Commodity Price Stability - Role in 1870 and 2013 in Indo British relations

One of the supposed benefits of British rule in India is canals for agriculture in Noth West India. However an understanding of economic history of Britain and the world in 19th century is needed to properly analyze as to how and why the canals were built and its deleterious effects on Indian economy. From 1800 to 1870 the population of England tripled from 10 to 30 million [approx ball park figures]. With its lead in the industrial revolution and having the highest productivity per capita in the world it was a tiger economy growing faster than China did in the recent past. It was the world's largest exporter and had a massive trade surplus, just like China today. Progressively after 1850 and well entrenched by 1870, Britain's net exporter status started declining principally because there was no wealth (i.e. worthwhile substance) left to import in exchange for the export. Even gold is a commodity whose worth declines in a glut. Too much gold import means its value falls. Although still the premier economy of the world, and the wealthiest, it was not reflected in the actual import export balance of payments. So UK's economy was a net importer rather than exporter, eerily similar to the situation occupied by USA today. The population growth of UK peaked at about 50 million by around 1900 (ball park figures) after which it plateaued (still grew in terms of Australian and Canadian immigrants). The economic growth rate and the growth of wealth for its people also slowed down after 1870 till 1915, with two big recessions/ depressions in the period between 1870 and 1900 – where the growth rate not only stopped, but there was a recession of production primarily of agriculture but also of manufactures as other manufacturers started catching up and thr labout costs within Britain started going up. UK's imports were all raw material and exports were all finished products. In that respect it was in a much better situation than USA today, which imports manufactured goods and exports higher technology but also exports a lot of US debt in the form of dollar denominated T bonds. UK's main imports were food in the form of wheat and meat and the raw material of cotton for its textile mills. All commodity prices are determined by world supply and demand and prices of these 3 commodities were no exception. By 1850 England was already dependent on wheat and meat import from USA and wheat import from Argentina and Russian Ukraine. By 1870 because of higher cost of production within England the production of wheat had completely collapsed. Over 80% of wheat meant for their staple diet of bread was imported. Russia, Argentina and USA were all having inimical interests with UK but had a lower cost of production than UK. Because of their external dependence, there were wild swings in the price stability of food in England and every time there was a crop failure in Ukraine or Illinois, price of bread and meat would shoot up only to be followed by a glut next year. Because of this reason, England followed a policy of agricultural commodity price stabilization by means of its colonies, mainly India and later on also from Canada and Australia. Canals were built in the North Western Indian (mainly undivided Punjab and Sind regions), vastly improving the yield of wheat. Much of this wheat was exported. Although imports from Ukraine and USA continued to form the bulk of the English imports, since they were cheaper, Indian wheat was also competitive and became more important when there was crop failure in the principal suppliers regions – because of differences in the weather pattern. Since these weather patterns in these different regions were not correlated, the wheat from Punjab served as a buffer for suppressing the wheat prices. Of the British colonies, wheat was easiest to grow in Punjab. Canada and Australia had weather or water problems and had no cheap manpower. USA was lost as a colony. Africa had no manpower (because tribals) - and Indian labour was imported into South African farming. Malaya and Burma and most of eastern and southern India were not suitable for wheat farming. That left only the Punjab. While this wheat did benefit the local people of Punjab, Sind and North India by protecting them from famine, this was a byproduct. No similar policy of rice cultivation was adopted because rice unlike wheat is not consumed significantly in European countries or England. On the other hand, a disproportionate expenditure of tax revenues towards canal building in the Punjab and Sind and Ganges region meant that less was available for spending in the rice cultivating regions which were left to the vagaries of the monsoon. So the portion of tax collected which was not repatriated to England was disproportionately used for wheat cultivation via canal irrigation. This ended up exaggerating the famines in Bengal and Madras presidencies. Cotton, was the second main commodity imported by the British. The primary source was from the slave plantations of Southern states of USA. With the civil war there was a complete halt to its supply. Areas of Maharashtra and elsewhere in India suitable for cotton cultivation were forced to cultivate this cash crop, which damaged their local food security. Heavy loans were also given to Egypt for growing cotton, which ramped up production. After the end of civil war and return of production from US plantations, the price