Personal Identities and truth

[maddhan1979]

India for a long part of its history has been a non scientific religious society. Such societies thrive on religion and business which work as hand in glove or glove in hand, such societies also have limited educated people as this has been there in the past in India, therefore in India mostly the educated class comprised of religious people and business people, who have been educated most part of their ancient history. In such societies forging identities becomes easy and even adoption of new identities becomes much easier. Well, no identity is bad or good until and unless it harms someone, but the fact of the matter is, there are communities in India which have sacrificed long in their ancient history in form of their ancestors to wars, feudal systems and religion. It is also a known fact that land was a cheap thing for business communities since ancient India and it remains so even today.

Now the main question is, how to ascertain true identities, true identities in Indian conditions can mostly be ascertained by village roots, which in ancient India were mostly closely knit societies as these societies were not protected by boundaries of forts or in other words as these villages were not inside the fort walls.

[maddhan1979]

India for a long part of its history has been a non scientific religious society. Such societies thrive on religion and business which work as hand in glove or glove in hand, such societies also have limited educated people as this has been there in the past in India, therefore in India mostly the educated class comprised of religious people and business people, who have been educated most part of their ancient history. In such societies forging identities becomes easy and even adoption of new identities becomes much easier. Well, no identity is bad or good until and unless it harms someone, but the fact of the matter is, there are communities in India which have sacrificed long in their ancient history in form of their ancestors to wars, feudal systems and religion. It is also a known fact that land was a cheap thing for business communities since ancient India and it remains so even today.

Now the main question is, how to ascertain true identities, true identities in Indian conditions can mostly be ascertained by village roots, which in ancient India were mostly closely knit societies as these societies were not protected by boundaries of forts or in other words as these villages were not inside the fort walls.

Why this point is being raised?

India has the largest displaced population based on one estimate, which means more loss of identity and roots, in a social aspect this means more crime and corruption in society. Business community in current context means people handling business in India, there is no one specific community in this sense and so does religious community as seen by scientific view. This literally means people who follow religious thought process.

[maddhan1979]

A diverse society of more than 500 kingdoms had gone through lot of changes which not only changed the identities of people but also their lives, families, etc.

The above mentioned fact has been an ongoing process in a diverse society, what can be understand from this change?

[maddhan1979]

in Indian context could people be recognized based on facial features, etc., It is hard to say because of wars, movement of people but mostly people carried recognition based on words which may have been used by at different times in different contexts.
In feudal times societies which fought wars together lived in close units of big villages, this also holds true for people of large scale migrations. In ancient times small villages were most made by people fleeing wars, thieves, decoits, people hiding their identities from other tribes, such villages were also located near quick escape areas to facilitate fast movement through water systems, etc. 500 different kingdoms also meant that there were frequent wars between rival kingdoms, which also meant lot of scope for thieves, decoits, criminals, etc. Escaping with the loot after the armies faught wars would not have been easy as in ancient times there were only a few routes which one could travel through the forests. So, escaping with loot through water ways would have been easiest way to travel and then hiding in the areas near the river would have been another strong point, such habitations would not have been too close to the river but close enough for the loot to be carried inland. Such population easily emerged/merged into small villages downstream from main battle areas of ancient past near all the big rivers of northwestern India. Such population mostly comprised of people who were not involved in wars and could have been from any given identity as the main purpose of such a population was to live on the exploits left after wars.

