India Forum Archives
Saturday, July 08, 2006
  Aryan Invasion/migration Theories & Debates

Posted by: k.ram Oct 1 2004, 02:30 AM

Very good introduction from Dr. Rajaram to kick off this thread. http://members.tripod.com/nsrajaram/kalidas.html

Posted by: acharya Oct 1 2004, 06:36 PM

THE ARYAN INVASION: HISTORY OR POLITICS? There is a great deal of confusion over the origins of the Aryan invasion theory and even the word Arya. It explains also the use and misuse of the word. N.S. Rajaram Aryans: race or culture? The evidence of science now points to two basic conclusions: first, there was no Aryan invasion, and second, the Rigvedic people were already established in India no later than 4000 BC. How are we then to account for the continued presence of the Aryan invasion version of history in history books and encyclopedias even today? Some of the results - like Jha's decipherment of the Indus script - are relatively recent, and it is probably unrealistic to expect history books to reflect all the latest findings. But unfortunately, influential Indian historians and educators continue to resist all revisions and hold on to this racist creation - the Aryan invasion theory. Though there is now a tendency to treat the Aryan-Dravidian division as a linguistic phenomenon, its roots are decidedly racial and political, as we shall soon discover. Speaking of the Aryan invasion theory, it would probably be an oversimplification to say: "Germans invented it, British used it," but not by much. The concept of the Aryans as a race and the associated idea of the 'Aryan nation' were very much a part of the ideology of German nationalism. For reasons known only to them, Indian educational authorities have continued to propagate this obsolete fiction that degrades and divides her people. They have allowed their political biases and career interests to take precedence over the education of children. They continue to propagate a version that has no scientific basis. Before getting to the role played by German nationalism, it is useful first to take a brief look at what the word Arya does mean. After Hitler and the Nazi atrocities, most people, especially Europeans, are understandably reluctant to be reminded of the word. But that was a European crime; Indians had no part in it. The real Aryans have lived in India for thousands of years without committing anything remotely resembling the Nazi horrors. So there is no need to be diffident in examining the origins of the European misuse of the word. In any event, history demands it. The first point to note is that the idea of the Aryans as foreigners who invaded India and destroyed the existing Harappan Civilization is a modern European invention; it receives no support whatsoever from Indian records - literary or archaeological. The same is true of the notion of the Aryans as a race; it finds no support in Indian literature or tradition. The word 'Arya' in Sanskrit means noble and never a race. In fact, the authoritative Sanskrit lexicon (c. 450 AD), the famous Amarakosa gives the following definition: mahakula kulinarya sabhya sajjana sadhavah An Arya is one who hails from a noble family, of gentle behavior and demeanor, good-natured and of righteous conduct And the great epic Ramayana has a singularly eloquent expression describing Rama as: arya sarva samascaiva sadaiva priyadarsanah Arya, who worked for the equality of all and was dear to everyone The Rigveda also uses the word Arya something like thirty six times, but never to mean a race. The nearest to a definition that one can find in the Rigveda is probably: praja arya jyotiragrah ... (Children of Arya are led by light) RV, VII. 33.17 The word 'light' should be taken in the spiritual sense to mean enlightenment. The word Arya, according to those who originated the term, is to be used to describe those people who observed a code of conduct; people were Aryans or non-Aryans depending on whether or not they followed this code. This is made entirely clear in the Manudharma Shastra or the Manusmriti (X.43-45): But in consequence of the omission of sacred rites, and of their not heeding the sages, the following people of the noble class [Arya Kshatriyas] have gradually sunk to the state of servants - the Paundrakas, Chodas, Dravidas, Kambojas, Yavanas, Shakhas, Paradhas, Pahlavas, Chinas, Kiratas and Daradas. Two points about this list are worth noting: first, their fall from the Aryan fold had nothing to do with race, birth or nationality; it was due entirely to their failure to follow certain sacred rites. Second, the list includes people from all parts of India as well as a few neighboring countries like China and Persia (Pahlavas). Kambojas are from West Punjab, Yavanas from Afghanistan and beyond (not necessarily the Greeks) while Dravidas refers probably to people from the southwest of India and the South. Thus, the modern notion of an Aryan-Dravidian racial divide is contradicted by ancient records. We have it on the authority of Manu that the Dravidians were also part of the Aryan fold. Interestingly, so were the Chinese. Race never had anything to do with it until the Europeans adopted the ancient word to give expression to their nationalistic and other aspirations. Scientists have known this for quite some time. Julian Huxley, one of the leading biologists of the century, wrote as far back as 1939: In 1848 the young German scholar Friedrich Max Müller (1823-1900) settled in Oxford, where he remained for the rest of his life. ... About 1853 he introduced into the English language the unlucky term Aryan as applied to a large group of languages. ... Moreover, Max Müller threw another apple of discord. He introduced a proposition that is demonstrably false. He spoke not only of a definite Aryan language and its descendents, but also of a corresponding 'Aryan race'. The idea was rapidly taken up both in Germany and in England. It affected to some extent a certain number of the nationalistic and romantic writers, none of whom had any ethnological training. ... In England and America the phrase 'Aryan race' has quite ceased to be used by writers with scientific knowledge, though it appears occasionally in political and propagandist literature. In Germany the idea of the 'Aryan' race found no more scientific support than in England. Nonetheless, it found able and very persistent literary advocates who made it very flattering to local vanity. It therefore spread, fostered by special conditions. This should help settle the issue as far as its modern misuse is concerned. As far as ancient India is concerned, one may safely say that the word Arya denoted certain spiritual and humanistic values that defined her civilization. The entire Aryan civilization - the civilization of Vedic India - was driven and sustained by these values. The whole of ancient Indian literature: from the Vedas, the Brahmanas to the Puranas to the epics like the Mahabharata and the Ramayana can be seen as a record of the struggles of an ancient people to live up to the ideals defined by these values. Anyone regardless of birth, race or national origin could become Aryan by following this code of conduct. It was not something to be imposed upon others by the sword or by proseleytization. Viewed in this light, the whole notion of any 'Aryan invasion' is an absurdity. It is like talking about an 'invasion of scientific thinking'. Then there is also the fact that the concept of the Aryan race and the Aryan-Dravidian divide is a modern European invention that receives no support from any ancient source. To apply it to people who lived thousands of years ago is an exercise in anachronism if there ever was one. The sum total of all this is that Indians have no reason to be defensive about the word Arya. It applies to everyone who has tried to live by the high ideals of an ancient culture regardless of race, language or nationality. It is a cultural designation of a people who created a great civilization. Anti-Semitism was an aberration of Christian Euorpean history, with its roots in the New Testament, of sayings like "He that is not with me is against me." If the Europeans (and their Indian disciples) fight shy of the word, it is their problem stemming from their history. Modern India has many things for which she has reason to be grateful to European knowledge, but this is definitely not one of them. European currents: 'Aryan nation' As Huxley makes clear in the passage cited earlier, the misuse of the word 'Aryan' was rooted in political propaganda aimed at appealing to local vanity. In order to understand the European misuse of the word Arya as a race, and the creation of the Aryan invasion idea, we need to go back to eighteenth and nineteenth century Europe, especially to Germany. The idea has its roots in European anti-Semitism. Recent research by scholars like Poliakov, Shaffer and others has shown that the idea of the invading Aryan race can be traced to the aspirations of eighteenth and nineteenth century Europeans to give themselves an identity that was free from the taint of Judaism. The Bible, as is well known, consists of two books: the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament gives the traditional history of mankind. It is of course a Jewish creation. The New Testament is also of Jewish origin; recently discovered manuscripts known as the Dead Sea Scrolls show that Christianity, in fact, began as an extremist Jewish sect. But it was turned against the Judaism of its founding fathers by religious propagandists with political ambitions. In fact, anti-Semitism first makes its appearance in the New Testament, including in the Gospels. Nonetheless, without Judaism there would be no Christianity. To free themselves from this Jewish heritage, the intellectuals of Christian Europe looked east, to Asia. And there they saw two ancient civilizations - India and China. To them the Indian Aryans were preferable as ancestors to the Chinese. As Shaffer has observed: Many scholars such as Kant and Herder began to draw analogies between the myths and philosophies of ancient India and the West. In their attempt to separate Western European culture from its Judaic heritage, many scholars were convinced that the origin of Western culture was to be found in India rather than in the ancient Near East. So they became Aryans. But it was not the whole human race that was given this Aryan ancestry, but only a white race that came down from the mountains of Asia, subsequently became Christian and colonized Europe. No less an intellectual than Voltaire claimed to be "convinced that everything has come down to us from the banks of the Ganges - astronomy, astrology, metempsychosis, etc." (But Voltaire was emphatically not intolerant; he was in fact a strong critic of the Church of his day.) A modern student today can scarcely have an idea of the extraordinary influence of race theories in eighteenth and nineteenth century Europe. Many educated people really believed that human qualities could be predicted on the basis of measurements of physical characteristics like eye color, length of the nose and such. It went beyond prejudice, it was an article of faith amounting to an ideology. Here is an example of what passed for informed opinion on 'race science' by the well-known French savant Paul Topinard. Much of the debate centered on the relative merits of racial types called dolichocephalics and brachycephalics, though no one seemed to have a clear idea of what was which. Anyway, here is what Topinard wrote in 1893, which should give modern readers an idea of the level of scientific thinking prevailing in those days: The Gauls, according to history, were a people formed of two elements: the leaders or conquerors, blond, tall dolichocephalic, leptroscopes, etc. But the mass of the people, were small, relatively brachycephalic chaemeophrosopes. The brachycephalics were always oppressed. They were the victims of dolicocephalics who carried them off from their fields. ... The blond people changed from warriors into merchants and industrial workers. The brachycephalics breathed again. Being naturally prolific, their numbers [of brachycephalics] increased while the dolichocephalics naturally diminished. ... Does the future not belong to them? [Sic: Belong to whom? - dolichocephalic leptroscopes, or brachycephalic chaemeophrosopes?] This tongue-twisting passage may sound bizarre to a modern reader, but was considered an erudite piece of reasoning when it was written. In its influence and scientific unsoundness and dogmatism, 'race science' can only be compared in this century to Marxism, especially Marxist economics. Like Marxist theories, these race theories have also been fully discredited. The emergence of molecular genetics has shown these race theories to be completely false. By creating this pseudo-science based on race, Europeans of the Age of Enlightenment sought to free themselves from their Jewish heritage. It is interesting to note that this very same theory - of the Aryan invasion and colonization of Europe - was later applied to India and became the Aryan invasion theory of India. In reality it was nothing more than a projection into the remote past of the contemporary European experience in colonizing parts of Asia and Africa. Substituting European for Aryan, and Asian or African for Dravidian will give us a description of any of the innumerable colonial campaigns in the eighteenth or nineteenth century. According to this theory, the Aryans were carbon copies of colonizing Europeans. Seen in this light the theory is not even especially original. The greatest effect of these ideas was on the psyche of the German people. German nationalism was the most powerful political movement of nineteenth century Europe. The idea of the Aryan race was a significant aspect of the German nationalistic movement. We are now used to regarding Germany as a rich and powerful country, but the German people at the beginning of the nineteenth century were weak and divided. There was no German nation at the time; the map of Europe then was dotted with numerous petty German principalities and dukedoms that had always been at the mercy of the neighboring great powers - Austria and France. For more than two centuries, from the time of the Thirty Years War to the Napoleonic conquests, the great powers had marched their armies through these petty German states treating these people and their rulers with utter disdain. It was very much in the interests of the French to keep the German people divided, a tactic later applied to India by the British. Every German at the time believed that he and his rulers were no more than pawns in great power rivalries. This had built up deep resentments in the hearts and minds of the German people. This was to have serious consequences for history. In this climate of alienation and impotence, it is not surprising that German intellectuals should have sought solace in the culture of an ancient exotic land like India. Some of us can recall a very similar sentiment among Americans during the era of Vietnam and the Cold War, with many of them taking an interest in eastern religions and philosophy. These German intellectuals also felt a kinship towards India as a subjugated people, like themselves. Some of the greatest German intellectuals of the era like Humbolt, Frederick and Wilhem Schlegel, Schopenhauer and many others were students of Indian literature and philosophy. Hegel, the greatest philosopher of the age and a major influence on German nationalism was fond of saying that in philosophy and literature, Germans were the pupils of Indian sages. Humbolt went so far as to declare in 1827: "The Bhagavadgita is perhaps the loftiest and the deepest thing that the world has to show." This was the climate in Germany