of cotton collapsed. This proved to be a disaster for Egypt which went bankrupt and could not repay the English bank loans. It was therefore invaded by UK. It was also a disaster for other cotton producers, particularly India. Cotton cultivation was however forced upon the farmers of Egypt and India as a method for price stability of the agricultural commodity and it continued ever after and still continues. The relation of cotton and its end products from textile mills meant creation of a virtuous circle. India exported the cotton to UK which used the raw material to make finished product for export to all over the world including to India, which maintained the balance of trade. The trade surplus with the other countries was used to import other products for consumption within the UK. But the import of cotton from India balanced the export of textile products to India. This circular trading which kept the import export balance between UK and India and hence the balance of payments meant discouraging the processing of cotton in India itself by dictatorial fiat. This was achieved – which effectively delayed the industrialization of India. The whole process of colonialism was not really meant to get access to markets, as has been repeatedly said. Most colonies were sources of raw material. These were processed in Europe into finished goods. They were consumed in Europe. But the excess was exported back to the colony for keeping the balance of trade and payments. Selling of end products in the colony was only a way to pay for the raw material import and the colony was not the primary or main market for the finished products. Effectively this was a way of transferring wealth from the colony to the colonizer, by forcing the colony to not industrialize. Colonies apart from India were thinly populated by stone age tribals, who had not yet started agriculture. They were rich in resources disproportionate to population, either prairie, pampas or mines and Britain had the best of these colonies. All densely populated colonies like India, Burma, Malaya, Indonesia, Vietnam etc were left at non-intensive cultivation levels only – and served as “raw material” only - either in the form of cheap labour or agricultural produce. Colonies were also places where an extra-ordinary return on capital invested could be achieved. So in Dutch and Portugese marcantilism, investment in ships brought an extra-ordinary return by means of rare goods and spices. By British times, it meant investment in say plantations, mines, agriculture, port, railway etc which brought a supra-normal return vis-a-vis investment in European manufacture or other investments close to home. So South African mining, Australian sheep farming, farming in Argentina or Canada followed the laisez faire policy – which means the capital finds its own sources and destinations effectively without state intervention by free market principles. Mostly, this free market was not allowed in India, after the exit of East India Company. Instead, state sponsored and controlled economic policies were followed. Much of these had disastrous consequences with respect to the periods from 1860 to 1900 when there were widespread disruptions in agriculture and plantations. Famines ravaged India. Controlled Mandi for selling agricultural produce continued after independence and have kept our agriculture backward because of lack of free markets – to this day the old colonial market manipulations are causing problems in increasing productivity in the agricultural sector (mainly because the controlled policy helped the Congress to control their vote bank). More importantly, from economic point of view, British revenue, trade and return on capital employed were quite poor from India unlike investments in Canada, South Africa, Australia, etc. Whereas the EIC period saw the Nabobs who grew rich from agricultural revenue, the post 1870 period mostly saw the rich colonials from other corners of the British empire including Malaya and Hong Kong. This is also richly reflected in the changes in characterizations of colonials from English literature from 1850 to 1890 period and literature post 1890. Increasingly, India became a more self sustained economy, starting from 1890 till independence. However, because there was little return on capital deployed, this meant that not much capital found its way into India. India's industrialization progressed slowly because of this reason, funded by internal accruals. There was no FII or FDI into India in current parlance. So coal was mined not for export – since England already had coal and other sources were higher quality – but for internal consumption for power and railways. Iron was also not exploited as much as it could have been – for exactly the same reason – England had iron. Mining was done for whatever added value to the British economy rather then Indian economic needs. In agriculture, the policy of commodity price stabilization continued till WW1, despite deleterious effects on local subsistence. Indian railways were mainly meant for transport of agricultural produce to ports, military reasons or transport of people to towns of religious significance. For example, in Madras presidency small gauge railways suitable for people transport but not heavy goods was preferred for lower cost of operation, meant primarily for temple visits. Similarly meter gauge was laid in some other states including princely states. Other considerations like