tyrant’s court describes the battle between Raja Mansingh (a Mogol commander) and Maharana Pratapsingh in Haldighat. He mentions how the Moslem musketeers circled around the clashing armies spraying bullets randomly. He exclaims in delight how, it does not matter if the Moslem bullets hit one of Mansingh’s men, because either way it is one Hindu less in the world. Time for Schadenfreude ? Hey, Hindus believe in karma–so now let us Hindus sit back and watch the fun — who care who wins? Either way one more bearded ghazi gets to kiss his boys and girls in Jannat, or did some Leukospheric fellow Abrahamistic apologist say it was just 72 raisins and 28 peaches?. They must be desperate if it is just the latter.

Babek Khoremi (and Mahizadyar)

•July 15, 2007 • Leave a Comment

A while back in our youth we read the tale of Babek Khoremi’s rebellion as narrated by the early American historian Curtin. While his narrative was entirely from the perspective of Mohammedan historians, we could see that there was something in the story that was of great historical significance. One historical lesson of importance to us was how the old Aryan religion of Iran was destroyed by the dreadful, barbarous delusion of Arabia. Most accounts, following Islamic sources, present the picture that with the fall of the Iranian ruler Yazdgird III to the blood-thirsty houri-crazed ghazis the Iranian resistance ended and Iran became an Islamic land. However, reality was different from this. We had earlier touched on some aspects of the great struggle in our note on Su-lu of the Tuergish. Understanding, this struggle is important for it helps to provide a comparative dataset for the struggle of our own people against the violent whirlwind of Mohammedanism blowing into jambudvIpa.

The need to revisit Babek Khoremi’s war was incited by a conversation we had with Hayasthanika of sweet smiles. Kappa and me were ensconced in an underground room playing darts at the foot of the White Mountains. In our game we had a code for the targets that we would strike with darts — like I had Alla-ad-din, Awrangzeb etc, whereas Kappa had Alexander, Mohammad, Al-Mustasim. It was thus that the urge to revisit this issue came up. Hayasthanika and I were talking about it till almost 1.00 AM with only the flash of bioluminiscent beetles and the fiddling of orthopterans as company for us in the silent basement room. Her theory was that Babek Khoremi’s war was essentially the struggle of the Zoroastrians against evil of Mohammedanism being imposed on them by the barbarians from the Arabian wastes. I then conversed briefly with ekanetra and gauDa paNDita and began our own reconstruction of the historic struggle of Babek Khoremi.

The Islamist ibn Hazm al Zaahiree narrates that after the fall of Iran to the Moslems, various Zoroastrian leaders tried their best to restore order by overthrowing the oppressive rule of Mohammedanism that was imposed on Iran. He names amongst these Sanbadh, Muqannah, Ostadsis and Babek as the chief, and exultantly declares that Allah denied them victory, instead making the jihadis triumphant. From what information one can gather about Babek, it is clear that he did not belong to the Iranian nobility or Dasturs. He was instead a shepherd the equivalent of the Iranian third level varNa-s, and his struggle was in effect similar that of the Reddis, Kammas and Kapus in Andhra against the Moslem. From most sources it is clear that he was originally a Zoroastrian and sought to restore the orthodox fire worship of Iranians. This is borne out by his alliance with the other brave Zoroastrian warrior, Mahizadyar who belonged to the Parthian royal (Kshatrapa) clan of the Aspahapet from the old Iranian province of Apartvaticene (near modern Yazd). It is also seen in Babek’s support along with the former for restoring the Sassanian rule over Iran. However, later during his association with the Khoramdin-s (‘the joyous cult’), the followers a Manichaeist-Mazdakist derivative with a proto-socialist bend, he presented a syncretic doctrine incorporating all these elements. Among the elements absorbed from the Khoramdin was the idea of reincarnation, perhaps acquired by them in turn from the Manichaeist precursors. His Khoramdin mentor claimed to reincarnate into Babek with their “souls” fusing together. Interestingly, Babek’s followers wore red shirts very like modern socialists, a feature acquired from the Khoramdin. From what information we can gather it is clear the Babek and Mahizadyar had some clarity about the evil directly stemming from the ideology of Islam and sought to eradicate it.