when it was experiencing the rising tide of nationalism. Whereas the German involvement in things Indian was emotional and romantic, the British interest was entirely practical, even though there were scholars like Jones and Colebrooke who were admirers of India and its literature. Well before the 1857 uprising it was recognized that British rule in India could not be sustained without a large number of Indian collaborators. Recognizing this reality, influential men like Thomas Babbington Macaulay, who was Chairman of the Education Board, sought to set up an educational system modeled along British lines that would also serve to undermine the Hindu tradition. While not a missionary himself, Macaulay came from a deeply religious family steeped in the Protestant Christian faith. His father was a Presbyterian minister and his mother a Quaker. He believed that the conversion of Hindus to Christianity held the answer to the problems of administering India. His idea was to create an English educated elite that would repudiate its tradition and become British collaborators. In 1836, while serving as chairman of the Education Board in India, he enthusiastically wrote his father: Our English schools are flourishing wonderfully. The effect of this education on the Hindus is prodigious. ...... It is my belief that if our plans of education are followed up, there will not be a single idolator among the respectable classes in Bengal thirty years hence. And this will be effected without any efforts to proselytise, without the smallest interference with religious liberty, by natural operation of knowledge and reflection. I heartily rejoice in the project. So religious conversion and colonialism were to go hand in hand. As Arun Shourie has pointed out in his recent book Missionaries in India, European Christian missions were an appendage of the colonial government, with missionaries working hand in glove with the government. In a real sense, they cannot be called religious organizations at all but an unofficial arm of the Imperial Administration. (The same is true of many Catholic missions in Central American countries who were, and probably are, in the pay of the American CIA. This was admitted by a CIA director, testifying before the Congress.) The key point here is Macaulay's belief that 'knowledge and reflection' on the part of the Hindus, especially the Brahmins, would cause them to give up their age-old belief in favor of Christianity. In effect, his idea was to turn the strength of Hindu intellectuals against them, by utilizing their commitment to scholarship in uprooting their own tradition. His plan was to educate the Hindus to become Christians and turn them into collaborators. He was being very naive no doubt, to think that his scheme could really succeed converting India to Christianity. At the same time it is a measure of his seriousness that Macaulay persisted with the idea for fifteen years until he found the money and the right man for turning his utopian idea into reality. In pursuit of this goal he needed someone who would translate and interpret Indian scriptures, especially the Vedas, in such a way that the newly educated Indian elite would see the differences between them and the Bible and choose the latter. Upon his return to England, after a good deal of effort he found a talented but impoverished young German Vedic scholar by name Friedrich Max Müller who was willing to undertake this ardous task. Macaulay used his influence with the East India Company to find funds for Max Müller's translation of the Rigveda. Though an ardent German nationalist, Max Müller agreed for the sake of Christianity to work for the East India Company, which in reality meant the British Government of India. He also badly needed a major sponsor for his ambitious plans, which he felt he had at last found. This was the genesis of his great enterprise, translating the Rigveda with Sayana's commentary and the editing of the fifty-volume Sacred Books of the East. There can be no doubt at all regarding Max Müller's commitment to the conversion of Indians to Christianity. Writing to his wife in 1866 he observed: It [the Rigveda] is the root of their religion and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last three thousand years. Two years later he also wrote the Duke of Argyle, then acting Secretary of State for India: "The ancient religion of India is doomed. And if Christianity does not take its place, whose fault will it be?" The facts therefore are clear: like Lawrence of Arabia in this century, Max Müller, though a scholar was an agent of the British government paid to advance its colonial interests. But he remained an ardent German nationalist even while working in England. This helps explain why he used his position as a recognized Vedic and Sanskrit scholar to promote the idea of the 'Aryan race' and the 'Aryan nation', both favorite slogans among German nationalists. Though he was later to repudiate it, it was Max Müller as much as anyone who popularized the notion of Arya as a race. This of course was to reach its culmination in the rise of Hitler and the horrors of Nazism in our own century. Although it would be unfair to blame Max Müller for the rise of Nazism, he, as an eminent scholar of the Vedas and Sanskrit, bears a heavy responsibility for the deliberate misuse of a term in response to the emotion of the moment. He was guilty of giving scriptural sanction to the worst prejudice of his or any age. Not everyone however was guilty of such abuse. Wilhem Schlegel, no less a German nationalist, or romantic, always used the word 'Arya' to mean honorable and never in a racial sense. Max Müller's misuse of the term may be pardonable in an ignoramus, but not in a scholar of his stature. At the same time it should be pointed out that there is nothing to indicate that Max Müller was himself a racist. He was a decent and honorable man who had many Indian friends. He simply allowed himself to be carried away by the emotion of the moment, and the heady feeling of being regarded an Aryan sage by fellow German nationalists. To be always in the public eye was a lifelong weakness with the man. With the benefit of hindsight we can say that Max Müller saw the opportunity and made a 'bargain with the devil' to gain fame and fortune. It would be a serious error however to judge the man based on this one unseemly episode in a many-sided life. His contribution as editor and publisher of ancient works is great beyond dispute. He was a great man and we must be prepared to recognize it. Much now is made of the fact that Max Müller later repudiated the racial aspects of the Aryan theory, claiming it to be a linguistic concept. But this again owed more to winds of change in European politics than to science or scholarship. Britain had been watching the progress of German nationalism with rising anxiety that burst into near hysteria in some circles when Prussia crushed France in the Franco-Prussian war in 1871. This led to German unification under the banner of Prussia. Suddenly Germany became the most populous and powerful country in Western Europe and the greatest threat to British ambitions. Belief was widespread among British Indian authorities that India and Sanskrit studies had made a major contribution to German unification. Sir Henry Maine, a former Vice Chancellor of Calcutta university and an advisor to the Viceroy echoed the sentiment of many Englishmen when he said: "A nation has been born out of Sanskrit." This obviously was an exaggeration, but to the British still reeling from the effects of the 1857 revolt, the specter of German unification being repeated in India was very real. Max Müller though found himself in an extremely tight spot. Though a German by birth he was now comfortably established in England, in the middle of his lifework on the Vedas and the Sacred Books of the East. His youthful flirtation with German nationalism and the Aryan race theories could now cost him dear. German unification was followed in England by an outburst of British jingoism in which Bismarck and his policies were being daily denounced; Bismarck had become extremely unpopular in England for his expansionist policies. With his background as a German nationalist, the last thing Max Müller could afford was to be seen as advocating German ideology in Victorian England. He had no choice but to repudiate his former theories simply to survive in England. He reacted by hastily propounding a new 'linguistic theory' of the Aryan invasion. So in 1872, immediately following German unification, the culmination of the century long dream of German nationalists, Friedrich Max Müller marched into a university in German occupied France and dramatically denounced the German doctrine of the Aryan race. And just as he had been an upholder of the Aryan race theory for the first twenty years of his career, he was to remain a staunch opponent of it for the remaining thirty years of his life. It is primarily in the second role that he is remembered today, except by those familiar with the whole history. Let us now take a final look at this famous theory. It was first an Aryan invasion theory of Europe created by Europeans to free themselves from the Jewish heritage of Christianity. This was to lead to Hitler and Nazism. This theory was later transferred to India and got mixed up with the study of Sanskrit and European languages. Europeans - - now calling themselves Indo-Europeans became the invading Aryans and the natives became the Dravidians. British hired Max Müller to use this theory to turn the Vedas into an inferior scripture, to help turn educated Hindus into Christian collaborators. Max Müller used his position as a Vedic scholar to boost German nationalism by giving scriptural sanction to the German idea of the Aryan race. Following German unification under Bismarck, British public and politicians became scared and anti-German. At this Max Müller worried about his position in England got cold feet and wriggled out of his predicament by denouncing his own former racial theory and turned it into a linguistic theory. In all of this, one would like to know where was the science? As Huxley pointed out long ago, there was never any scientific basis for the Aryan race or their invasion. It was entirely a product - and tool - of propagandists and politicians. Giving it a linguistic twist was simply an afterthought, dictated by special circumstances and expediency. The fact that Europeans should have concocted this scenario which by repeated assertion became a belief system is not to be wondered at. They were trying to give themselves a cultural identity, entirely understandable in a people as deeply concerned about their history and origins as the modern Europeans. But how to account for the tenacious attachment to this fiction that is more propaganda than history on the part of 'establishment' Indian historians? It is not greatly to their credit that modern Indian historians - with rare exceptions - have failed to show the independence of mind necessary to subject this theory to a fresh examination and come up with a more realistic version of history. Probably they lack also the necessary scientific skills and have little choice beyond continuing along the same well-worn paths that don't demand much more than reiterating nineteenth century formulations. It is not often that a people look to a land and culture far removed from them in space and time for their inspiration as the German nationalists did. This should made modern Indian historians examine the causes in Europe for this unusual phenomenon. It is one of the great failures of scholarship that they failed to do so. We no longer have to continue along this discredited path. Now thanks to the contributions of science -from the pioneering exploration of V.S. Wakankar and his discovery of the Vedic river Sarasvati to Jha's decipherment of the Indus script - we are finally allowed a glimpse into the ancient world of the Vedic Age. The Aryan invasion theory and its creators and advocates are on their way to the dustbin of history. Conclusion: historiography, not Indology is the answer The rise and fall of Indology closely parallels the growth and decline of European colonialism and the Euro-centric domination of Indian intellectual life. (Marxism is the most extreme of Euro-centric doctrines - a 'Christian heresy' as Bertrand Russell called it.) The greatest failure of Indology has been its inability to evolve an objective methodology for the study of the sources. Even after two hundred years of existence, there is no common body of knowledge that can serve as foundation, or technical tools that be used in addressing specific problems. All that Indologists have given us are theories and more theories almost all of them borrowed from other disciplines. If one went to botany to borrow tree diagrams for the study of languages, another went to psychology to study sacrificial rituals, and a third - followed by a whole battalion - borrowed the idea of the class struggle from Marx to apply to Vedic society. Not one of them stopped to think whether it would not be better to try to study the ancients through the eyes of the ancients themselves. And yet ample materials exist to follow such a course. With the benefit of hindsight, even setting aside irrational biases due to politics and Biblical beliefs, we can now recognize that Indology has been guilty of two fundamental methodological errors. First, linguists have confused their theories - based on their own classifications and even whimsical assumptions - for fundamental laws of nature that reflect historical reality. Secondly, archaeologists, at least a significant number of them, have subordinated their own interpretations to the historical, cultural, and even the chronological impositions of the linguists. (Remember the Biblical Creation in 4004 BC which gave the Aryan invasion in 1500 BC!) This has resulted in a fundamental methodological error of confounding primary data from archaeology with modern impositions like the Aryan invasion and other theories and even their dates. This mixing of unlikes - further confounded by religious beliefs and political theories - is a primary source of the confusion that plagues the history and archaeology of ancient India. In their failure to investigate the sources, modern scholars - Indian scholars in particular - have much to answer for. As an immediate consequence of this, the vast body of primary literature from the Vedic period has been completely divorced from Harappan archaeology under the dogmatic belief that the Vedas and Sanskrit came later. This has meant that this great literature and its creators have no archaeological or even geographical existence. In our view, the correct approach to breaking this deadlock is by a combination of likes - a study of primary data from archaeology alongside the primary literature from ancient periods. This means we must be wary of modern theories intruding upon ancient data and texts. The best course is to disregard them. They have outlived their usefulness if they had any. In the final analysis, Indology - like the Renaissance and the Romantic Movement - should be seen as part of European history. And Indologists - from Max Müller to his modern successors - have contributed no more to the study of ancient India than Herodotus. Their works tell us more about them than about India. It is time to make a new beginning. The decipherment of the Indus script - and the scientific methodology leading up to it - can herald this new beginning. Next issue In our next issue, we shall be examining the decipherment of the Indus script and its ramifications. It is a fitting that we should do so as we stand on threshold of the next millennium