area development did not take precedence in the selection of railway line course. Revenue from railways was an important consideration and its role in area development was largely ignored except for military sites. Some coal mines in Bihar had good railway connections. So commodity trading, in which Britain dominated completely for 200 years, was the main denominator for determination of canal building, cash crop cultivation and railways and ports. Commodity security for the British Empire was the primary goal and all policies were tailored around the British needs. It is important to understand the economics of the empire because recently the situation has come around in a big circle. For 100 years, US commodity needs have dominated international economics. But recent US oil finds and oil self sufficiency as well as the terrorists have made USA more inward looking. This means that, with US out of the picture, the oil needs of the rest of the world, dependent on middle east, has come center stage. Brent is now trading 20 dollars higher than US sweet crudes, despite higher sulphur and poorer quality. Refineries in India, China and Europe process sour crudes and are all vying for the same Brent benchmark for middle eastern crude. Hence the 20 dollar price differential. USA will now not support more active interventions in middle east because of decreased self interest. With China's aggressive moves towards oil sufficiency, increasingly British military involvement is being required. Many times, this involvement, primarily meant for its own oil security, is cloaked in the same “White Man's Burden” terms of hypocrisy as seen in the 19th century. So Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran – every country in the area with or without oil is being actively engaged in – since China is also playing the Great Game with panache. No political niche can be left out. China (with 5 trillion is productivity) will occupy any vacuum left by the Anglo Americans, who with 20 trillion in productivity dwarf the rest of the world. If the USA balks at the military expense, Britain will have to shoulder it in its own self interest. Deployment of aircraft carriers, missiles and submarines from Britain have recently increased. They are still trying to decide whether the winning combination is still Anglo American cooperation of last 100 years or whether divergence of self interest means an Anglo European cooperation is more meaningful – since Italy, France and Germany seek the same middle eastern crude and north sea oil has dried up. Previously, with north sea oil flowing, Britain withdrew from more active involvement in the 80s and 90s and reduced military expenditure. It is of course, in India's self interest to partner Britain and USA in countering Chinese moves. India doesnt play the great game (at least not very well – mostly losing by absence). China, which is an accomplished player, will destroy India's energy and commodity security very comprehensively, given its massive appetite for commodities (much much greater than Victorian England given its population). India has messed up the nuclear deal because of internal Muslim vote related politics. Congress never pursued the alliance with the Anglo Americans – and historically it is strange that it has always not played ball despite the co-incidence of almost all economic and political objectives of India and the commonality of enemies (Islamic terror and Chinese commodity hunger). The mess up of the nuclear deal never affected UK much, except indirectly increasing Indian fossil power needs by destroying nuclear energy as a resource, reducing energy security. But current Indian stupidity driven by school textbooks which demonise British rule can greatly harm the common self interest of UK and India in energy security. India in any case is not just a novice but a bumbling idiot when it comes to self interest driven foreign policy. Instead of learning amoral international politics – amply demonstrated by British policies of 2 centuries ago detailed above - our people are still moralizing, betraying their ignorance of the rules of international politics which are amoral. It is so strange that national politics, which supposed to be moral, is practiced in such an amoral and cynical manner in India. Whereas international politics, supposed to be amoral – ends up with moralizing plattitudes from Gandhi and Nehru onwards to the current lot of Indian politicians. They are perverse and need education from the British and Americans (on their own Indian foreign policy mandarins, driven by plum posting related internal politics, will never learn) It is - and always has been - the commodity trade which determines the political stance of countries and any morality portrayed in the words used (by politicians and commentators alike) have to be taken with a pinch of salt. The more the professed the “higher morality”, the harder you should look for the hidden agenda. Every morality play in India unfortunately reflects only selfish vote bank politics. So the Muslim vote effectively negates any meaningful engagement of India with the rest of the world. The recent visit of UK envoys to Narendra Modi is probably reflective of British assessment of which govt will cooperate. Congress with its Muslim vote bank will not cooperate.. BJP will – and so despite NAMo's own little genocide in Gujrat, British have extended the hand of friendship. All these are commodity price driven.

