Everything has a begining, so is this recent experience in working along with a Chinese colleague. I moved to San Francisco in early April 2005 to work with a leading CRM ASP. Its here that I found that I was reporting to a Chinese American. Though our initial meetings went well and we set out to make the best out of the engagement I was asked not to copy the status to his Manager. Thinking it was a hierarchial protocol in the firm, I followed it to the word.
Over the next 2 weeks I became aware of the fact that his Manager who had been responsible for hiring me was not much aware of the efforts made by my team. Some of the suggested process improvements and training recommendations were ignored as well. Moreover, I was taken aback when every recommendation submitted was displayed as a work done by him with few modifications. I realized that it was important to make a mark and ensure that the Manager gets an awareness that the engagement is successful at the same time keeping the rapport with my Chinese colleague.
2 opportunities came my way. He had to leave for a major business initiative in China which got me reporting to his Manager. Moreover the second was the presence of an Indian collegue who did not hesitate to take my ideas through to the VP. In the next two weeks, I had made a difference transforming ideas into reality. The enagagement extended to twice the time specified and we came out of it well.
In the end of it all, it was quite a learning experinece. Througout this period I had maintained a steady output at the same time initiating areas that would improve the quality of work from their own employees.
And as far as my Chinese colleague, he had no regrets and wished me to come back and work for them.
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Monday, May 16, 2005
My Writeup: Ancient Indian History Revealed
In recent years, various discoveries and excavations in India revealed new facts about the ancient Indian History and the origin of the Aryan race. In the past few weeks, I have been reading the details on the discoveries of Archeological Survey of India in addition to media reports on the discoveries and facts upon ancient Indian civilization.
Aryan Invasion Theory
During the British rule in India, the Aryan Invasion Theory came to existence. The Invasion theory explained that an European tribe invaded India about 1500 BC. The Aryans were said to be the founders of the Vedas and the Hindu civilization.
But new discoveries of a sophisticated urban civilizations made in Harappa and Mohen-jo-daro (currently in West Punjab and Sind), which were older than 1500 BC. Following this discovery, the orientalist scholars came up with the theory that these people were Dravidians (i.e., dark, as opposed to the the fair skinned blue eyed Aryans) and their civilization was destroyed by invading Aryans and they were moved to Southern India with a reduced status.
These theories were accepted by the Indians. However, recent archaeological developments and intellectual freedom there has been intense discussions on this issue and AIT has become more and more untenable.
Anti-AIT Theory
Anti-AIT Theory Arguments
Lets take a look at the arguments that Historians put in favour of AIT and try to disprove them.
Point 1:
The similarities between Sanskrit, Latin and Greek prove that there was once a proto Indo-European language, from which all three are descended. The oldest form of Lithunian language found dates only upto 1500 A.D, but it is similar to reconstructed IE. A language does not keep such archaic phonology and morphology intact if it has interacted with other cultures. Therefore its speakers must have kept so close to their hooriginalmeland that too much change was avoided. Therefore, IE must have its source in a region near it.
Counter Point:
A common source does not prove the direction of migration; it can very well be that the Aryan tribes travelled from India to Europe. No common root word has been found which date back beyond 700 B.C. So it is possible that whatever identical words we find is due to trade contacts from the Mohen-jo-daro period. As regards Lithunia, it is well known that primitive groups who shun contact with outsiders and are unprogressive will keep their archaic ways and language much longer. There is nothing to stop a tribe from travelling to Lithunia and settling down there. Also, if this argument is valid, then one must point out that Vedic Sanskrit has a large number of vocables which are not present in such numbers in any other Indo-European language and its consonants are purer. This suggests that ancient Sanskrit is the original source, or at any rate the oldest source.
Point 2:
The language of Vedas and that of Avesta in ancient Persia is nearly identical: "Almost any Sanskrit word may be changed at once into its Avestan equivalents merely by applying certain phonetic laws". Most tellingly, in Vedas the gods or devas are addressed as asuras, but later asura became the name for demons; but in Zorastranism, asura is the name for gods throughout while devas are portrayed negatively. Thus it is obvious that the Persian religion is the older version while Vedic tribes split away from it.
Counter Point:
This does not prove that the composers of Vedas had passed through, or came from Iran. It might be that the Persians were the ones who broke away due to a quarrel. They could have used only one term for their gods to distinguish them from the other gods worshipped by their original tribe. The fact that in Vedas Asuras first meant lord/god but later came to mean demons can be an indication that after strife with Avesta group the nomenclature acquired a different meaning through association with the enemy. This theory is supported on the grounds that in 500 B.C, Xerxes forcibly suppressed the worship of Devas in his kingdom.