Posted by: Mudy Oct 2 2004, 09:12 AM

http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/h_es/h_es_goel-m_aryan_frameset.htm by M. Lal Goel, PhD

QUOTE
Hindus collectively have no racial memory that an Aryan invasion of India took place around 1,500 B.C., contrary to what modern history teaches. None of the Hindu scriptures describe that a conquest of India occurred in ancient times. Surely the extensive Hindu scriptures would narrate the story of invasions of India, if indeed they happened. Some people misread Ramayana as describing an invasion of the South from the North. Ravana, the vanquished king from the South is not described anywhere in the Ramayana as belonging to an alien or an inferior racial stock. Ravana was indeed a scholar of the Vedas ( a Chaturvedi) and belonged to the same cultural group as the victorious Rama.

Posted by: Kaushal Oct 5 2004, 04:57 PM

For the benefit of the newcomers, i will go into a little bit of history here. Beginning over 4 years ago and lasting well over a year we had a long running thread in BR on Aryan Invasion Theories. It became a landmark thread with extensive participation from a wide variety of viewpoints. The thread was archived and I have often visited it. But lately the thread has lost its format and appears with a lot of HTML tags imbedded in the text (which i have been unable to get rid off even with a HTML compiler) and it is an effort to read thru the tags. I had archived 6 of the pagers of the thread which ran eventually to over 10 pages, in my zip disk and it has survived several crashes on my computer since it was a removable media. To cut a long story short, i have gotten permission (from shiv) to post this archived thread in my website and and it is now available for all to refer to. The thread has a very extensive collection of references which are stil very readable and relevant even after a period of 4 years. So take a peek at the thread and in fact i would recommend several visits to get to the many issues discussed.The URL is vepa.us/dir8 . There will be six clickable links on the aryan invasion once you get to this page, each corresponding to one page of the thread. BTW my website is now fully operational after i shifted content from one of the servers(kosal.org) which was hit by the hurricane last week to the other server (vepa.us). Please do visit and browse among the many topics i have posted there. http://vepa.us/dir8

Posted by: Kaushal Oct 5 2004, 06:06 PM

Incidentally my site also has extensive biblographies on many of these topics vepa.us/dir00/biblo1.htm an extensive list of books on History vepa.us/dir00/history1.htm there is also an exhaustive list of references attached to the strategic issues book which is at vepa.us/dir00/book1.htm The thread on the AIT also has an extensive reference list. The uniqueness of the site lies in the fact that it is a place where we acknowledge the convergence between strategic issues , technology, history and the traditional arts and sciences and philosophies of ancient India. It is rare to find in the world today, rife as it is with the imperatives of specialization and the facile reductionist approach of stereootyping of individuals, such a unique and broad philosophical perspective on the issues confronting us today. We are always looking for content not merely because it is polemical but that it logically espouses or confronts the significant paradigms and shibboleths of the day. No one can say that we are politically correct (or incorrect) just for the sake of being so. Although i come from a family background that is fairly liberal( e.g. live and let live) on most issues , i abhor being pigeonholed into categories such as liberal, conservative, secular etc If you are like me and fancy yourself to be a part of the broadly based philosophical tradition such as that of Sankara or Varahamihira or the more recent versions of the renaissance man like Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac newton , the bernoullis, Leonhard Euler , i think you will be stimulated by the choice of topics. The site is still in its infancy, but i plan to eventually have a modest discussion forum ,but feel free to use the I-F to debate the issues raised. I hope the other mods are not ticked of with the blatant plug, and i realize a lot of you have already visited the site. BTW, I welcome all feedback to make the site more effective.

Posted by: Kaushal Oct 7 2004, 08:47 PM

Thanks to some software wizrdry by Viren, the entire AIT thread can now be seen in 1 page http://vepa.us/dir8/Clean_AIT_KaushalBR.html

Posted by: amarnath Oct 8 2004, 12:49 AM

Quite a collection , Kaushalji Me was just wondering what this new Aryan Migration Theory is all about.... Infact , in another forum , we were discussing this AIT and i was searching for Vivekanandas quotes on it .Big Thanks to you. Strange habit i have is , i take Vivekananda's word to heart and that it MUST be true..I always question everything , not his.... unsure.gif

Posted by: sridhar k Dec 17 2004, 09:52 PM

Kosla ji, i just visited your blog and amazed by the links that you have posted. I wanted to sign the guest book, but the link does not work. Thanks Sridhar

Posted by: ashyam Dec 18 2004, 12:36 AM

In many article I read that MaxMeuller and even Romilla Thapar had backed off from Aryan Invasion Theory. Where can I find those original or more authoritative (so that that can be used as reference for discussions) statements on this? An internet reference will be very convenient. Thanks.

Posted by: Mudy Feb 23 2005, 12:00 PM

QUOTE
Dear Friends, The Penn State Vedic Society is extremely honored to host eminent scholar and scientist, Prof. Subhash Kak on Feb 25th and 26th, 2005. Prof. Kak is the Donald C. & Elaine T. Delaune Distinguished Professor of Electrical Engineering, and Professor in the Asian Studies and Cognitive Science Programs at Louisiana State University, LA. He will deliver special lectures on two very interesting and thought-provoking topics: The Aryan Invasion Theory & Consciousness and Artificial Intelligence. We look forward to seeing you all. Please visit: http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/vedicsociety/Lectures/kak.htm for the graphics version. Session topics: 1. The Aryan Invasion Theory and India's History (25th Feb, Friday, 6:30 pm, 102 Thomas, FREE ENTRY) Abstract: India's early political history and its culture and society have been traditionally analyzed on the basis of the invasion of the Aryans into the country around 1500 BC. The current status of this theory will be discussed and the newest findings from archaeology, genetics, and history of science that have a bearing on this question will be presented. 2. Consciousness and AI (26th Feb, Saturday, 11:30 am, 102 Thomas, FREE ENTRY AND FREE LUNCH) Abstract: Consciousness is the ultimate scientific mystery. Will machines ever be conscious? Does consciousness reduce the quantum wave function? What does neuroscience have to tell us about it? These questions will be examined in this talk. -------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- About the speaker: Dr. Subhash Kak joined the Louisiana State University faculty in 1979, with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. He has worked in the areas of wireless, data security, neural networks, information technology, and quantum information processing. His research on neural networks has focused on instantaneously trained neural networks (INNs) and their applications to prediction, data compression, and communications. Personal webpage: http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/hist.html Dr Kak is the Donald C. & Elaine T. Delaune Distinguished Professor at LSU and a prominent thinker. Some of his accomplished books include: 1. The wishing tree. 2. In the search of the cradle of civilization (co-authored with G.Feuerstein and D. Frawley). 3. The Gods Within: Mind, Consciousness and the Vedic Tradition.Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, 2002. ISBN 81-215-1063-5. 4. Computing Science in Ancient India, 2000. ISBN: 81-215-0985-8. (with T.R.N. Rao) (USL Press, Lafayette, LA, 1998). Technical books include: 1. Advances in Communications and Signal Processing, Springer-Verlag, 1989. (with W.A. Porter). 2. Advances in Computing and Control, Springer-Verlag, 1989. (with W.A. Porter and J.L. Aravena). 3. The Architecture of Knowledge: Quantum Mechanics, Neuroscience, Computers and Consciousness, CSC/MLBD, 2003. With Best Regards, Team Vedic Society. (www.thevedicsociety.org)

Posted by: Tulsidas Khan Feb 23 2005, 05:42 PM

Here is another article that proves the whole Aryan/Dravidian thing is a lie that was created by Europeans. http://www.atributetohinduism.com/aryan_invasion_theory.htm I really wish India was not so divided on the Aryan/Dravidian issue. Schools continue to teach students that Aryan and Dravidian are two different races. This is false and it only splits India up. There is no Aryan race and there is no Dravidian race. All Indians are of the same race.

Posted by: Sunder Feb 23 2005, 06:14 PM

QUOTE(Tulsidas Khan @ Feb 24 2005, 06:12 AM)
Here is another article that proves the whole Aryan/Dravidian thing is a lie that was created by Europeans. http://www.atributetohinduism.com/aryan_invasion_theory.htm I really wish India was not so divided on the Aryan/Dravidian issue. Schools continue to teach students that Aryan and Dravidian are two different races. This is false and it only splits India up. There is no Aryan race and there is no Dravidian race. All Indians are of the same race.
How many times are you going to post the same link over and over again.. I would like to see some fresh ideas from you.