Very early dates for Veda using internal astronomy debunked

(draft)

I have identified the problem encountered with dating of the veda using internal astronomical references.

There is in fact a big problem and I have also solved it.

Now the people dating vedic references  all use precession as the mechanism by which dating is achieved. Precession occurs because the earth wobbles on its axis like a slowing top. The star reference above shifts but the ecliptic remains the same (except small degrees of coming closer to equator in current 10,000 years which can be ignored.). Because of this the equinox keeps moving left from Taurus to Aries. So in 3000 BC it was in Taurus, in 0 it was in Aries and now in 2013 it is in Pisces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinox#Astronomy

Hipparchus in 200 BC knew it but estimated it at 1 degree per century. Now we know with modern calculations that it is in fact 1.38 degrees per century. In 10 centuries or about 1000 years, it will equal the movement of the moon in one day approximately.

Now the ancient Vedic Aryans knew nothing about precession. They knew nothing about the planets. Their life evolved around the moon and sun, mainly the moon because it is easy to see. So all their Vedic sacrifices were centered around the moon – and all the karmani still are, as those still following the Brahminic observances know.

This article is an example of the basic argument made by dating using precession

http://insa.nic.in/INSA_PDF/writereaddata/46_4_01_TRS_Prasanna.pdf

You can find another attempt here, based on Atharva Veda, below:

http://www.vedicastronomy.net/

Both authors have used precession of the equinox to calculate the time scale. First author concludes Brahmanas written in 3000 BC. Second author concludes Atharva veda written in 2400 BC. Both these estimates are well off the historical timescale. In fact, because their result was so wrong, instead of using the Reductio ad absurdum principle to reject their analysis, they have in fact done the opposite – they have claimed the ridiculous to be true !!!

They were able to do so because of the vocal presence of a fringle element which is hell bent on pushing India’s antiquity to ages where people would be living in stone age. But then using the Veda to say – no they were not in stone age, they were advanced people writing Veda – So easy to say! So person saying Brahmanas were written in 3000 BC get massive internet and political support.

Now since there is nothing wrong with the calculations, but the result which they are getting is clearly wrong, it means there is something wrong in their assumption. This is what every scientist does – if the calculation is correct but the result is wrong – take a look at the assumptions.

The obvious conclusion even to a layman like me is that the stars referred to in the Veda and in the current texts standardised in 285 AD is different. Now both authors above have given the list of stars used for their identification here

http://www.dli.gov.in/rawdataupload/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005ac0_1.pdf

http://www.vedicastronomy.net/stars.htm

Notice how the original stars identified with the later Rashi associated Nakshatras are a subject of controversy. Many of the stars do not correspond. Let us stick to the first ones for brevity and because the problem is also solved in the first few.

1.       Ashwini is identified as alpha or beta Aries by first, alpha beta Aries star cluster by second author

2.       Bharani is identified as 41 aries by both

3.       Krittika is identified as Pleiades by both

4.       Rohini is identified as Aldebaran of Taurus by both

5.       Mrighashira is identified as lambda Orion by first, because it is closer and brighter. Elnath by the second. The latter chose it to be within the Taurus

6.       Ardhra is identified as Betelgeuse by first, Al Hena of Gemini by the second

7.       Punarvasu is chosen to be appha beta i.e. Castor and Pollux bu the first, and Pollux by the second by a close margin.

While there is a broad concurrence, the second author more than the first author is choosing stars because of their existence within the rashis we know now. The first author on the other hand is chosing the brightest star in the vicinity of the ecliptic and hence is choosing stars from within the Orion.

However both are confining themselves to the Rashi signs for starting. Since Rashi signs are a post Greek invention, choosing stars from within or near the Rashi is obviously not correct.

Instead, let us start a priori.

Let us say we are the Vedic Aryans and are looking at the impressive night sky and watching our beloved moon pass near some prominent stars. We start recognising the stars and naming those near which the moon is passing. We end up naming our first star Ashwini the female horse.

Now of all the constellations in the sky, the most unimpressive is Aries (Pisces and Cancer apart). Its basically three stars in a line. Why would alpha Aries be chosen to be Ashwini, the horse with which the Aryans were obsessed?

See the picture above. I challenge you to find a horse here. Leave alone a horse, you cannot even find a Ram here. It is just alpha, beta and 41. That is seen in a line in the night sky.

Of course the Greeks did succees in drawing a Ram but it is most unconvincing as you can see above

Now instead come to Taurus above. In a star map with the 2 long horns drawn up, and the great  Orion next to it, the appearance of the whole area is striking.

