The Swastika Story
It was nearing Diwali and my family had started decorating our home a few days ahead of date. My grandparents are strictly against using artificial light bulbs and decorations when it comes to adorning the house for spiritual purposes and prefer traditional “diyas” and “rangolis” instead. So we carefully lit the entire house with diyas (in conformation to the commonsense fire safety manual) and decorated the doorway with a rangoli of the sacred symbol: the swastika. To those of you who don’t know, a rangoli is a colourful design traditionally made using flour, rice grains or coloured chalk. It is placed on the floor near the entrance to a house to welcome guests.
August 21st, 2006 at 4:22 am
how does this explain how the symbol lost the four dots?
August 21st, 2006 at 6:04 am
What one can do now is to ‘restore’ Swastika to their respective ancient religio-cultural ‘meanings’. Well it should be publicised as a case of ‘mis epresentation’ by the Nazis. As one would call - Devil quoting the Scriptures phenomenon.
I think the ‘Swastika’ in the ancient Indian sense is to represent ‘an organized and ‘ interengagemnt of the emotive and the rational aspects of human consciousness’ - an intuitive - total knowledge mode that facilitates ‘ movcement’ or progress.
Vedapushpa
Bangaloe
India
August 21st, 2006 at 7:39 am
Swastika has become a controvercial topic only because it the ensignia of NSDAP which drew itsa inspiration from its aryan idealogy giving a racial connotation to this symbol. There can be no denying that the swastika was brought into India more correctly the hindu culture through aryan invasions which gave us our vedic civilisation. Though the DRAVIDIAN CIVILISATION (Harrapa, Mohanjodaro)was more advaced and superior , ther is no evidence of the Swastika being associated with this.It is not clear what this symbol epitomised initially but over a period with the settling down of the aryans along the Indo Gangetic Valley it was synonymous with well being and good luck . That NSDAP took a route which was dissonent with the true meaning of the Swastika is no fault of the Swastika.Which is why there is no justification for anyone raising his eye or disrespecting it. Hindus abroad must use this symbol withoput fear and educate others .
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:32 am
Ah yes, the good old Aryan Invasion Theory once more raises its ugly head. One has to admire the way that such a blatant falsification of history has pervaded the minds of Hindus and non-Hindus alike to such an extent that despite its greatest former proponents (Romila Thapar et al) having now accepted that it is an untenable position, certain Hindus still hang on to it as if it were an established fact, as demonstrated above.
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:01 am
An excellent article on the Aryan Invasion theory can be found below:
http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley.html
This same historian (Romila Thapar) is seen by many outside India as the leading light on ancient Indian history and is the pride of some current well placed intellectual circles within Delhi (JNU). Even though she does not know Sanksrit, staunchly defends (ed?) the Aryan Invasion Theory and has written an article on the “Ram Myth” (if u don’t believe me see below)
http://www.geocities.com/indiafas/Hindu/ram_myth.htm
What a pathetic state of affairs it is, when she was chosen as the sole representative of India to the Kluge chair by the Library of Congress, Washington for researching on …..wait for it…..’Historical Consciousness in Early India’ !
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:08 pm
Apologies - I realise my earlier comment was not entirely accurate and potentially misleading, and so I clarify my position below.
Romila Thapar has long rejected the Aryan Invasion Theory in its truest sense (ie a military conquest); however, she does subscribe to the idea of a gradual migration or series of migrations of Aryans into the Dravidian homeland, essentially accomplishing the same thing. This latter has been termed by some (eg Vishal Agarwal) the Aryan Migration Theory; however, Koenraad Elst for one rejects the distinction between the two ideas and claims that they are merely different forms of what still amounts to an Aryan Invasion Theory. Either way, this latter idea is equally ridiculous both in theory and in terms of the available evidence - for detailed explanations, refer to the likes of Elst, Rajaram, N Jha, BB Lal, Talageri, and so on.
It is worth noting that over the past ten years or so, certainly since her 1996 paper in Social Scientist, Thapar has been increasingly emphasising that she uses the term Aryan in a purely linguistic/cultural sense rather than a racial one; indeed latterly, she appears to have narrowed this down even further to purely a linguistic term - see, for example, her letter in The Hindu and her article (actually, interview) in the Hindu nationalism issue (1 May 2000) of the journal Ethnic and Racial Studies (incidentally, I would recommend this latter as well worth reading for an elaboration of the Thapar-esque view of Hindutva - ie the entire issue, not just that article).