Posted by: Mudy Feb 23 2005, 06:49 PM

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

Posted by: Mudy Feb 23 2005, 07:03 PM

http://micheldanino.voiceofdharma.com/indus.html

Posted by: k.ram Feb 24 2005, 03:53 AM

QUOTE
An ecological view of ancient India. International Journal of Humanities and Peace; 1/1/2003; Frawley, David History and Ecology Ecology is beginning to define how we look at the world and how we look at ourselves. Each geographical region in the world constitutes a special ecosystem--an interrelated habitat for plants and animals shaped by climate and terrain. These ecological factors have a strong effect on culture as well. As part of nature ourselves, society arises out of an ecological basis that we cannot ignore. Most of civilization, both in its advance and decline, reflects how people are able to manage the ecosystems in which they live and their natural resources. Human culture derives largely from its first culture, which is agriculture, our ability to work the land. This depends largely on water, particularly fresh water that is found in rivers, and flat land that can be easily irrigated. However, so far we have looked at history mainly in a non-ecological way, toting to define it according to political, economic or racial concerns. Our account of ancient history, particularly that of India, has not afforded an adequate regard to ecological factors. It has put too much weight on migration, as if culture came from the outside, rather than on the characteristics and necessities of the ecosystems in which people live and must rely upon for developing their way of life. The Aryan invasion theory is such a product of the pre-ecological age of historical theory that emphasized the movements of peoples over the natural development of culture within well-defined geographical regions. Nineteenth century thought, the product of a colonial age, found it easy to see culture as something brought in by intruders, rather than as developed by the inhabitants of a region who had to develop unique methods to harness their natural resources as shaped by the ecology around them. Ancient River Civilizations and India, the Land of the Rivers It is a well known fact that the main civilizations of the ancient world of Egypt, Mesopotamia, India (Indus Valley), and China were only possible because of the great river systems around which they developed. The rivers made these civilizations possible, not simply human invention or any special ethnic type who migrated there. If we examine these four great riverine centers of early civilization it is clear that the largest and most ideal river region in the world for developing civilization is India. Egypt grew up around one great river, the Nile that flowed through what was otherwise a dry, rainless desert. Mesopotamia had two rivers but only of moderate size, the Tigris and Euphrates, flowing through a large desert as well. Both Egypt and Mesopotamia were in subtropical regions that provided abundant warmth and sunshine for crops, but otherwise suffered from the limited size of their One or two river banks that were their sole steady. China had one large but unpredictable river, the Yellow River, which frequently overflowed its banks in various floods. It also received abundant rain. But it was centered in a cold northern region, with a limited growing season. India, on the other hand, had a massive nexus of numerous great rivers from the Indus in the West to the swamplands of the Gangetic delta in the East. It had both a warm subtropical climate and seasonal abundant rains. This river region included relatively diy regions of the northwest to the very wet regions of eastern India affording an abundance of crops both in type and quantity. The Indian river system was much larger in size and arable land, and better in climate than perhaps all the other three river regions put together. No other region of the world could so easily serve to create an agricultural diversity or the cultural richness that would go with it. Ecologically speaking, north India was the ideal place in the world for the development of a riverine civilization via agriculture. Bounded by the Himalayas in the north, and mountains on the West, East and South, this north Indian river plain is a specific geographical region and ecosystem, whose natural boundaries could easily serve to create and hold together a great civilization. It was also ideal for producing large populations that depend upon agriculture for their sustenance. This same network of rivers was ideal for communication. Not surprisingly, the Rig Veda, the oldest book of the region, is full of praise for the numerous great rivers of the region, the foremost of which in early ancient times was the Sarasvati, which flowed east of the Yamuna into the Rann of Kachchh, creating an unbroken set of fertile rivers from the Punjab to Bengal. This Vedic Goddess of speech was a river goddess. The Vedic idea of One Troth but many paths (Rigveda 1.164) probably reflects this experience of life of many rivers linked to the one sea. The Need for An Ecological View of India's History The main point of this article is that if we really want to understand the development of civilization in ancient India we cannot ignore such ecological and geographical factors. Ancient India was the ideal ecological region for the development of civilization in the ancient world. Therefore, we should look to an indigenous development of civilization in the region. We need not import its people, animals, plants, culture or civilization from the outside, particularly from barren and inhospitable Central Asia, for example, which would not have been suitable to India and which is separated from it geographically by very hard to cross mountain and desert barriers. We need to take a new ecological look at the Vedas, which so far has not been examined adequately ecologically but has been approached mainly according to linguistic, Marxist or Freudian concerns that easily miss the obvious geography or ecology of the text. If we do this, we will discover that even the oldest Vedic text, the Rig Veda, clearly describes a region of many vast rivers flowing to the sea, the most important of which was the Sarasvati. The climate that it describes of great rains and monsoons, the symbolism of the great God Indra, is also clearly that of India. The flora and fauna mentioned including the Brahma bull, water buffalo and elephant and its sacred trees of the Pipal, Ashvattha and Shamali is also that of India. The fall of the Indus or Harappan culture, just as was the case for many in the ancient world, was owing to ecological factors, something that nineteenth and early twentieth century migrationist views of history completely missed. It occurred not because of the destruction wrought by the proposed Aryan invaders but by ecological changes brought about by the drying up of the Sarasvati River around 1900 BCE. This didn't end civilization in the region but caused its relocation mainly to the more certain waters of the Ganga to the east. Such a movement is reflected in the shift from Vedic literature that is centered on the Sarasvati to the Puranic literature that is centered on the Ganges. The great Indian river system from the Panjab to Bihar is perhaps the greatest breadbasket or agricultural center in the world. Any humans in the region would have been aided by the land, the waters and the climate, affording them a great advantage in the development of language and culture as well. The natural resources provided by the riverine ecosystem of north India could uphold great civilizations over the centuries. From it the peoples and literature of the region had adequate support from nature to sustain their traditions. Southern River Regions The type of civilization developed in the rivers of north India could easily connect with the cultures developing on the rivers in the south of the country that shared a common climate and geographical ties. The other main great river region for India is the basins of the Krishna and Godavari rivers in the southeast of India, particularly Andhra Pradesh. This provides another important agricultural center in the ancient world, which has also not been examined properly. Another important river area is the Narmada and Tapti rivers in Gujarat and Maharashtra. As these were nearby the delta of the Sarasvati, they could have been an extension of it (which is perhaps why the Bhrigu Rishis of this region are so important in Vedic literature). That the civilization of north India could have bad connections with these southern cultures is also ecologically based. For this we must consider the ecological factors that existed when agriculture began to arise in the world around 10,000 BCE. Before the end of the Ice Age north India was much drier and cooler in climate. This means that if there was any pre-Ice Age basis for agriculture in north India it would have more likely come from these more suitable southern river regions which had better rainfall at that time. Conclusion We need to look at the civilization of India according to geographical and ecological imperatives that are far more certain than historical speculation conditioned by simplistic ideas of ethnicity, linguistics or migrations. In this regard the study of the Sarasvati river system by the geologists of India and linking it to the Sarasvati in Vedic literature is probably the key. Civilization is like a plant that owes its existence to the land on which it grows. We cannot ignore this important fact either for our past or for our future. The current government of India plan to link all the great rivers of the country represents such a responsible ecological approach which, inchiding reconstituting the old Sarasvan river channel, links the great future of the country with its great past. Dr. David Frawley is Director of American Institute of Vedic Studies, P.O. Box 8357, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-8357. email: vedicinst@aol.com COPYRIGHT 2003 International Journal of Humanities and Peace

Posted by: Sudhir Feb 24 2005, 11:53 AM

http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.org/articles/aid.html

Posted by: Tulsidas Khan Feb 24 2005, 05:27 PM

Nice article Sudhir. It angers me that people that speak up against the AIT are being labled as "Hindu Nationalist" or "Chauvanists." This is clearly a result of Europeans meddling in the historical studies of India. It is amazing how Indian history has been completely distorted by Europeans. I wish more Indians would start to realize that Europeans are only supressing Indian history. The whole field of "Indology" has become a complete joke. Most Indologists blindly believe in ideas that were created by Europeans to supress Indian history. Europeans basically claim that anything amazing and/or beautiful that is found in India was built by Europeans.

Posted by: agnivayu Feb 26 2005, 05:29 PM

I think supporters of the AIT should be exposed for the white racist imperialists that they are. If Hindu Chauvanists save my race from becoming extinct or worse a slave of the White man like the past, then victory to the Hindu Chauvanists !

Posted by: Sunder Feb 26 2005, 07:13 PM

QUOTE(agnivayu @ Feb 27 2005, 05:59 AM)
I think supporters of the AIT should be exposed for the white racist imperialists that they are. If Hindu Chauvanists save my race from becoming extinct or worse a slave of the White man like the past, then victory to the Hindu Chauvanists !
You are missing the point.. 1) There are NO Races. and 2) There are no Chauvinists.

Posted by: Tulsidas Khan Mar 1 2005, 07:42 PM

The whole idea is taht we are all the same race. Tehre is no such thing as the Aryan race and there is no such thing as the Dravidian race. All Indians, North, South, East and West are of the same race. White supremicists call any one who speaks up against the AIT a Hindu nationalist or a chauvanist. They do this to make themselves look great and to make the one who is speaking up look liek some kind of an extremist. Calling someone who speaks up against the AIT a "Hindu Nationalist" is idiotic because they are speaking for all the people of India, not only the Hindu population. Basically, anyone with a brain can see that the AIT is false. I won't go to deep into the whole skin color issue, but it should be pretty obvious that the skin color of a person in India depends purely on climate. For example, a person from a desert or tropical area will not have very light skin because of the hot climates in those area. But a person from a high mountainous area or a colder area will have lighter skin because of the lower temperatures.