The drawing above is what the Greeks made of it. My own first introduction to the night sky was through seeing Orion and Taurus head. It is very striking and impressive to look at.

But if you look at Taurus, it doesn’t look anything like a bull. One rendering is above. I show you couple of others

Nothing like a bull. are they? Some dont even use the face of the triangle to be the face of the bull.

The reason why these signs don’t look like what the star groups actually look like when seen in the night sky is because they have to be elongated over a larger area to encompass the 30 degrees of a sun sign. So all kinds of stars spanning 30 degrees are chosem

But if like the Rig Vedic Aryans, you were simply following the moon and wanted 27 or 28 star signs, meaning just 12.8 degrees of the night sky, then you will chose much smaller clusters or even a single star.

However with the Ashwins being so important in life on earth and among the Gods, they would obviously chose the figure below:

This is the part of the Taurus formed by the triangle. Now don’t the five main stars like like the head of a horse?

I have seen it in the night sky and it is most impressive. It contains Aldebaran, one of the brightest stars and the hyades. Anybody would immediately conclude that it is the head of a horse. Ashwati Ashwa Mukham pole as they say in Tamil.

After seeing this and being horse obsessed, only a person who has no understanding of human nature would ever think that the Vedic Aryans would chose Aries for their first star and name it Ashwin. They obviously chose this part of Taurus for their Ashwin.

Now, instead of saying Aldebaran itself was Ashwini, let us also say that Ashwini means the whole triangular shape with tip to the right. That is what I would do if I wanted to fix this region for a star. Maybe they even meant the tip of the nose on the right to represent the lunar mansion.

Coming to the next constellation above, the most impressive to see is Orion. It is likely that the Vedic people would chose the more impressive parts of the Orion, rather than go to the less impressive parts of Taurus or Gemini, for chosing their lunar mansions. In all likelihood they used star pointers i.e groups of stars which point to the position on the ecliptic where the moon would be.

So Bharani could be Pi Orion, since drawing a line from below to above cuts the ecliptic. In fact, drawing a line in a curve from the Pi Orioni leads to ElNath and maybe this is what the Vedic people used – using star pointers. We all do it even today.

That would make it easier to select Bellatrix Orion as Kritika. Krittika like Ashwini is a very important star and usually called a collection. Bellatrix is clearly pointed to by the belt and sword group of stars and forms a group – again a star pointer.

Rohini is a very important star as well. In this scheme it could be Betelgeuse, a red giant and very bright.

Mrighashira would be Castor and Pollux. And the rest would follow one by one, sequence doesn’t matter so much. We can chose the same stars chosen today, but with a 2 or 3 star deviation. Because What is now Rohini would be Ashwini (2 and a half star difference taking into account the tip of the horse face rather than Aldebaran itself).  That would make Pleiades Revati.

So the scheme would be

Ashwini = Aldebaran but perhaps the tip of the nose of the horse (striking star group resembles face of a horse)

Bharani = Pi Orion (unimpressive group, but points up to the ecliptic in a line with slight curve = easy to use for identifying position, especially on joining to El Nath

Krittika = Bellatrix (bright star pointed to by the belt and sword, six stars point to it

Rohini = Belelgeuse (bright red star)

Mrighashira = Castor and Pollux. (very prominent stars)

Now having decided on the beginning, we also have to ensure that the space between the stars are around 12.8 degrees (since initially there were 28 stars and then later Abhijit was dropped when the Vedic people realised that lunar day is only 27 and a quarter and not 28 as they had initially supposed.

Now the space between Aldebaran and Bellatrix is 14 degrees, which is more than the 12.8 degrees we want. But then if we use the tip of the horse face rather than Aldebaran itself as the marker, then the space becomes around 20 degrees since we gain 6 degrees. Enough to fit the Pi Orion in as Bharani but still leaving 10 degrees of movement for both stars.

Coming to the end, Rewati would be Pleiades (now called Krittika). It is a fairly impressive star to end on. When Aldebaran is visible in the sky. Rewati is also visible – so a person can point to the two and say – :look the face of the horse is the beginning and the end is in the Pleiades visible on the right). Pleiades do look like the tail hairs of a horse as well.