Point 3:
The river Indus is called 'sindhu' meaning sea. India has oceans for her borders, yet a mere river is called sea, proving that the writers had never seen the sea. Surely then most of the Vedas were composed outside India.
Counter Point:
Wrong. The proper term for sea in Vedas is 'samudra'. This term is used frequently throughout various portions of the Rig-Veda and Varuna (one of the oldest Vedic gods who is mentioned in a 1400 B.C Hittite inscription) is categorically stated to be lord of oceans.
These are just a few points of the entire argument. You can read them in the following link
http://www.comparative-religion.com/hinduism/origins/#anti-ait-arguments
Aryan Invasion Theory
During the British rule in India, the Aryan Invasion Theory came to existence. The Invasion theory explained that an European tribe invaded India about 1500 BC. The Aryans were said to be the founders of the Vedas and the Hindu civilization.
But new discoveries of a sophisticated urban civilizations made in Harappa and Mohen-jo-daro (currently in West Punjab and Sind), which were older than 1500 BC. Following this discovery, the orientalist scholars came up with the theory that these people were Dravidians (i.e., dark, as opposed to the the fair skinned blue eyed Aryans) and their civilization was destroyed by invading Aryans and they were moved to Southern India with a reduced status.
These theories were accepted by the Indians. However, recent archaeological developments and intellectual freedom there has been intense discussions on this issue and AIT has become more and more untenable.
Anti-AIT Theory
Anti-AIT Theory Arguments
Lets take a look at the arguments that Historians put in favour of AIT and try to disprove them.
Point 1:
The similarities between Sanskrit, Latin and Greek prove that there was once a proto Indo-European language, from which all three are descended. The oldest form of Lithunian language found dates only upto 1500 A.D, but it is similar to reconstructed IE. A language does not keep such archaic phonology and morphology intact if it has interacted with other cultures. Therefore its speakers must have kept so close to their hooriginalmeland that too much change was avoided. Therefore, IE must have its source in a region near it.
Counter Point:
A common source does not prove the direction of migration; it can very well be that the Aryan tribes travelled from India to Europe. No common root word has been found which date back beyond 700 B.C. So it is possible that whatever identical words we find is due to trade contacts from the Mohen-jo-daro period. As regards Lithunia, it is well known that primitive groups who shun contact with outsiders and are unprogressive will keep their archaic ways and language much longer. There is nothing to stop a tribe from travelling to Lithunia and settling down there. Also, if this argument is valid, then one must point out that Vedic Sanskrit has a large number of vocables which are not present in such numbers in any other Indo-European language and its consonants are purer. This suggests that ancient Sanskrit is the original source, or at any rate the oldest source.
Point 2:
The language of Vedas and that of Avesta in ancient Persia is nearly identical: "Almost any Sanskrit word may be changed at once into its Avestan equivalents merely by applying certain phonetic laws". Most tellingly, in Vedas the gods or devas are addressed as asuras, but later asura became the name for demons; but in Zorastranism, asura is the name for gods throughout while devas are portrayed negatively. Thus it is obvious that the Persian religion is the older version while Vedic tribes split away from it.
Counter Point:
This does not prove that the composers of Vedas had passed through, or came from Iran. It might be that the Persians were the ones who broke away due to a quarrel. They could have used only one term for their gods to distinguish them from the other gods worshipped by their original tribe. The fact that in Vedas Asuras first meant lord/god but later came to mean demons can be an indication that after strife with Avesta group the nomenclature acquired a different meaning through association with the enemy. This theory is supported on the grounds that in 500 B.C, Xerxes forcibly suppressed the worship of Devas in his kingdom.
Point 3:
The river Indus is called 'sindhu' meaning sea. India has oceans for her borders, yet a mere river is called sea, proving that the writers had never seen the sea. Surely then most of the Vedas were composed outside India.
Counter Point:
Wrong. The proper term for sea in Vedas is 'samudra'. This term is used frequently throughout various portions of the Rig-Veda and Varuna (one of the oldest Vedic gods who is mentioned in a 1400 B.C Hittite inscription) is categorically stated to be lord of oceans.
These are just a few points of the entire argument. You can read them in the following link
http://www.comparative-religion.com/hinduism/origins/#anti-ait-arguments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)