Posted by: Mudy Mar 7 2005, 01:54 PM

http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/08kak.htm--Subhash Kak

Posted by: k.ram Mar 9 2005, 07:11 AM

xposting from "Great Indian Political Debate" === vijayk Posted: Mar 9 2005, 07:07 PM Of course, the COMMIES are wrong. When were they right? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/08kak.htm The cradle that is India March 07, 2005 Ideas about early Indian history continue to play an important role in political ideology of contemporary India. On the one side are the Left and Dravidian parties, which believe that invading Aryans from the northwest pushed the Dravidians to south India and India's caste divisions are a consequence of that encounter. Even the development of Hinduism is seen through this anthropological lens. This view is essentially that of colonial historians which was developed over a hundred years ago. On the other side are the nationalist parties, which believe that the Aryan languages are native to India. These groups cite the early astronomical dates in the Vedas, noting these texts are rooted firmly in the Indian geographical region. But Leftist scholars consider such evidence suspect, politically motivated, and chauvinistic. In recent years, the work of archaeologists and historians of science concluded that there is no material evidence for any large scale migrations into India over the period of 4500 to 800 BC, implicitly supporting the traditional view of Indian history. The Left has responded by conceding that there were probably no invasions; rather, there were many small scale migrations by Aryans who, through a process of cultural dominance, imposed their language on north Indians. The drama of text-book revisions, both during the NDA and the current UPA governments, is essentially a struggle to impose one or the other of these viewpoints. In any other country, such a fight would have fought in the pages of academic journals; but in India, where the government decides what history is, it is a political matter. 'There is no absolute objective history' Now, in an important book titled The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey out of Africa (New York: Carroll and Graf Publishers, 2003), the prominent Oxford University scholar Stephen Oppenheimer has synthesised the available genetic evidence together with climatology and archaeology with conclusions which have bearing on the debate about the early population of India. This work has received great attention in the West, and it will also interest Indians tremendously. Much of Oppenheimer's theory is based on recent advances in studies of mitochondrial DNA, inherited through the mother, and Y chromosomes, inherited by males from the father. Oppenheimer makes the case that whereas Africa is the cradle of all mankind; India is the cradle of all non-African peoples. Man left Africa approximately 90,000 years ago, heading east along the Indian Ocean, and established settlements in India. It was only during a break in glacial activity 50,000 years ago, when deserts turned into grasslands, that people left India and headed northwest into the Russian steppes and on into Eastern Europe, as well as northeast through China and over the now submerged Bering Strait into the Americas. COMMIES are WRONF, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG In their migration to India, African people carried the mitochondrial DNA strain L3 and Y chromosome line M168 across south Red Sea across the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula. On the maternal side the mtDNA strain L3 split into two daughters which Oppenheimer labels Nasreen and Manju. While Manju was definitely born in India the birthplace of Nasreen is tentatively placed by him in southern Iran or Baluchistan. One Indian Manju subclan in India is as old as 73,000 years, whereas European man goes back to less than 50,000 years. Considering the paternal side, Oppenheimer sees M168 as having three sons, of whom Seth was the most important one. Seth, in turn, had five sons which are named by him as Jahangir, H, I, G and Krishna. Krishna, born in India, is the ancestor of the peoples of East Asia, Central Asia, Oceania and West Eurasia (through the M17 mutation). This is what Oppenheimer says about M17: South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his ancestors; and sure enough we find highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India, and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a 'male Aryan Invasion of India.' Study of the geographical distribution and the diversity of genetic branches and stems again suggests that Ruslan, along with his son M17, arose early in South Asia, somewhere near India, and subsequently spread not only south-east to Australia but also north, directly to Central Asia, before splitting east and west into Europe and East Asia. Oppenheimer argues that the Eurocentric view of ancient history is also incorrect. For example, Europeans didn't invent art, because the Australian aborigines developed their own unique artistic culture in complete isolation. Indian rock art is also extremely ancient, going back to over 40,000 BC, so perhaps art as a part of culture had arisen in Africa itself. Similarly, agriculture didn't arise in the Fertile Crescent; Southeast Asia had already domesticated many plants by that time. Oppenheimer concludes with two extraordinary conclusions: 'First, that the Europeans' genetic homeland was originally in South Asia in the Pakistan/Gulf region over 50,000 years ago; and second, that the Europeans' ancestors followed at least two widely separated routes to arrive, ultimately, in the same cold but rich garden. The earliest of these routes was the Fertile Crescent. The second early route from South Asia to Europe may have been up the Indus into Kashmir and on to Central Asia, where perhaps more than 40,000 years ago hunters first started bringing down game as large as mammoths.' This synthesis of genetic evidence makes it possible to understand the divide between the north and the south Indian languages. It appears that the Dravidian languages are more ancient, and the Aryan languages evolved in India over thousands of years before migrations took them to central Asia and westward to Europe. The proto-Dravidian languages had also, through the ocean route, reached northeast Asia, explaining the connections between the Dravidian family and the Korean and the Japanese. Perhaps this new understanding will encourage Indian politicians to get away from the polemics of who the original inhabitants of India are, since that should not matter one way or the other in the governance of the country. Indian politics has long been plagued by the Aryan invasion narrative, which was created by English scholars of the 19th century; it is fitting that another Englishman, Stephen Oppenheimer, should announce its demise.

Posted by: k.ram Mar 10 2005, 06:04 AM

http://www.comparative-religion.com/hinduism/origins/

Posted by: Mudy Mar 16 2005, 01:09 PM

QUOTE
No invasion, no Aryan massacre Dr Dinesh Agarwal (Beginning with the issue, dated February 27, 2005 we are carrying this comprehensive document on the Aryan Invasion Theory. The writer here deals with all aspects of the controversial issue, extensively quoting from authoritative sources) Colin Renfrew, Professor of Archaeology at Cambridge, in his famous work, Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins, Cambridge University Press, 1988, makes the following comments about the real meaning and interpretation of Rig Vedic hymns: “Many scholars have pointed out that an enemy quite frequently smitten in these hymns is the Dasyu. The Dasyus have been thought by some commentators to represent the original, non-Vedic-speaking population of the area, expelled by the incursion of the war-like Aryas in their war-chariots. As far as I can see, there is nothing in the hymns of the Rig Veda which demonstrates that the Vedic-speaking population were intrusive to the area: this comes rather from a historical assumption about the ‘coming’ of the Indo-Europeans. It is certainly true that the gods invoked do aid the Aryas by overthrowing forts, but this does not in itself establish that the Aryas had no forts themselves. Nor does the fleetness in battle, provided by horses (who were clearly used primarily for pulling chariots), in itself suggest that the writers of these hymns were nomads. Indeed the chariot is not a vehicle especially associated with nomads. This was clearly a heroic society, glorifying in battle. Some of these hymns, though repetitive, are very beautiful pieces of poetry, and they are not by any means at all warlike. Shiva and Shambhu are not derived from the Tamil words civa (to redden, to become angry) and cembu (copper, the red metal), but from the Sanskrit roots. “...When Wheeler speaks of the Aryan invasion of the ‘land of the seven rivers, the Punjab’, he has no warranty at all, so far as I can see. If one checks the dozen references in the Rig Veda to the seven rivers, there is nothing in any of them that to me implies an invasion: the land of the seven rivers is the land of the Rig Veda, the scene of the action. Nothing implies that the Aryas were strangers there. Nor is it implied that the inhabitants of the walled cities (including the Dasyus) were any more aboriginal than the Aryas themselves. Most of the references, indeed, are very general ones such as the beginning of the hymn to Indra. (Hymn 102 of Book 9) To thee, the Mighty One, I bring this mighty hymn, for thy desire hath been gratified by my praise. In Indra, yea in him victorious through his strength, The gods have joyed at feast, and when the soma flowed. The seven rivers bear his glory far and wide, and heaven and sky and earth display his comely form. The Sun and Moon in change, alternate run their course that we, 0 Indra, may behold and may have faith...’ “The Rig Veda gives no grounds for believing that the Aryas themselves lacked forts, strongholds and citadels. Recent work on the decline of the Indus Valley civilisation shows that it did not have a single, simple cause: certainly, there are no grounds for blaming its demise upon invading hordes. This seems instead to have been a system collapse, and local movements of people may have followed it.” M.S. Elphinstone (1841), (first Governor of Bombay Presidency, 1819-27) in his magnum opus, History of India, writes: Hindu scripture.... “It is opposed to their (Hindus) foreign origin, that neither in the code (of Manu) nor, I believe, in the Vedas, nor in any book, that is certainly older than the code, is there any allusion to a prior residence or to a knowledge of more than the name of any country out of India. Even mythology goes no further than the Himalayan chain, in which is fixed the habitation of the gods... “...To say that it spread from a central point is an unwarranted assumption, and even an analogy; for, emigration and civilisation have not spread in a circle, but from east to west. Where, also, could the central point be, from which a language could spread over India, Greece, and Italy and yet leave Chaldea, Syria and Arabia untouched?” And, Elphinstone’s final verdict: “There is no reason whatever for thinking that the Hindus ever inhabited any country but their present one, and as little for denying that they may have done so before the earliest trace of their records or tradition.” Demise of Aryan Invasion Theory-III So what these eminent scholars have concluded based on the archaeological and literary evidences is that there was no invasion by the so-called Aryans, there was no massacre at Harappan and Mohenjo-daro sites, the Aryans were indigenous people, and the decline of the Indus Valley civilisation was due to some natural calamity. Presence of Horse at Indus-Saraswati Sites It is argued that the Aryans were horse-riders, used chariots for transport, and since no signs of horse was found at the sites of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro, the habitants of Indus Valley cannot be Aryans. Well, this was the case in 1930-40, when the excavation of many sites was not completed. Now numerous excavated sites along Indus Valley and along the dried Saraswati river have produced bones of domesticated horses. Dr S.R. Rao, the world-renowned scholar of archaeology, informs us that horse bones have been found, both from the ‘Mature Harappan’ and ‘Late Harappan’ levels. Many other scholars since then have also unearthed numerous bones of horses: both domesticated and combat type. This simply debunks the non-Aryan nature of the habitants of the Indus Valley and also identifies the Vedic culture with the Indus Valley civilisation. Origin of Shiva-worship The advocates of AIT argue that the inhabitants of Indus Valley were Shiva-worshippers and since Shiva cult is more prevalent among the south Indian Dravidians, therefore, the habitants of Indus Valley were Dravidians. But Shiva-worship is not alien to Vedic culture and not confined to south India only. The words Shiva and Shambhu are not derived from the Tamil words civa (to redden, to become angry) and cembu (copper, the red metal), but from the Sanskrit roots si (therefore meaning “auspicious, gracious, benevolent, helpful, kind”) and sam (therefore meaning “being or existing for happiness or welfare, granting or causing happiness, benevolent, helpful, kind”), and the words are used in this sense only, right from their very first occurrence. (Sanskrit-English Dictionary by Sir M. Monier-Williams). ...When Wheeler speaks of the Aryan invasion of the ‘land of the seven rivers, the Punjab’, he has no warranty at all, so far as I can see. Moreover, most important symbols of Shaivites are located in north India: Kashi is the most revered and auspicious seat of Shaivism which is in the north; the traditional holy abode of Shiva is Kailash mountain which is in the far north; there are passages in Rig Veda which mention Shiva and Rudra and consider him an important deity. Indra himself is called Shiva several times in Rig Veda (2:20:3, 6:45:17, 8:93:3). So Shiva is not a Dravidian god only, and by no means a non-Vedic god. The proponents of AIT also present terra-cotta lumps found in the fire-altars at the Harappan and other sites as an evidence of Shiva linga, implying the Shiva cult was prevalent among the Indus Valley people. But these terra-cotta lumps have been proved to be the measures for weighing commodities by the shopkeepers and merchants. Their weights have been found in perfect integral ratios, in the manner like 1 gm, 2 gms, 5 gms, 10 gms, etc. They were not used as the Shiva lingas for worship, but as the weight measurements. Discovery of the Submerged City of Krishna’s Dwarka The discovery of this city is very significant and a kind of clinching evidence in discarding the Aryan invasion as well as its proposed date of 1500 b.c. Its discovery not only establishes the authenticity of the Mahabharata war and the main events described in the epic, but also clinches the traditional antiquity of the Mahabharata and Ramayana periods. So far, the AIT advocates used to either dismiss the Mahabharata epic as a fictional work of a highly talented poet or would place it around 1000 b.c. But the remains of this submerged city along the coast of Gujarat were dated 3000 b.c. to 1500 b.c. In Mahabharata’s Musal Parva, the Dwaraka is mentioned as being gradually swallowed by the ocean. Krishna had forewarned the residents of Dwaraka to vacate the city before the sea submerged it. The Sabha Parva gives a detailed account of Krishna’s flight from Mathura with his followers to Dwaraka to escape continuous attacks of Jarasandh on Mathura and save the lives of its subjects. For this reason, Krishna is also known as ranchhorh (one who runs away from the battle-field). Dr S.R. Rao and his team in 1984-88 (Marine Archaeology Unit) undertook an extensive search of this city along the coast of Gujarat where the Dwarikadeesh temple stands now, and finally they succeeded in unearthing the ruins of this submerged city off the Gujarat coast. (To be concluded) www.organiser.org, March 13, 2005