However, this distinction of linguistic/cultural and racial to my mind makes little sense and gives a quite definite impression of trying to back down whilst (a) not losing face, and (b) ensuring the Aryan term (and therefore its popular connotations) remains in the Indian and Indological psyche. For this reason, I state that to my mind, she was a former proponent of the AIT but has since rejected it - she would claim that she has always refuted the AIT, but I feel, like Elst as described above, that this claim is based on mere semantics. Perhaps this is a lack of understanding on my part, in which case I am open to explanation - Thapar herself has tried to explain her position many times, both in her works/interviews and some lectures/discussions I have attended, but thus far I remain unable to see the logic.
As regards her not knowing Sanskrit, both I personally and other acquaintances have tried in the past to ascertain in conversations and communications with her as to whether or not this rumour is true, but have thus far been unable to reach a definitive answer; I do not know whether the above commentator (Rakesh) has any further evidence one way or the other. In all honesty, however, I fail to see why this should either qualify or preclude an individual from historical study given the abundance of translations available for most texts (those for which translations do not exist can easily be translated by others); equally, I would question whether the majority of Hindutvawaadi commentators on the Qur’an and Islamic history know any Arabic, but is this truly relevant?
August 24th, 2006 at 10:34 am
Thats a long-winded clarification Satya.
My comment was picking up the thread ( AIT theory, a very important thread with huge implications for studying and dating ancient Indian history ) and not designed to lay a challenge to your wisdom. I am NOT interested in dealing with egos.
If a person is chosen to such a chair, to carry out research which will no doubt be tagged as prestigious,one would hope that the chosen representative is able to inspect first hand evidence directly. This is where direct knowledge of Sanskrit comes into play. Of course, I cannot conclusively say how good her knowledge of Sanskrit is but I cite people like Elst, Goel , Shourie who have found it wanting and i respect their work more then I do hers, so I choose to place credibility with them. When I hear her comments like “too obessed with the Vedas” when studying ancient Indian roots, it sets soem sirens ringing too. When India was looted, ancient scriptures in Sanskrit were also taken away to be decipered and exploited. With my “admitted” limited knowledge, I have heard that the UK, USA, Russia and Germany possess such scriptures . The Library of Congress has apparently made available the scriptures it has to all the chosen reps.
For more info on all the above:
http://www.bharatvani.org/indology/klugethapar.html
August 24th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
Well this is not to the level of scholarship as Rakesh and Satya, however my opinion is that Thapar sucks.She has made a living telling the West what they like to hear about India. She exists like many of her type for whom Hindu baiting is secularism. And the argument that you do not need to know Sanskrit to understand early Indian civilisation is simply nonsense.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Romila Thapar as a historian is a big joke, you guys should read her comical reasons to try and justify Mahmud Ghazni’s destruction of Somnath Mandir in Gujarat, the Islamic terrorists that we see today couldn’t have got a better apologist in anyone else.
August 25th, 2006 at 10:53 am
Rakesh, I apologise for any misunderstanding - my comment above was not meant as an egotistical response to what you had said, as I agree entirely with your assessment of Thapar. My reasons for writing that were: (a) to provide clarification of what I thought was an inaccurate and potentially misleading earlier comment of mine; and (b) to share some information that I felt was relevant and interesting. I don’t think anyone here is interested in dealing with egos; we are all here to learn from, and share with, each other.
Returning to the Sanskrit question, to my knowledge, Elst, Shourie, et al have also thus far been unable to prove one way or another. Note this is not for lack of trying, but is due to Thapar’s modus operandi when questioned - initial imperious haughtiness followed by cutting off communication when things become overly uncomfortable. For an example of this, see the late Sita Ram Goel’s all too brief interaction with her, as described in his “Hindu Temples… (Vol 2)”.
Regarding the importance or otherwise of knowing Sanskrit to understand early Indian civilisation, I agree that it is very useful and highly desirable, but question whether it is essential. However, I do admit that in the context of the posts that Thapar occupies (eg the Kluge Chair), a high degree of knowledge of Sanskrit is a qualification one ought to have.