Again, just as we gained 6 degrees of space by moving the Ashwini to the tip of the horse’s nose, we have also lost 6 degrees of space between Krittika and Aldebaran. So the Vedic people could have said – The cycle ends when the moon is to the right of Rewati – thereby gaining some space – because there is not much in the space to the right of the Pleiades till we reach Aries (again unimpressive lot of stars). Easy to end it anywhere after alpha beta Aries.

Of course, things became more complicated when Abhijit was dropped because space needed for a Nakshatra grew to 13.3 from the previous 12.8 degrees. Maybe some rearranging was done as a consequence.

What happens with precession?

Because of precession, the dates for all festivals will keep coming later and later. Movement of a rashi is 30 degrees or one month. Precession moves 1.4 degrees a century or 14 degrees a millenium. So if Mahavrata was in December 21, after 1000 years it will fall in January 4th i.e 14 days later (because that is when moon will now reach Magha)

Weather and seasons are not so noticeably different between December end and January beginning. Maybe the longest day with sun overhead has moved 14 days but it is still ignorable. Not such a big problem noticed. So people keep living the same lives, using the same  lunar positions and following the same Vedanga Jyotishi, which is very brief as you can see below.

http://www.vedicastronomy.net/vedanga_origtext.htm

Please note that there is absolutely no rashi or sun sign system at all. There is just one clear interpolation which can be ignored as later interpolation.

Suppose the Veda was written in 3000 BC. After 3000 years the seasons would have moved noticeably to Feb 4. And peak monsoon would be ocurring during peak summer as per the moon. All sacrifices would shift and people would start to wonder why

 But if we move just 1000 years, only a 14 day movement occurs. So it is more likely that the Veda were written in 800 BC than 3000 BC, if they kept the same calendars.

(from 800 BC to 400 BC the supposed date of Laghada, there would be only 5.6 degrees of shift = 5 days)
The adjustments for Abhijit and the interpretation of WHERE exactly the moon has to be would take care of such a small shift.

Now, let  we look at the position given by the Brahmana as analysed by Prasanna

http://insa.nic.in/INSA_PDF/writereaddata/46_4_01_TRS_Prasanna.pdf

But instead of using the modern Nakshatras, if we use the corrected Nakshatras proposed by me, then things fall into place.

My Ashwin on the tip of the Aldebaran triangle is 32 degrees separate from Ashwini used by them as Alpha Aries.

Now 32 degrees of precession means 32/14 =2.2 millenia = 2200 years.

So 3000-2200 = 800.

Hence their calculation, by not taking care of the change in position of the Ashwini, was off by exactly the time period which was questionable.

So the Brahmanas were written in 800 BC, exactly as predicted by historians and linguists.

Now when did this change in identification of Ashwini take place?

It doesn’t really matter because regardless of when the change took place, with my identification of the Nakshatras, we will end up with 800 BC as the date for Brahmanas.

Still change obviously occurred when the Indians came to know of the Babylonian and Greek Astronomy. In their sophisticated foreign system, Aries was the first constellation and it was called the age of Aries. Now when the Indian astronomers came to know of this, what is more natural than to adopt Alpha Aries as the first Nakshatra? Although it looks nothing like Ashwin except by some fancied imagination.

Then Bharani becomes the last star of Aries and Krittika, always considered important, would become Pleiades. Pleiades is adequately impressive as Krittika, it shines like a small group of gems. Rohini, another important star becomes Aldebaran, disregarding the Ashwa Mukham it is a part of. And so on and so forth.

Since this change is still keeping the important Nakshatras tied to important and impressive looking stars, it would be most acceptable.

If Aryabhatta pointed to the pleiades and said – look at the glittering krittikas – it would be as impressive as Laghada pointing to the Bellatrix and the nearby belt and sword glittering there and calling it Krittikas.

Similarly if Aryabhatta points to Aldebaran and says – look that is Rohini, the birth star of Krishna, it would be equally as impressive as a Bhagavata astronomer learning of the Vedic astronomy and pointing to Betelgeus to say – that is Rohini, the birth star of our lord Krishna.

 So the change would be well acceptable.

Also, only astronomers would ask about it and they would have anyway noticed that the equinoxes had shifted and so a new Nakshatra system was any way needed to reconcile.

Now, what would be the status of precession in 300AD? Exactly 1000 years have passed since 800 BC. So 14 degrees of movement have occurred. Seasons were 14 days late. Moon was coming in the next Nakshatra. Clearly the astronomers of 300 AD would not accept this situation. But they would find it easy to change the stars to the current system especially because the most important stars, Krittika and  Rohini are coming on very impressive looking stars.

Let us keep a date of 300 AD for this for ease of calculation. Now 1700 years have passed since then. So precession has occurred at 1.4 per century = 24. Our astronomers knew about precession. But the stupid Panchangakars knew nothing and kept making mechanical calculations using Ptolemy type mechanical tables. And so Makara Sankranti falls on 14^th of January, exactly 24 days after 21^st December.

You can see how one astrologer is railing at the horror of performing the rites on the wrong days below:

http://jyotirved.blogspot.in/2005_10_01_archive.html?m=1

This tells us that the change took place in 300 AD and this event has been preserved in our history because the Panchangkars did not learn about Precession of the equinoxes from Aryabhatta and Varahamihira, who knew all about it.

Maha Shivaratri of course is celebrated in the Month of Magha. The month names of course are all changed after adoption of the sun rashis after 300 AD. So it is irrelevant to discussion on dating in history.

Let us return to the same article and read the descriptions of Krittika and compare with Orion

http://insa.nic.in/INSA_PDF/writereaddata/46_4_01_TRS_Prasanna.pdf

“3.6 Satapatha Brahmana SB 2.1.2.312 This verse states “Krittikas do not deviate from the eastern direction while all other nakshatras deviate from the eastern direction”. Dikshit [Dikshit 1895, Achar 2000] states “Now, since in popular language all nakshatras rise in the east and set in the west, we cannot understand the above description of the Krittika in the popular sense; for in that case their appearance in the east cannot be contrasted with the other nakshatras. We must, therefore, interpret the passage to mean that the Krittika were always seen due east; while other nakshatras were observed either to the right or to the left of this point. Translated into modern astronomical language this means a great deal. It means that in those days the Krittika were on the equator, or that their declination was nil, when the passage was composed”. This leads to a date of 3000 BC (zero declination) and not 2300 BC (zero longitude).”

It was the ecliptic which passes through the Pleiades in 3000 BC but currently considerably under the Pleiades. 

I think that the true celestial equator passes through the belt of Orion. As can be seen from the link below

http://kvmagruder.net/bcp/aster/constellations/Ori.htm

“Since Orion's belt of three bright stars lies upon the celestial equator, Orion is visible from every inhabited part of the globe.”

So maybe Sayana made a mistake in translation. Maybe the verse meant that the Krittikas i.e Belt of Orion is seen to rise in the east no matter how much north or south you go, because it is situated on the celestial equator,

So description of Bellatrix and the nearby belt and sword is a better identification of the Krittikas.

Again from

http://insa.nic.in/INSA_PDF/writereaddata/46_4_01_TRS_Prasanna.pdf

“ Taittiriya Brahmana TB 1.1.2.1 states that Krittika is the “mouth of the nakshatras”. TB 1.5.2.7 describes Krittika to Vishaka as Deva nakshatras and from Anuradha to Bharani as Yama nakshatras. “

These attribute to the importance of the Krittikas. My identification fulfils these criteria. Above the belt is a mouth like apprarance which can be termed the mouth of the nakshatras.

Again from

http://insa.nic.in/INSA_PDF/writereaddata/46_4_01_TRS_Prasanna.pdf

“This statement I We confirm that Krittikas were on true east. The special status of Krittika is evident from several verses in TB (quoted above). Also, TS 4.4.1013 states [Keith 1914] “(Thou art) Krittikas, the Naksatra, Agni, the deity; ye are the radiances of Agni”

Just below the belt of Orion is the sword, which has a brilliant shining but nebulous and fire like appearance. It looks as if the fire is carrying the ahutis to the Gods above (the belt). Clearly it is readily identifiable as Agni carrying the ahuti the Gods above.