Posted by: kashmir_chelvan Apr 27 2005, 08:53 AM

Aryans were a blond people who came from Europe to destroy the Dravidoids of India. Such nonsense is not tolerated on this forum. Any further posts of this kind will be deleted without warning and the postor will be put under probation. Members kindly do not respond to this postor if continues this way. -Moderator

Posted by: utepian Apr 27 2005, 09:05 AM

IB4TL. Please post on appropriate threads. Aryan Invasion/migration Theories & Debates http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=536 DNA theories of Aryan Migration http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=553

Posted by: Sunder Apr 27 2005, 10:24 AM

QUOTE(kashmir_chelvan @ Apr 27 2005, 09:23 PM)
Rama was a blond Aryan prince of 6'5'' height and blue eyes; Sita was a blonde Aryan woman was abducted by the Dravidoid Shudroid Ravana.
Is the source from Ramayana? Shloka reference please smile.gif

Posted by: k.ram Jul 1 2005, 03:27 AM

ARYANS: A PEOPLE OR AN OBSESSION? The Aryan problem is a modern European creation that has no relevance to ancient India. The invasion is the tail wagging the Aryan dog. N.S. Rajaram Who were the Aryans? No single aspect of ancient Indian history and historiography has so dominated discourse as the so-called ‘Aryan problem.’ There is the Aryan invasion (or migration), which is supposed to have brought the Vedic civilization and the ‘Aryan’ language (Sanskrit) the Aryan race and even an Aryan nation thousands of years later, of all places in Germany! Even archaeology has not escaped the Aryan assault with scholars claiming that the Harappan civilization was non-Aryan, destroyed by the invading Aryans, who, of all things are supposed to have introduced the horse into India. Never mind the fact that horse fossils in India are over a million years old. What is the reality? In the whole of the Rigveda, consisting of ten books with more than 1,000 hymns, the word “Arya” appears fewer than 40 times. It may occur as many times in a single page of a modern European work, like for example, in Hitler’s Mein Kampf. As a result, any modern book or even a discussion on the “Aryan problem” is likely to be a commentary on the voluminous 19th and 20th century European literature on the Aryans having little or no relevance to ancient India. This is simply a matter of the sources: not only the Rigveda, but also the whole body of ancient literature that followed it have precious little to say about Aryans and Aryanism. It was simply an honorific, which the ancient Sanskrit lexicon Amarakosha identifies as one of the synonyms for honorable or decent conduct. There is no reference to any “Aryan” type. A remarkable aspect of this vast “Aryanology” is that after two hundred years and at least as many books on the subject, scholars are still not clear about the Aryan identity. At first they were supposed to be a race distinguished by some physical traits, but ancient texts know nothing of it. Scientists too have no use for the “Aryan race.” As far back as 1939, Julian Huxley, one of the great biologists of the 20th century, dismissed it as part of “political and propagandist” literature. Recently, there have been attempts to revive racial arguments in the name of genome research, but eminent geneticists like L. Cavalli-Sforza and Stephen Oppenheimer have rejected it. The M17 genetic marker, which is supposed to distinguish the “Caucasian” type (politically correct for Aryan), occurs with the highest frequency and diversity in India, showing that among its carriers, the Indian population is the oldest. Natural history of modern humans There have been some strange claims in the name of genome research, going so far as to claim that they support the Aryan invasion. But here is what world leading geneticists like L. Cavalli-Sforza and S. Oppenheimer have to say: Our ancestors used to live in Africa 150,000 years ago. A small group of homo sapiens left Africa some 80,000 years ago and settled along the South Asian coast from where they spread out to colonize different parts of the world. All non-Africans in the world today are descendants of a small group of South Asians living south of a line from Yemen to the Himalayas, especially along the Indian coast. This ‘founder group,’ from which all non-Africans are descended, barely survived the fallout from a volcanic eruption in Sumatra known as the ‘Toba Explosion’ 74,000 years ago. This is roughly the story of our past growing out of more than fifty years of intensive mapping of human genes and climate changes by different scientists. By relating these movements to ecological upheavals, what we obtain is the genetic history of modern humans correlated with the natural history of our planet. Climate changes have been the drivers of both evolution and migration, and hence the growth and decline of civilizations. Equally interesting is the message of the M17 genetic marker, which some have sought to identify with the ‘Aryan’ gene. It appears in India, Iran, Eurasia and Europe, but exhibits the greatest frequency and diversity in India showing that among its carriers, the Indian population is the oldest. This means that proponents of the Aryan invasion (or migration) have got both the origin and the direction of movement wrong. (See migration map. Source: Out of Eden by Stephen Oppenheimer.) It is important to interpret this properly. It does not mean that there were no non-African humans before the Toba Explosion, but only that no descendants of those earlier populations have survived outside Africa. A group out of Africa 120,000 years ago made its way to Egypt but disappeared 90,000 years ago without a genetic trace. All Europeans living today are descended from South Asians, possibly as recently as 40,000 years ago. South Asia, India in particular, was the jumping off point for the colonization East Asia, Southeast Asia, Australia and ultimately the Americas. This raises some questions for theories about Indian history and anthropology created during the colonial era. Leaving aside pseudo-scientific theories about race and language, which have been discredited by science but continue in various guises in some academic circles, it shows that both the so-called adivasis (tribals or aborginals) and the caste Hindus share a common African origin. The same is true of Dravidians and Dalits. Tail wagging the dog It is a similar situation with the Aryans as a linguistic group, which is what some scholars, sensitive to the disrepute that race theories have fallen into are proposing. But the vast body of Indian literature on linguistics, the richest in the world going back at least to Yaska and Panini, knows nothing of any Aryan language. The German-born Friedrich Max Müller made his celebrated switch from Aryan race to Aryan language only to save his career in England following German unification, when the British began to see Germany as a major threat. The “Aryan nation” was the battle cry of German nationalists. It was German nationalists, not ancient Indians who were obsessed with their Aryan ancestry. All this means that the “Aryan problem” is a non-problem— little more than an aberration of historiography. It has been kept alive by a school of historians with careers and reputations at stake. According to its advocates, the Vedic language and literature are of non-Indian origin. In the words of Romila Thapar, a prominent advocate of the non-indigenous origin theory: “The evidence for the importation of the earliest form of the language [Vedic] can hardly be denied.” (Foreword to Aryans and British India by Thomas Trautmann (1997), Vistaar Publications: New Delhi, page xiv.) In other words, Aryans are needed because without them there can be no Aryan invasion (or migration). The invasion is the tail that wags the Aryan dog. In the face of this overwhelming evidence, it is best ignore labels and stereotypes like ‘Aryan’ and ‘Dravidian’ and look simply at the record of the people who lived in India and created her unique civilizations. This is the spirit in which my colleagues and I study history— as a combination of natural history and the human record. __________ Dr. N.S. Rajaram is is a mathematician who has worked in population genetics, and the author of several books on ancient history including Vedic Aryans and the Origins of Civilization with David Frawley and The Deciphered Indus Script with Natwar Jha.

Posted by: Mudy Jul 8 2005, 12:46 PM

QUOTE
Call for Papers And Participation in a Seminar on Socio-political Implications of Aryan Invasion Theory (Moderated By: Dr. Srinivasan Kalyanaraman) This is a Call for Papers on the Socio-Political Implications of the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT). A seminar followed by a workshop on this subject will be held as part of the Human Empowerment Conference in Houston during Sept 16-18, 2005. The submissions and the ensuing debate at the conference among the thinkers present is expected to culminate into a position paper on this topic. The position paper alongwith the proceedings of this seminar will be made available widely, and it is hoped that it would have a bearing on popular but erroneous notions that are derivative of AIT. Background Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) has been a major pre-occupation in intellectual debates for nearly 200 years. AIT was proposed and elaborated upon by many indologists both in India and abroad as a framework for understanding the history of ancient India. AIT was started as a theory for comparative study of languages because of common language terms among languages of India, Greece and many European countries. As archaeological discoveries pointed to the indigenous emergence of Indian civilization about 5000 years ago, and continuity of the culture in India, (with little archaeological evidence for the movement of any 'Aryan' people into India), AIT proponents have suggested modified theories such as Aryan Migration Theory, Aryan Trickle-in Acculturation Theory. AIT (and its variants) has not been a mere historical theorization. Apart from monopolizing academic discourses, it has had profound social and political implications in India, fomenting: * a divisive 'dravidian' movement in Tamilnadu * so-called Aryan-dravidian divide referring to the 'aryan north' and the 'dravidian south' * caste conflicts within Indian society assuming a ranking among 'castes' * stereotyping of 'tribes' as original settlers justifying colonial regimes to 'civilise' tribal communities Pre-occupation with AIT has also prevented a systematic study of an unbiased and true history of science and technology in ancient India and the contributions made by Bharatam Janam (a term used in Rigveda to connote the 'people of the nation of Bharata') to the crystallization of India's national identity and essential unity of the nation. Objectives * survey the contributions made by archaeologists, historians, scholars of a number of disciplines in support of and against the AIT * analyse the socio-cultural-political implications of AIT (and its modified forms) in terms of * distortions created in the study of ancient Indian history * distortions of the contributions made by jaati and janajaati (NOT castes which is derived from a Portuguese word meaning 'race') to Indian thought, culture, ethos and traditions * distortions in the political discourse of the nation on issues related to 'castes' and 'tribes' * present alternative perspectives for studying Indian civilization in terms of * Sanatana dharma (dhamma) as a framework for studying the evolution of Indian thought * Contributions of Indian thought, science and technology to world culture and heritage * Research methodologies based on Indian traditions of tri-varga of s'ruti-tantrayukti-anubhuti instead of blind reliance on Hegelian dialectical method. * Deliberate upon and propose an action plan for * Further areas of research * Steps to undo the negative impacts of AIT on Indian polity and socio-cultural development * Steps to correct the distortions and present a true perspective of Indian civilization in school text-books Scholars are requested to submit papers in digital form (MS Word) to facilitate publication in seminar proceedings. The seminar will be followed by a workshop where an annual action plan will be developed in three distinct general areas: (i) Ideology - further research that needs to be undertaken in this subject area, (ii) Awareness - how to package the intellectual output and propagate among the masses, and (iii) Action - what collective action to take to undo the damage done to the society by AIT and its socio-political derivatives. The Seminar will be moderated by Dr. Srinivasan Kalyanaraman ( http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati ). ****** How to participate: Submissions can be sent to : Anand Rajaram Seminar Coordinator E-mail: ait-seminar@vhs-net.com Deadline for submission of abstracts: Last week of July 2005 Deadline for submission of completed paper: First week of September 2005 Prospective participants are cordially invited to be present at the conference during Sept. 16th-18th, 2005, in Houston, Texas, USA. Details of the Third Annual Human Empowerment Conference can be obtained from the Seminar Coordinator. All prospective participants living in the U.S. and Canada are highly encouraged to attend the seminar and workshop in person. Participants from India and elsewhere can participate via teleconferencing. Appropriate facilities for remote participation will be provided by the conference organizers. Further information about the conference is available from: Third Annual Human Empowerment Conference 2005 Organizing Committee Shri Dilip Mehta Tel. 281-491-7299 Shri Vijay Kumar Tel. 615-646-1875 Dr. Raj Dave Tel. 847-274-0459 E-mail: ait-seminar@vhs-net.com

Posted by: YAMIRB Sep 2 2005, 12:58 PM

Not waht you have read but what do you guys conclude? who we are and where did we come from? theories only please. no loooooooooooooooooong articles. what do YOU think is the truth?

Posted by: Viren Sep 2 2005, 01:11 PM

Yamirb: Welcome to the forum. Moved your post here... please don't open threads for topics already under discussion.

Posted by: YAMIRB Sep 2 2005, 06:21 PM

QUOTE(Viren @ Sep 3 2005, 02:41 AM)
Yamirb: Welcome to the forum. Moved your post here... please don't open threads for topics already under discussion.
*
will keep in mind. This tread is great collection of information, but most what do we conclude. It would be nice to know what conclusions have the members come to about who we Indians originally are.

Posted by: Kaushal Sep 14 2005, 03:15 AM

QUOTE(YAMIRB @ Sep 2 2005, 05:21 PM)
QUOTE(Viren @ Sep 3 2005, 02:41 AM)
Yamirb: Welcome to the forum. Moved your post here... please don't open threads for topics already under discussion.
*
will keep in mind. This tread is great collection of information, but most what do we conclude. It would be nice to know what conclusions have the members come to about who we Indians originally are.
*
As in other instances of great civilizations with a great deal of antiquity, the answers are not simple. But some conclusions do emerge; 1. India and its civilization is a land of antiquity much more so than previously imagined. 2. The people who inhabit this vast subcontinent have lived there from a trime before recorded history (8000 years ago) 3.The ethnc diversity that we see in India today has been a part of the Inidian landscape for a long long time and is not a new phenomenon. We do not know when mass migratins occurred except that they muct have happened a a very long time ago. 4.There is no evidence in our traditions of a so called aryan invasion. But thereis far more evidence of Indians (Vedics) having migrated to other parts of the planet and carrying the Indian civilization and the roots of teIndo europeanntraditions with them 5. The greek civilizaton especially the Ionians and their predecessors the Trojans had much in common with the rest of the asian continent and the ancient Persians and the indics. 6.The Indic civilization was widespread then and remains so even today. 7. We should not judge the past of India by the traits that we see in India today. India remains today a wounded civilizatin (wounded both in spirit and body) but is in the process of rejuvenating its past vigor and standing.

Posted by: Viren Oct 6 2005, 12:44 PM

fwd mail: ------------ The following will impact significantly Indian Polity and discourse in the years to come --since many assumptions of the political parties at least in the South seems to be under question-- RV http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history5.shtml One of the most controversial ideas about Hindu history is the Aryan invasion theory. This theory, originally devised by F. Max Muller in 1848, traces the history of Hinduism to the invasion of India's indigenous people by lighter skinned Aryans around 1500 BCE. The theory was reinforced by other research over the next 120 years, and became the accepted history of Hinduism, not only in the West but in India. There is now ample evidence to show that Muller, and those who followed him, were wrong. Why is the theory no longer accepted? The Aryan invasion theory was based on archaeological, linguistic and ethnological evidence. Later research has either discredited this evidence, or provided new evidence that combined with the earlier evidence makes other explanations more likely. Modern historians of the area no longer believe that such invasions had such great influence on Indian history. It's now generally accepted that Indian history shows a continuity of progress from the earliest times to today. The changes brought to India by other cultures are not denied by modern historians, but they are no longer thought to be a major ingredient in the development of Hinduism. Dangers of the theory The Aryan invasion theory denies the Indian origin of India's predominant culture, but gives the credit for Indian culture to invaders from elsewhere. It even teaches that some of the most revered books of Hindu scripture are not actually Indian, and it devalues India's culture by portraying it as less ancient than it actually is. The theory was not just wrong, it included unacceptably racist ideas: a.. it suggested that Indian culture was not a culture in its own right, but a synthesis of elements from other cultures b.. it implied that Hinduism was not an authentically Indian religion but the result of cultural imperialism c.. it suggested that Indian culture was static, and only changed under outside influences d.. it suggested that the dark-skinned Dravidian people of the South of India had got their faith from light-skinned Aryan invaders e.. it implied that indigenous people were incapable of creatively developing their faith f.. it suggested that indigenous peoples could only acquire new religious and cultural ideas from other races, by invasion or other processes g.. it accepted that race was a biologically based concept (rather than, at least in part, a social construct) that provided a sensible way of ranking people in a hierarchy, which provided a partial basis for the caste system h.. it provided a basis for racism in the Imperial context by suggesting that the peoples of Northern India were descended from invaders from Europe and so racially closer to the British Raj i.. it gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British Raj, who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier j.. it downgraded the intellectual status of India and its people by giving a falsely late date to elements of Indian science and culture

Posted by: Viren Oct 7 2005, 02:09 PM

fwd email

QUOTE
This is history of hindu civilization as BBC sees it now (2005). Some progress, this, thanks to the magnificent efforts made by scholars in search of satyam. We have miles to go in undoing the mischief by the likes of William Jones frauds now shown wearing skull-caps on marble panel in a chapel of Oxford College. The next step should be to have this insulting panel humiliating the hindu, removed from the chapel which is no place for such duplicity. Thanks to Arindam Chakrabarti and Rajiv Malhotra for unravelling this fraud. Dhanyavaadah. Kalyanaraman History Hinduism has a long and complex history. It is a blend of ancient legends, beliefs and customs which has adapted, blended with, and spawned numerous creeds and practices. Please note: The 'traditional' view of Hindu history, as described in this section, has been challenged by modern scholars. In particular, various scholars have advanced the following theories: - Hindu religion pre-dated 3000BCE - 'Aryan', a Sanskrit word meaning 'noble', does not refer to an invading race at all - The Aryans did not invade but migrated gradually - The Aryans were native to the area, or found there long before the alleged invasion - Hinduism originated solely in India There is ongoing controversy over which version of Hindu history is the correct one. Find out why the Aryan Invasion Theoryis so controversial. Prehistoric religion: (3000-1000 BCE) The earliest evidence for elements of the Hindu faith dates back as far as 3000 BCE. Archaeological excavations in the Punjab and Indus valleys (right) have revealed the existence of urban cultures at Harappa, the prehistoric capital of the Punjab (located in modern Pakistan); and Mohenjo-daro on the banks of the River Indus. Archaeological work continues on other sites at Kalibangan, Lothal and Surkotada. The excavations have revealed signs of early rituals and worship. - In Mohenjodaro, for example, a large bath has been found, with side rooms and statues which could be evidence of early purification rites. - Elsewhere, phallic symbols and a large number statues of goddesses have been discovered which could suggest the practice of early fertility rites. This early Indian culture is sometimes called the Indus Valley civilisation. Pre-classical (Vedic) (2000 BCE - 1000) Some time in the second millennium BCE the Aryan people arrived in north-west India. The Aryans (Aryan means noble) were a nomadic people who may have come to India from the areas around southern Russia and the Baltic. They brought with them their language and their religious traditions. These both influenced and were influenced by the religious practices of the peoples who were already living in India. Worship - The Indus valley communities used to gather at rivers for their religious rituals. - The Aryans gathered around fire for their rituals. - The Indus valley communities regarded rivers as sacred, and had both male and female gods. - The Aryan gods represented the forces of nature; the sun, the moon, fire, storm and so on. Over time, the different religious practices tended to blend together. Sacrifices were made to gods such as Agni, the God of Fire, and Indra, the God of storms. Writings Aspects of the Aryan faith began to be written down around 800 BCE in literature known as the Vedas. These developed from their oral and poetic traditions. You can see some of the Vedic tradition in Hindu worship today. The Caste System The Aryans also introduced the varna system (varna = estates or classes) to India, which may have contributed to the caste systemwe see today. Some think that it developed from a simpler two-tier structure consisting of nobles at the top, and everyone else below. Others say that it was established and practised by the priests who divided society into three parts: - The priests (or Brahmins). - The warriors (the Kshatriyas). - The ordinary people. The rise of Jainism and Buddhism (800-600 BCE) Buddhism and Jainism emerged from India around 800-600 BCE, a period of great cultural, intellectual and spiritual development, and both had an enormous influence on Hinduism. Some of the previously accepted truths of the religion were beginning to be questioned and the religious leaders were being asked to defend their views and teachings. Furthermore, the old tribal structure of society was diminishing. The result was an increasing number of breakaway sects, of which Buddhism and Jainism were probably the most successful. Buddhism Buddha was born in the sixth century BCE as Gautama Siddhartha. He was a member of the powerful warrior class. He renounced the pleasures and materialism of this world to search for the truth. Through this quest he developed his basic principles for living. Buddhism became the state religion of India in the third century BCE. Buddhism had a great influence on Hinduism, from the way it used parables and stories as a means of religious instruction, to its influence on Indian art, sculpture and education. Jainism The founder of the Jains, Mahavira ("the great hero"), was a near contemporary of the Buddha's and he rejected the caste system, along with the Hindu belief in the cycle of births. Mahavira was the twenty fourth of the Tirthankaras, the "Path-makers", or great teachers of Jainism They developed the concept of three ways, or "jewels" - right faith, right knowledge and right conduct. The Jains were never a numerically large group but their influence was out of all proportion to their size and distribution. Mahatma Gandhi, whilst himself not a Jain, embraced their doctrine of non-violence to living things. The End of the Era During the last centuries of the previous era, the Mauryan empire ruled much of India. The most famous ruler, Asoka, although a Buddhist himself, thought that the Brahman religion was worthy of respect. Brahmanism revived with the end of Mauryan rule, and at the same time devotion to individual gods, such as Vishnu and Siva, began to grow. Some of the early Hindu images date from this period. The Start of the Current Era The first 400 years CE were a time of upheaval in the Hindu heartland. A variety of invaders ruled the area, bringing injections of their own cultures and beliefs. Hinduism strengthened, and the cults of individual gods grew stronger. Goddesses, too, began to attract followers. The Rise of "Hinduism" The years to 1000 CE saw Hinduism gaining strength at the expense of Buddhism. Some Hindu rulers took military action to suppress Buddhism. However it was probably developments in Hinduism itself that helped the faith to grow. Hinduism now included not only the appeal of devotion to a personal god, but had seen the development of its emotional side with the composition and singing of poems and songs. This made Hinduism an intelligible and satisfying road to faith to many ordinary worshippers. The Arrival of Islam Islam arrived in the Ganges basin in the 7th century, but its influence was not really felt until the Turks arrived in the 11th and 12th centuries CE. Islam and Hinduism were in conflict because, although the mystical traditions of both religions had some common ground, Muslim rulers sought to conquer Hindu territories and, from the 17th century, to assert the superiority of Islam. Islam was established — and flourished — chiefly in areas where Buddhism was in a process of slow decline, that is mainly around modern-day Pakistan, Bangladesh and Kashmir. Hinduism remained strongest in the south of India. **Western Influence * *Hinduism as it is known and recognised today has been greatly affected by the influence of western thought and practices. In the 18th and 19th centuries, missionaries from Europe attempted to convert Hindus to Christianity with varying degrees of success. This challenged Hindu leaders to reform many practices and in some cases, revive old practices. This period has been recognised as a period of Hindu revivalism. Rammohan Roy An early leader in this field was Rammohan Roy (1772-1833), a scholar who spoke Arabic, Persian, Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Sanskrit alongside his native Bengali. He read most of the religious scriptures from around the world and discovered that there was little difference between them. In 1828, he founded the Brahmo Samaj, based on the teachings of the Upanishads. Whilst he based much of his work on the teachings of the Upanishads, his social outlook was progressive and he was keen to develop education and particularly the establishment of western sciences into Indian culture. Rammohan Roy died in Bristol of meningitis while on a visit to Europe. There is a statue of him at College Green in Bristol. Ramakrishna Paramahamsa Another school of Hinduism developed under the influence of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa (1836-86) who put much greater emphasis on devotion to God. He combined the trend of popular Hinduism with its many images with a belief in a loveable Almighty God, for he could see God in many forms. He preached without a complicated theology and without an over-reliance on the scriptures. It was a pluralist approach to Hinduism which helped it to find its feet in the modern world. Swami Vivekananda The work of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa was continued and extended by Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902) who, after 12 years of ascetic study and discipline, was responsible for promoting the Hindu tradition and thought in the west. He taught that the divine is in everything and promoted the Ramakrishna Mission which is well known for its social work as well as being a focus for Hindu religious thought. International Society for Krishna Consciousness More often known as the Hare Krishnas, the movement is often recognised as the western face of Hinduism. Its origins can be traced back to Chaitanya, a fifteenth century devotee of Krishna, who chanted devotional songs to Krishna. His teachings were promoted in the 20th century by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, who had a vision of taking the message of Chaitanya to the west shortly before his death in 1936. This work was taken up by Prabhupada who took that message to the United States and eventually established bases around the world to promote those teachings. The Aryan Invasion Theory* One of the most controversial ideas about Hindu history is the Aryan invasion theory. This theory, originally devised by F. Max Muller in 1848, traces the history of Hinduism to the invasion of India's indigenous people by lighter skinned Aryans around 1500 BCE. The theory was reinforced by other research over the next 120 years, and became the accepted history of Hinduism, not only in the West but in India. There is now ample evidence to show that Muller, and those who followed him, were wrong. *Why is the theory no longer accepted?* The Aryan invasion theory was based on archaeological, linguistic and ethnological evidence. Later research has either discredited this evidence, or provided new evidence that combined with the earlier evidence makes other explanations more likely. Modern historians of the area no longer believe that such invasions had such great influence on Indian history. It's now generally accepted that Indian history shows a continuity of progress from the earliest times to today. The changes brought to India by other cultures are not denied by modern historians, but they are no longer thought to be a major ingredient in the development of Hinduism. *Dangers of the theory* The Aryan invasion theory denies the Indian origin of India's predominant culture, but gives the credit for Indian culture to invaders from elsewhere. It even teaches that some of the most revered books of Hindu scripture are not actually Indian, and it devalues India's culture by portraying it as less ancient than it actually is. The theory was not just wrong, it included unacceptably racist ideas: - it suggested that Indian culture was not a culture in its own right, but a synthesis of elements from other cultures - it implied that Hinduism was not an authentically Indian religion but the result of cultural imperialism - it suggested that Indian culture was static, and only changed under outside influences - it suggested that the dark-skinned Dravidian people of the South of India had got their faith from light-skinned Aryan invaders - it implied that indigenous people were incapable of creatively developing their faith - it suggested that indigenous peoples could only acquire new religious and cultural ideas from other races, by invasion or other processes - it accepted that race was a biologically based concept (rather than, at least in part, a social construct) that provided a sensible way of ranking people in a hierarchy, which provided a partial basis for the caste system - it provided a basis for racism in the Imperial context by suggesting that the peoples of Northern India were descended from invaders from Europe and so racially closer to the British Raj - it gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British Raj, who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier - it downgraded the intellectual status of India and its people by giving a falsely late date to elements of Indian science and culture http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/index.shtml