Reference Harish Duggirala’s comment above on Thapar’s work on Somnath and the like, I agree absolutely that her comments are absurd, but more crucially, I fail to see the logic of her writing on the topic at all. When responding to critics, she often goes to great lengths to describe how history is a professional discipline and requires formal training in a variety of techniques and areas. She then goes on to compare historians with, for example, medical doctors, and she expresses dismay that whilst lay people would never question a doctor’s medical judgement (blatantly not true, by the way), they seem all too ready to criticise a historian’s historical judgement. All this is a somewhat dodgy argument to begin with, but even if this were to be accepted, what she fails to explain is that whilst an orthopaedic surgeon would not comment on cardiology, she as an ancient historian feels perfectly entitled to pronounce on medieval history. In what way, I wonder is she qualified to comment so authoritatively on the Moghul period?
As a final side-point linking the above two paragraphs, it is of note that Thapar, in her book “Somanatha: The Many Voices of History”, makes much of her use of Turko-Persian sources and discusses the motivations arising from hostilities between Arab and Turk writers as being important in terms of historical analysis of the events of the time. All this makes one wonder, does she also know Turkish, Persian and Arabic?
August 25th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
It is wrong to distort the symbol ‘OM’ by your art work.
It should be corrected.
Govinda
August 29th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
For those who are interested and weren’t already aware, the Bhavan Centre in London are holding a talk by Subhash Kak and Navaratna Rajaram on the topic of the Indus Valley Civilisation (Koenraad Elst tells me that he will also be speaking there). The talk is Saturday 2 September (this Saturday) 14.00 - 17.00.
September 3rd, 2006 at 10:03 am
In Scotland, UK, just outside the Scottish home of the British Royal Family at Balmoral, there is a memorial in stone to the dead of the First World War. It was erected long before Hitler misapproprated the ancient Swastika.
I was delighted to note that the edging on the granite stone, (in the manner of a decorated frame), to this tribute to those who had lost their lives in that terrible war of 1914 to 1918, is comprised of hundreds of small swastikas.
This showed me that this symbol was used as a indication of mourning, and hope of spiritual uplift- even by the British authorities - well before the symbol was so offensively mangled by Nazism.
As an Englishman, married to a devout Hindu, I was pleased to note at least one of the respectful offshoots which emerged from the long association Britain had - not all negative, I hope - with India.
I trust that this monument will remain in its original, honest form.
Clive Roberts.
September 3rd, 2006 at 12:37 pm
^^^ That’s interesting. I’m gonna be in Scotland next week so I might try and check it out.
September 3rd, 2006 at 4:15 pm
A nice article about Swastika. I wish we could get some more information about the origins and spiritual meaning of the Swastika in Hinduism.
September 20th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
swastica and arya.
Aryas(correctly called rather than aryans) are,were,and will remain in India. They might have migrated to other places sometime but the source of Aryan race,culture and civilization was, is and will remain India. There is an overwhelming evidence in support of this. In fact in order to say oherwise(which was a part of propaganda) , very tenuous and flimsy,unproven arguments were put forward by those people who ‘discovered’Aryans in India 3000 years after Indians haven been calling themseleves Aryans all along.(Hindu is a name given by foreigners.In none of great liturature is word Hindu mentioned not even religois text of recent origin).
The Salient features of early Aryans are:
(a)Sanskrit speaking
(b) Respect for Cows and Fire-both worshipped and highly regarded.
(C) Never seen Sea (vast rivers would be regarded as immence.)
(d) almost village living and only small towns as Capital.
(e)High moral living of philosophical class(Brahmins) who after much Study would enjoy highest sociol status(though voluntarily livig poor).
(f)NO shopkeepers.-Aryans thought any profit motive highly undesirable and fitting for low sort of beings.
(g) Horse and Archery as main weopens.(Even later on old Persians and parthians and Sassanids-in Persia, were known to Greeks as great Archers.)
(h) IN old Babylonians chronicles Aryans(”who knew no cities”) came from East(and Not west). IN RIgveda (earlist poem in the world) They are shown as fighting amongst themselves in Western India for the dispute which had arisen more than 10 generations ago in the Aryan Kingdom of Eastern India(Hahaya in Maharashtra, Kashi and Videha in eastern India).In other word the original most aryans moved from their homeland in middle and eastern Gagentic plains and moved west.One the the tribes(Druhu) actually went and conquered west(Iraq?) and settled there.THat is what you get from early liturature(Ofcourse religios but incidently mentiong geniology of Brahmans and kings which mostly agree with each other. NOw ehen the Aryans moved west from their homeland(Called Aryavart_Land of the Aryans) they founded Kassite,mittani and earlier Hittite empires. THeir greatest enemies were Asur. Hindu and early Hindu literature is full of dislike of Asur and most of famous Hindu leaders are supposed to have fought against them.IN no other’s early liturature (or even late ones) is there so much mention of enemity against Asur as in early and late Hindu literature.INcidentlly the Mittani’s name eg.mitra,dutta etc. is still common in eastern INdia.THe real name of Hittes was Hatti(a caste in Northern India) and of persians was Persu(a famous clan in India.Even the Persians movedto where they were from East. That is why Herodotous did not know (or any non-aryans0 about Persipolis which was in eastern part of Persia and considerd their sacred place. But these are is only for Peripheral glimpse of what Indian Aryans did in the west. THe aryans alwas considered their homeland most sacred(THat is Northern India). There is no hint of they ever rememring land west to India except in contempt(THat also only in later part of literature).Ofcorse in a religios text (because Kings never had any absolute power in India)not all matters relating to kings or others are mentioned.For example Salt is never once mentioned when they where living near Salt mines in Punjab.
What the Aryans looked Like? IT is in this that much evil has been spread by the british. In fact much before Hitler, the great Sanskrit Scholer ( ) wrote in 1912 that many22Englishman are claiming themselves to be arayans which is preposterous.The Englishman was never an aryan and will never be”". After second world war the british government persuaded the Australians to import only “Aryans” people. They meant themselves. AS isf 2 world war never happened! No the riginal German and French Scholars never mentioned that Aryans homeland is any where other than India. It is only when the real great Power of Europe(France,Austria,Prussia and Russia) fought amongst each other after a long British conpiracy that this Pirate turnede shopkeepers race(much like Heyena after fight amongst lions) _that is the English got power first and how they misused it1 They spread like a disease ,more like a cancer and destroyed deliberately the economy and culture of this world. In that plan they first said that Sanskrit was brought to India by Alexander.When furher evidence came then the pushed Aryans1 arrival in India at 500 B.C. In other word they were creating mishive in their own evil ways(As they alays do nless checked by others).Ever since that the the british propaganda machine(English know only piracy, shopkeeping,spying and plumbing) has been active in this evil. Ofcourse The Aryans have alwas stood againstthese evils so beloved of this race of pirate turned shopkeeper turned landlord turned so called aristrocracy who won any thing not by military but by spying.Hitler should have been envious of these people’s propaganda machinery!
Any way point is what Aryans loked like. Well In very early a Brahamin Priest is invoking Gods for boon of Son. And he describes what his future son be like.He clearly mentions that the son desired would be Krishna(i.e.Black-dark complexion).No body can be more Aryan than ‘RAM’ who is described as dark complexion.RAM was born in the most Aristrocracy of he Aryan Race.Iskchaku branch of Aryans is the most aristrocat of all the peoples.ANd He was dark comlexioned.If the aryans had thought of otherwise they would have made HIM GOD. Now we know that the early persions were also Aryans.Therefore the descendents of early Persians and early Indians sould look similar in some ways.WEll we have the evidence of that in Pictures from walls of Persiplis,the coins of DARAYAUSH(Wrongly called Darius as was KURUSH wrongly called CYrus). We also have picture of sassanids and descendents of persians from that Empire. We also have picture of Some Indian Rulers before and after christ.(WHEN INDIANS always called themselves by name of Aryans.). ALL the pictures or images have 2 striking features.Hirsutism and Parrot or Eagle like nose. That is wht thethe Brahmins and high caste hindu man have. SO have the Parsis, the descendents of Sassanids and persians.In India because of purity of food ritiual the caste maintened their purity.(IT is nothing to do with racial purity).The caste originated from the different tribes of the Aryans.(It is difeerent from verna).In fact caste rule became strict only when Aryans first came out of Indaia and went to westr and to protect thietr purity from Asur and other undesirable western blood they made marriage more strict. Later on before christians the marriage rule baecame most strict (and the same rules are now) in order to protect their purity from low born westererns. Any way the result (intended or not) is that they not only maintained the racial purity of Aryan race but also the different tribes and subtribes (which went on to become caste and tribe based Janpad-states and provinces). In old hindu literature their is alwas descripton fo people with beard. Even now most of North Indians have atleast mustache and some of the girls in Punjab(where now more aryans are supposed to be) are somwehat hirusite. Now You want to knoe what Early Aryans looked like.There are millions but I will give ask You to look at only 2 pictures. -That of Indira Gandhi and OF Jubin mehta(OF ISraeli philhormonic fame). Indira gandhi comes from a very high class Brahaman family and Jubin mehta is a Parsi -descendents from old Persia.What do you see similar. Ofcourse Nose. AT the lower third or at the end it gets beaked . In profile the nostrils look like bowed. and the nose meets Eyes in particular way. IN Indian literature the great personases have been described in the same way-Parrot or Hawk like nose.Incidently the Aryans have alwas been in good term with Jews. It was after all Kurush who released the Jews from Babylion captivity. In fact this racism in Europe was brought by the Bandit army of ricard in 12 th century when he and his bandit horded spread jew haterd in Europe.Ricahrd had killed all jews in England who owed him ar his bandit army any money. PRobably that is the lesson the rest of the world may well emulate(quite rightly) in order to relive themselves from bebt burden(usuray)of Anglo saxon banks.
Yes Hitler decride against Lithuanians who have more element of aryan race than anybody in Europe, against who are most aryan of all the peo[ple in Europe. His caricature of hokked nose as Jewish might well have been against race as well.
In 200 A.D. there were living the goths(OEStro) in near black sea.IN 200 B.c and before; many Budhist religious missionary(Budha caleed his religion-way of ARYANS.Budha was of ISCHaku clan .the same as that of RAM but much later.)had been active in that Area as in antolia and Egypt.Later those eastern germanic race (Who later were subjugated for 100 years by mongolian race HUNS) were practissing a form of religion called Arian. IT appered that these germns(Oestrogoths only) got this word ar from those Indian Budhist missionary and as early christianity was much influenced by Budhist thought , there is very much possibility of this happening. ANyway not since than, ot before either or after for almost 1800 hundred years do we ever about aryan word in GErman vocabulary.IN India it is everywhere.And we are to believe otherwise. This the effect of propaganda by the shopkeeper’s race. That is why the aryans (and all aristrocatic people like French) have been aganst giving any power to the shopkeepers.
THe Romans have written about The Kelts and The Germans(TO the Greeks they were the same)The reason they appeared the same to the Greeks is apart fom other reason (LIKe they might be really the same but in much much earlier times) is that Greeks and ROMan civilization was eastern mediterrian civilization. In fact what is called West today was never civilized before 1400 in history. Propaganda would like to make you othrwise. ANyway the Germans and many great tribes are mentioned by JUlius Cizer and Tiberius.Names like Goths, Allamein, Franks,etc. The Germans never mentioned one people_Anglo saxonns to the Roman Emperors simly because even for the Gertmans of that time these Anglo saxons were too barbarians or may be They are too ashmed of them Or simply because these Anglosaxonswere never related to the German race(as they claim today). remember that the English never make their their relationship with the DUtch ,always with Germans.THat too after Germans were perceived to be strong and successfull .Recently When the Japenese got successfull, then the english people strarted making some relationship with the Japenese aswell(island etc.) Fact is these unimprtant people called anglo saxons were living in Swampland of Frisland in what is todays’ holland. they are more related to Dutch than Germans (Who never owned them ). In that marshland they were poor ,unimportant people who were subsisting on sea Piracy. And it is this Sea piracy which gave them some hope of existence. Sea piracy has been bane of gret many civilizations including Egypt. But striking thing is the total lack of what is called culture in civilized. It is this what gives way English people from the rest of EUrope.Having pirate power for 150 years prove nothing. THe people of Afganistan ruled much richer empire for more than 500 years.They have never been considered any civilization. IN America the the Eglish will pose and tell to their agent in u.s. “you have no history and culture ,look to we england -European culture.” First American history is not that new campared to England’s. When America was discoverd this england was a pariah country.,unimportant, unmentionable in aristrocatic gatheing.Moghuls four times refused to tgive them permisiion to trade saying that the ambassador of England wears the saort of such low quality cloth that even our Stable boy would not wear.” England was that poor even after statew sponsherded piracy and terrorism. ANd it would remain that wretched till the Great Lions(FRench,Germanb.c. asked an American right winger politician(on interview in Britain) as to how American People can even think of Electing someone like Dukakis who is a Greek and(according to british commentator)Too much situated near Africa(i.e. Greece being near Africa)?That shows what is going on here. For too long America has been behaving not independently but bidding British intersts abroad and at home. Irony is that what has made America great is the Non-British immigrants.While the british immigrants were the scum of the earth and arrived America pennyless(Even the Jewish immigrantsr hade more money with them campared to british immigrants on arrival to America) they (british acquired through cheating the wast swath of Land,and this land(in form of agriculture,mining,lumbering etc.)has been the mainstay of the property and livilihood of the England-derived immigrants. But hat has not made America great.Canada and Australia also has a lot of ill-acquired land-allmost all looted by the british derived immigrants. What sets America apart is the non-British derived immigants who did a lot for Science and technology, other commerce,Arts,culture. The vulgar culture (which the british are fond of reminding)is the culture of mostly England-derived immigrants to America. Even now the Asians who are immigrating to America are much richer, much educated and much cultured than britain has ever been.(In fact there has been no culture other than vulgarity,piracy and spying comig from the English race_a race of pirates turned shopkeepers).
now how come about that every President who wanted to take stand indendent of Britain in America on Domestic or Foreign has eithr been made impotent or killed(Abraham Lincoln, Kennedy,Robert Kennedy)?To understand that one has to remember British propaganda machinary(all sorts of media,BBB.,Papars, govt,etc) and britihs agents in America.Britain has always acted like a heyena(or dog) who let two or Three Lions(OF Europe like France, GermansO>P> But the French generals and admirals shaved the day for America. But that Traitor elements(Who worked against independece of Amerca and sises with enemy) were not only allowed to remain but also prosper. That very element in 1888’s started civil war on bidding from England who supplid them (enemies of America called Sotherns) with Arms, propaganda and what not.Civil war was not about blacks or about selling drugs(Tobacco,alcohol) it was another attempt on the part of Britain to exploit and enslave America. And it succesded in that.Ofcorse Britain has not won a sinle war on its own -it is by deviousness that it ever got anywhere in the world. The same tactics was applid in America. Her agents devasted American union and it has never remained true union in that sense.-British will see to that it never becomes one. Anyway after civil War ,some of the defeated british agents(Southerns) went to Canada where they could do further exploitation. But the tragedy is that the others were allowed to remain in u.s. Atleast their property (ill acquired anyway) should have been confiscated and those peoples made pauper. abut that mistake(and help from british spies) insured that these traitors to the cause of American independence remain entrenched in thier ill
When England ,At the height of its empire was facing defeat by the Germans. it is these british agents in america who maede iensure that America comes to resque of England.All in name of saving a democratic country(who had deceivebly,not throgh show of arms, sad enslaved so much of world-and very proud of it) against a country(Germany) who was quote ‘thinking of world domination.
November 8th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
Avatar Singh
Dude read the Rik Veda. Your article was comprehensive and worthy of reading however, you will find the true Aryan issue in the Rik Veda. They were sun worshipping northerners. They had never seen an elephant. The goat, cow and horse were their lot. Very similar to Khazaks or Latvians. The Soma is not from Indian soil. This is forensic evidence not rhetoric. Please examine what I have written. Bringing Krishna & Ram into the equation is unsafe, they appear thousands of years after the Rik Veda. Return to the root. The Rik Veda is the core of our Great Aryawarth Faith. Bottom line. We The Dasus & Aryan stock are the upholders of this faith not the Europeans. We are the Aryawarth - unchanged for thousands of years. Unturned or seduced by other faiths. We are as we always have been. Live Proud your Stock goes back bravely unchanged.
Importantly however is why has the swastika been sidelined / marginalised in our faith? This is unacceptable. I say temples should raise flags to show our history. The Swastika!
November 9th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
^^^ Deeno - how did you figure that the ‘Soma is not from Indian soil’? I’d be very interested to know.
The Rig Veda cas composed in India - near the Saraswati River, which used to flow in the Rajasthan-Haryana-Punjab region.
November 9th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
Manish before I answer that please tell me which plant you classify as the soma plant.
March 17th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
The swastika during the 1914-18 was was considered a good luck symbol by the British.
It was used for many things,to bring good luck Not the least of these being incorporated into a National Savings Collectors identifying lapel badge. a small black enamelled square with a gold swastika with National above and Savings below. It it amazing how much it looked like the Nazi Party Badge in later years.