-Babek was born in Azerbaijan in the second half of the decade of 790 CE. He was given the aiwyaongana (equivalent of yaj~nopavIta) as per orthodox Zoroastrian tradition.
-After his father’s death he became the head of his house hold and earned a living as a shepherd/petty trader. It was then that he observed the dhimmification of the Iranians by the Moslem invaders and saw the systematic suppression of the old Iranian yasna (fire-worship).
-This incited him to organize a liberation movement to overthrow the Mohammedan occupiers.
-In course of his peregrinations he seems to have come in contact with the leader of the Khoramdin, Jaavidaan who was also fighting Arab oppression. Babek became close to him and rose to be be a commander of the liberation fighters under Jaavidaan in his early twenties.
-Soon there after Jaavidaan died, claiming to his supporters that his ‘soul’ had entered Babek and fused with his. Jaavidaan’s wife married Babek and brought the Khoramdin under Babek’s banner — he assumed the title Khoremi at this point (the joyous one).
-Babek formed an alliance with the Zoroastrian warriors under Mahizadyar the Parthian and vowed to restore the Sassanian regime, the Persian language (which was being displaced by Arabic) and overthrow the Arabs. Soon they rallied around them a large force of all the remaining Zoroastrian and Khoramdins. He also obtained the alliance of the Armenians, whose chief had been clubbed to death by the Moslems despite promises of safety.
-Around the age of 22 Babek launched his great campaign on the Mohammedans. The Arabs sent an army under Yahya ibn Mohammed to invade Iran and kill Babek and Mahizadyar. But Babek repeatedly worsted him in several battles and sent him fleeing to Iraq (819 CE).
-Babek captured many mountain strongholds built by the old Iranian rulers and fortified them further, including the legendary Qala-i-Babek in the Qaradag mountains.
-He began rolling back Islam after these victories and killing and driving out the Mullahs and Fuckihs. The infuriated Kalif sent the jihadi ibn Abu Khalid against the Iranians. Khalid quickly took Armenia and tried to encircle Babek. But Babek brilliantly lured ibn Abu Khalid with a diversionary force into the mountain defiles near the Qaradag range and killed him (821 CE).
-Next the Kalif sent ibn Junaid to kill Babek. But ibn Junaid was ambushed between the men of Mahizadyar and Babek and taken prisoner. He was ransomed for a large sum of money from the Arabs (824 CE).
-Then the Arab general Mohammed ibn Ummayad tried to take on Babek in 829 CE. He initially won some battles against the Iranians and for 6 months advanced deep into Iranian territory. Here he was ambushed by Babek, who out-maneuvered him to occupy a higher position and with his archers killed ibn Ummayad and his chief officers.
-Babek started inducing Islamic governors like ibn Haitham in Qom and Ispahan to give up Islam and join his cause. Utterly defeated the Kalif al Ma’mun gave up his attempts to suppress Babek temporarily. Before he could re-group he died in 833 CE, and on his deathbed asked his successor al Mostasim to prosecute the war against Babek to completion.
-In 834 a fierce fight between the Mohammedans and Iranians resulted in loses for the Iranians, but Babek made a clever diplomatic move by contacting the Byzantines to allow his men to flee into their territory to escape the Arab marauders.
-In 835 seeing the Iranians return from the Byzantines empire to strengthen Babek in his fight the Kalif sent for his greatest Turkish general Haider Afsin from Ushrusana to attack Babek. He created a special army with highest pay for this purpose. Babek demolished the defensive forts of the Arabs in Ardabil and Zanjan that allowed them to supply their army in Iran.
-The Kalif retaliated by sending the jihadi Abu Said ibn Yusuf to rebuild the forts. Babek sent an army to intercept Abu Said but the Arabs struck preemptively and killed several of Babek’s men. Their skulls were sent to Baghdad as trophies and displayed on poles to strike terror.
-In late 835 Afsin’s large army began a great war on Babek. Babek on the diplomatic front tried to get Theophilus, the Byzantine emperor, to attack the Arabs from the West at the border zone of Azerbaijan. He himself led his troops in several guerrilla strikes on Afsin’s army. Afsin started using traps and spikes.
-Babek however continued to frustrate Afsin by repeatedly capturing his supply lines from Maragha and Yerevan.
-Finally Afsin besieged Babek in the fort of Baddh and forced his troops to starvation. In a fierce encounter that followed both sides lost heavily but Babek’s army was almost annihilated. He fled to Armenia.
-But Afsin followed him and blockaded him. In starvation he sought help of the governor of Armenia who betrayed him to Afsin. In the subsequent battle the Moslems also captured Mahizadyar.
-They were sent to Baghdad where the Kalif paraded Babek on an elephant bought from India. Then his hands and legs were cut and finally his head. His body parts were hung on gibbet in a public square in Baghdad. In the same place Mahizadyar was beheaded and his corpse put on display.

The Mohammedan chroniclers go into raptures over the brutal killing of these Iranian leaders and praise them as the victories of the greatest Jihads. Afsin was rewarded 20,000 dirhams for his deed. With that Iran passed under the dark cloud of Mohammedanism.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 435 other followers

%d bloggers like this: