Why no Indian University has department of History of Science (some questions on previous observations)

SPART 1

My this write up is mainly dependent on Google search engine .As i have developed interests in ancient science , particularly of India, I started searching google for the information.

I surprised to note that many western universities have separate departments of history of science and profile of 24 Professors of History of Medicine are available in Linkedin. Thus important universities like Harvard university, Yale university, university of wisconsin Madison or Johns Hopkins school of medicine are having either separate departments of history of science or history of medicine. Not surprisingly, there is a separate scientific journal on this subject -Bulletin of history of medicine. 

And i could not record any Indian university who is having separate department either on history of science or history of medicine. This is despite  our boosting great ancient history ; there were puspak vimans in ancient India. Perhaps we have relied mainly on our archaeology department or  Sanskrit books  or those persons who do not believe in modern science.

There is no harm if any one does not believe in principles of modern science but he has to support his/her assumptions and have to recreate the same on critical grounds . ( Beauty of present science is that it tells the principles behind a particular phenomenon and any one can repeat it following these principles) .  Thus, if any one believes that it is possible to change figure from man to animal and vice versa or any one can minimize or increase his figure at will  or may appear or disappear at particular place , he has to show the phenomenon and be ready for critical examination ,explaining principles for the same . Even there are persons who still believe in "Parash pathar or touch stone " which will turn any mineral into gold but their claims have not been substantiated with proofs.

I may mention that all the above were earlier assumptions of early human civilization . It should also be very clear that present science has not developed in a day or two but this was a continuous process that took centuries together to take present shape. All the above assumptions were the earlier thinking of human beings which were discarded later  as proves were assembled against these facts.

Perhaps, it may surprise many that the great Greek Philospher Hippocrate has hypothesized that " life originates spontaneously"( life from nothing ). All the evidences were against this hypothesis which was formed  as Hippocrate failed to see tiny eggs of the beetles ,emerging from animal's stools. It has been proved beyond doubt that only life can generate life and it is not originating spontaneously or from nothing . Therefore, it may be correct  to presume at that time  that any creature can appear all of a sudden from nothing  but now this is simply his wishful thinking .

Therefore, either we have to accept general principles of modern science, physics, medicine etc or provide concrete evidence for the phenomena , explaining their principles . Else we will loose our credibility at international level.

If you search google , most of these studies by western scholars have been made on Greek or Roman culture  as well as their discoveries on Egypt. This is obvious since Rome  is  part of Europe while Egypt is not only an oldest civilization but there is a link in the form of Alexadria- the city  inhabitated by Alexander the great. 

In that sense there are no authentic  reports on Indian civilization by these western researchers (except a few made at early stage of excavation of Indus valley civilizarion) . There are few references which suggest that work has not been taken  in late twentieth century or so (partly this is due to ban in further exploration of the site ). Even there are some questions on our ancient civilization  which need further explanation . I may mention a few:

ORIGING OF WRITING : what so ever little we are seeing on Indian civilization, it is centered around our epics- Ramayan or Mahabharat . It should be ample clear that both these epics are written in Sanskrit . Even our Vedas are written in Sasnkrit . According  some ,  the period of writing of these epics is around 200BC or so . This suggests our civilization was existing  a period which is much later on scale of time .

Even prior to Sanskrit we were having "Brahmi script" whose details are not yet deciphered. 

So ,the important question is whether India was the place where it developed own language ? As per present descriptions true writing was invented atleast at two places- Mesopotamia around 3200BC and Mesoamerica around 600BC.

However, as per Wikipedia writing developed in Egypt around 3200BC and in China around 1200 BC.

INDUS VALLEY CIVILIZATION . If you talk about ancient civilization, there is reference  of Indus valley civilization which occurred during Bronze age in ancient India around 3200 BC.

Though there are descriptions showing proof of a well developed city, where there was best water drainage system , bathrooms as well as common bath place.

Yet i am afraid if many questions have been answered in noting these records . For instance :

The persons were using what is called 'Indus script" which is still not deciphered.  There is still debate whether script is true writing or proto writing or non-linguistic sign system.

Interestingly the indus valley civilization is said occurring around 3200 BC and this is the period when Egypt is said to develop its writing. But the two writings are different. Does this not indicate that India developed its own writing which later on resulted in development of its own language . What was that period ? Was there any other language prior Brahmi script ?

Another important fact that is told that the persons involved in Indus valley civilization, whose proofs are extended in the form of Mohanjo Deoro or Harrappa  were not Aryan but what is now called Dravidian.

Do we have sufficient grounds to think so ? Probably not .

First, Dravidian is not a genetically defined class. This dravidian is a sanskrit word used for the persons who were speaking Tamil or alike language. Do Sanskrit , spoken by so called Aryans , has no similarity with Tamil language ?

How old these native persons or Dravidians  were residing in Indus valley ? There is no clear cut idea about that. The only fact, said, is that they were earlier settlers than Aryan race.

For our discussion, we should call them  Dravidian. Important question is when they migrated to Indus Valley. Whether they migrated from Mesopotamia and aware about Agriculture , earlier than their settling in Indus valley.  

Or they have migrated in Indus valley ,directly from Africa, much earlier than Mesopotamia developed ?

Perhaps there is no concrete evidence to substantiate either.

SIMILARITY IN CUSTOMS : How we were treating our near and dear ones after death ?  If you read Egyptian civilization they were believing in life after death hence preserved the body (what we now call 'Mummy") along with fulfilling other domestic requirements. The Roman civilization is also burrying dead body.

 BURNING DEAD BODY  However, a unique system was adopted in India and that was "Burning of dead body". 

This fact is very important which has not been highlighted by previous researchers.

We do not have any evidence of preserving dead body or making tombs for dead persons in Indus valley ; neither such practice is followed in present days in South India .This suggests that these Dravidians were following the unique practice of 'burning dead body' and this was also followed by the Aryans. But without a close contact, how the two communities learn a common practice , particularly when it is not followed in any other part of the world ? These facts make me greatly sceptical that Dravidian and Aryan have migrated in different times in India. This fact is indicative that there were close relations between the two .

Interestingly, the two other important religions i.e. Boudh and Jainism, those developed in India around 2000BC are also having same custom of burning the dead body.  

END of CIVILIZATION : Again there appears no conclusive evidence how this great civilization perished. A hypothesis is existing that a flood marooned the whole city and this was responsible for discarding the city . But if you study Egyptian civilization , this was the floods  of Nile river, occurring every year in that geography that brought prosperity and crops to those persons. Actually floods were not considered havoc in those days but a medium of bringing fertile soil which resulted in good harvest. So, how and why floods were considered harmful to human race ,related to  Indus river ?

Even if we consider the floods as the reason  , there is one way how floods might have resulted in perishing the whole human population in Indus valley ; it should be sudden and wide spread that did not give time and means to run away the persons. But then there should be evidence of excavation of large number of skelton from that area. In absence of such evidence it is hard to believe that floods were responsible for discarding the Mohenjodaro .Again, this was a city ,inhabited by traders and artisans , hence question arises what was the distance of this city from Indus river ?

There is , on the other hand, one possibility ; that Indus river might be changing its course slowly , giving problems to the residents and hence they decided to migrate to other places for future prosperity. And this may be the reason, they started migrating towards Gangetic planes .

Or was there risk of occurring any disease or diseases which caused slow migration of these persons ? (Pl see Part 2 in other blog. www.indianschistosomiasis.blogspot.com)