[maddhan1979]

in Indian context could people be recognized based on facial features, etc., It is hard to say because of wars, movement of people but mostly people carried recognition based on words which may have been used by at different times in different contexts.
In feudal times societies which fought wars together lived in close units of big villages, this also holds true for people of large scale migrations. In ancient times small villages were most made by people fleeing wars, thieves, decoits, people hiding their identities from other tribes, such villages were also located near quick escape areas to facilitate fast movement through water systems, etc. 500 different kingdoms also meant that there were frequent wars between rival kingdoms, which also meant lot of scope for thieves, decoits, criminals, etc. Escaping with the loot after the armies faught wars would not have been easy as in ancient times there were only a few routes which one could travel through the forests. So, escaping with loot through water ways would have been easiest way to travel and then hiding in the areas near the river would have been another strong point, such habitations would not have been too close to the river but close enough for the loot to be carried inland. Such population easily emerged/merged into small villages downstream from main battle areas of ancient past near all the big rivers of northwestern India. Such population mostly comprised of people who were not involved in wars and could have been from any given identity as the main purpose of such a population was to live on the exploits left after wars.

In Indian context it is hard to say, if people can be recognized based on facial features because of wars, etc. , although stereotypical connections are there in any given society.

[maddhan1979]

in Indian context could people be recognized based on facial features, etc., It is hard to say because of wars, movement of people but mostly people carried recognition based on words which may have been used by at different times in different contexts.
In feudal times societies which fought wars together lived in close units of big villages, this also holds true for people of large scale migrations. In ancient times small villages were most made by people fleeing wars, thieves, decoits, people hiding their identities from other tribes, such villages were also located near quick escape areas to facilitate fast movement through water systems, etc. 500 different kingdoms also meant that there were frequent wars between rival kingdoms, which also meant lot of scope for thieves, decoits, criminals, etc. Escaping with the loot after the armies faught wars would not have been easy as in ancient times there were only a few routes which one could travel through the forests. So, escaping with loot through water ways would have been easiest way to travel and then hiding in the areas near the river would have been another strong point, such habitations would not have been too close to the river but close enough for the loot to be carried inland. Such population easily emerged/merged into small villages downstream from main battle areas of ancient past near all the big rivers of northwestern India. Such population mostly comprised of people who were not involved in wars and could have been from any given identity as the main purpose of such a population was to live on the exploits left after wars.

Main battle areas of ancient past has always been Punjab, Haryana, Delhi. It is a known fact that when "Alexander" invaded India he did not go beyond some rivers of present day Punjab. It is also a known fact that "Chambal" carried the old tradition of loot and dacoity, even after several decades of India's so called independence. All of these areas had plenty of rivers and carrying the loot after a war down the stream through river system was an easy approach for thieves, dacoit, looters, etc. Loot involved not only money but also children and women who could be used as slaves(there are names of the places in India which show this ancient trend)

[maddhan1979]

Main battle areas of ancient past has always been Punjab, Haryana, Delhi. It is a known fact that when "Alexander" invaded India he did not go beyond some rivers of present day Punjab. It is also a known fact that "Chambal" carried the old tradition of loot and dacoity, even after several decades of India's so called independence. All of these areas had plenty of rivers and carrying the loot after a war down the stream through river system was an easy approach for thieves, dacoit, looters, etc. Loot involved not only money but also children and women who could be used as slaves(there are names of the places in India which show this ancient trend)

While area's with lot or rivers would have been really good battlefields in ancient times. Places across these rivers would have been main areas where armies and the real fighting forces would have receded in areas which were beyond the rivers and mainly a bit upstream and not very far off, in the Indian context Punjab is a good example of such battle areas of ancient past. Villages right next to river systems could have been started as check-posts.

[maddhan1979]

Main battle areas of ancient past has always been Punjab, Haryana, Delhi. It is a known fact that when "Alexander" invaded India he did not go beyond some rivers of present day Punjab. It is also a known fact that "Chambal" carried the old tradition of loot and dacoity, even after several decades of India's so called independence. All of these areas had plenty of rivers and carrying the loot after a war down the stream through river system was an easy approach for thieves, dacoit, looters, etc. Loot involved not only money but also children and women who could be used as slaves(there are names of the places in India which show this ancient trend)

It is also interesting to see while Alexander moved back from present day Punjab lot of the army accompanied stayed back and later came into India with Scythian invasion around 4th century AD.