, of Prajapati, of the creator,

Prajapati the father of the Gods and creator of the universe – Whole of the Orion constellation looks like a giant human – Called shepherd by the Babylonians and Hunter by the Greeks. Would the Vedic Aryans not call the whole of this constellation Prajapati ? It seems most likely to me

There is nothing near the Pleiades. It looks like the tail end. Nobody will associate Krittika with Prajapati if Krittika is pleiades.

of Soma; to the Re thee, to radiance thee, to the shining thee, to the blaze thee, to the light thee. (Thou art) Rohini the Naksatra, Prajapati the deity, Mrgasirsa the nakshatra, Soma the deity…” An entire verse is dedicated to Krittika.

Blazing the Orion is. Rohini of Betelgeus identification is within the Orion. Mrigashira i.e Castor and Pollux are nearby and might have been somehow linked to Orion, they look like two horns of a dear nearby. 

But calling Orion itself a Mrigha (if we believe the existing identification of Nakshatras) would be plain silly – the deer is a most unimpressive creature. 

Identification with Prajapati is more like it and Mrigha in Gemini is just nearby

But supposing the Pleiades to be Krittika, there is no Prajapati anywhere near. I suppose their own glitter can be the fire of Agni. But Rohini in Aldebaran is far far away. Mrighashira is nowhere near. There is no way the above description in the taittiriya Brahmana could ever be linked to Pleiades.

For all other nakshatras, only the deity is mentioned.

Clearly because only the Orion has enough starts of a striking nature to fulfil a special description. 

Now in Chinese astronomy, belt of the Orion was a lunar mansion. Most likely the belt and the Bellatrix star was also chosen by the Vedic Aryans to be their most important star.

The authors continue to say:

The special status of Krittika is clear beyond doubt and only its nature needs to be determined. Krittikas are the radiances of not just Agni, the deity of Krittika, but other Gods (Prajapati, Soma etc.) as well, even though they are deities of other nakshatras. This is only possible if Krittikas were considered to be heaven, where Gods other than Agni were also present and contributed to its radiance, light etc. This is confirmed by TS 5.3.914 that states [Keith 1914] “For all the Gods is the fire piled up… By the fire the Gods went to the world of heaven; they became yonder Krittikas”. TS 5.3.9 explicitly states that all the Gods went to Krittikas. 

The special status of Krittika is now clear; it was Heaven in Taittiriya Samhita.

I agree with the above that Krittika was heaven. Now would you find heaven near an empty sky with single glittering Pleiades? Or would you find it just above Agni, in the middle of Prajapati the creator, near Rohini and Castor/Pollus/Mrighashira?

Obviously the above analysis of the authors themselves clearly refers to the Belt or Orion and Bellatrix.

As for determining the nature of the Krittikas as stated by the authors – they are clearly looking at the wrong Krittikas. Determining nature of Kritika requires forst correct identification.

It is the Belt of the Orion. And its pointer star Bellatrix for the moon.

I think this is fairly conclusive proof.

1.       The dates match. We get 800 BC.

2.       The stars match their descriptions.

3.       The probable dates of change of Nakshatras match – in 300 AD.

4.       The reason why the Nakshatras changed is also clear.

5.       Competent astronomers to effect this change and force it through exist in Gupta period

6.       Major changes in the Brahminic religion with incorporation of Bhagavata, Muruga and other religions all come together during Gupta period to make this shift of Nakshatras possible.

Translated vedanga jyotisha is below.

http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/rawdataupload/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005abd_s1.pdf

Translator has put in a number of datable observations. However it is clear that the exact dates will have to changed keeping the changed position of the Nakshatras in mind. Since each of the datable observation is dependent on one star and we have only a +/- 15 degrees knowledge of its position even after having corrected for the shift from Ashwin (from Aeries to Taurus as detailed earlier) because every other star may have been reidentified also we really cannot get any usable dated from these procedures, using the current Nakshatras as the identification.

Also, there might have been one set of shifting around of the later stars after dropping of Abhijit. A possible second change around 400 BC is also likely when Lagadha might have lived, assuming 5 to 6 degrees of movements from the expected  800 BC date to the 400 BC date. So the exact position of the moon might have been described as behind star and then in front of star cutting the ecliptic etc to keep the counting clean. And many of the tail stars would have been changed.

So historical dating of the Vedas using Astronomical observations can at best be conjecture and at worst can lead to ridiculous dates like 3000 BC which are patently wrong based on historical and linguistic evidences