Posted by: ashyam Oct 7 2005, 03:15 PM

The above mails are from BBC Hinduism page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/index.shtml

Posted by: bengurion Oct 11 2005, 12:50 AM

http://www.bharatavarsha.com/iyer/iyergenetics.html Check this as well... Many of the Dalitstan websites quote these as proof of AIT!! and for brahmin bashing. bengurion

Posted by: unarayanadas Oct 13 2005, 02:08 AM

Please read David Frawley to understand how proselytizing and vested (leftist) political interests act in tandem to perpetuate the myth of 'Aryan Invasion Theory': Unfortunately the Eurocentric approach of the Aryan invasion theory has not been questioned more, particularly by Hindus. Strangely, even the anti-colonial Marxists have taken it up this colonial view as their own. Even though Indian Vedic scholars like Dayananda Sarasvati, Tilak and Aurobindo rejected it, most Hindus today passively accept it. They allow Western, often Christian scholars to interpret their history for them and quite naturally Hinduism is kept in a reduced role. Many Hindus still accept, read or even honor the translations of the Vedas done by such nineteenth century Christian missionary scholars as Muller, Griffith, Monier-Williams and H.H. Wilson. Frawley put things in perspective: Would modern Christians accept an interpretation of the Bible or Biblical history done by Hindus aimed at converting them to Hinduism? Universities in India still use these Western history books and Western Vedic translations that propound these views which denigrate their own culture and country. The modern Western academic world is sensitive to criticisms of cultural and social biases. For scholars to take a stand against this biased interpretation of the Vedas would indeed cause a reexamination of many of these historical ideas which cannot stand objective scrutiny.But if Hindu scholars are silent or passively accept the misinterpretation of their culture, it will undoubtedly continue, but they will have no one to blame but themselves. It is not an issue to be taken lightly because how a culture is defined historically creates the perspective from which it is viewed in the modern social and intellectual context all over the world. Tolerance is not in allowing a false view of ones own culture and religion to be propagated without question. That is merely self-betrayal. (Emphasis added) The full article may be read here: http://www.hindubooks.org/david_frawley/myth_aryan_invasion/ Please also read "Will India Survive As Bharat?" in this forum in the memeber articles section.

Posted by: k.ram Oct 14 2005, 08:17 PM

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/A/Ar/Aryan_invasion_theory.htm

QUOTE
Questioning the theory Accepted generally when it was first propounded, this theory has since been questioned on two fundamental grounds: firstly, whether the Aryans came through bloody (The act of invading; the act of an army that invades for conquest or plunder) invasions or through peaceful (The movement of persons from one country or locality to another) migration, and secondly, whether the Aryans came from outside the Indian subcontinent at all. The issues raised by these lines of questioning are discussed in the subsequent paragraphs. ----

Posted by: Aryawan Nov 2 2005, 06:01 PM

As BBC proves Vivekananda right after a century... Saturday October 29 2005 09:27 IST S Gurumurthy ‘‘Do not believe such silly things as there was a race of mankind in South India called Dravidians differing widely from another race in northern India called the Aryans. This is entirely unfounded.’’ This is not from a saffron scholar of the 21st century. But Swami Vivekananda said it before an audience in the then Madras city as the 19th century was drawing to a close. Not knowing where the bright Aryans came from, ‘‘of late, there was an attempt made to prove,’’ he laughed and said: ‘‘Aryans lived on the Swiss lakes.’’ Yet the theory trotted out by F.Max Mueller in 1848 tracing the history of Hinduism to the invasion of indigenous people by Aryans around 1500 BC has obsessed India since then. It is now well known that the scholarly work of Max Mueller, once considered independent, was bought by the East India Company, and was thus a colonial view. Even as Swami Vivekananda dismissed Max Mueller’s theory as silly, he lauded Mueller’s work on Indian scriptures as next only to that of Sayanacharya. Max Mueller’s theory dominated the Indian academic and intellectual debate and politics of the 20th century and wrought havoc in the national psyche since then. It divided and disturbed the national mind; even threatened to sever southern India from the rest. Any dissent towards this view is even now castigated and isolated, as a sort of intellectual terrorism holds sway. But sustained and strenuous work by dedicated scholars has decimated this silly theory over the last hundred years. Yet, billions of pages of instruction in schools and colleges have, since Max Mueller expounded this view, enduringly poisoned and damaged the Indian psyche. And here comes a confession from a source linked to the very perpetrators of this intellectual crime, the ex-colonisers, that the theory, which Swami Vivekananda dismissed as silly, seems silly after all! Weeks back the BBC website came out with the startling disclosure that ‘‘there is now ample evidence to show that Max Mueller and those who followed him were wrong.’’ Answering ‘‘why the theory is no longer accepted,’’ the BBC says that ‘‘the Aryan invasion theory was based on archaeological, linguistic and ethnological evidence’ and ‘‘later research has either discredited this evidence or provided new evidence that combined with the earlier evidence makes other explanations likely.’’ More important, the BBC admits that ‘‘modern historians of the area no longer believe that such invasions had such great influence on Indian history.’’ Even more important, it says that ‘‘it is generally accepted that the Indian history shows a continuity of progress from the earliest times to today.’’ More, ‘‘the changes brought to India by other cultures’’ are no longer thought to be a major ingredient of the development of Hinduism. The confession is an honest one. For the BBC does not only agree with Swami Vivekananda, it also points to the ‘dangers’ of the theory. It says that the theory ‘‘denies the Indian origin of India’s predominant culture’’; ‘‘gives credit for the Indian culture to the invaders from elsewhere.’’ It ‘‘teaches that the most revered Hindu scriptures are not actually Indian’’ and ‘‘devalues India’s culture by portraying it as less ancient than it actually is.’’ It goes further and says that the ‘theory was not just wrong’, but ‘included unacceptably racist ideas.’ It suggested or asserted that Indian culture was not a culture in its own right but a synthesis of elements from other cultures; that Hinduism was not authentically Indian in origin, but the result of cultural imperialism; that Indian culture was static and only changed under outside influence; that the Dravidians were a nobody and got their faith from the Aryan invaders; that the indigenous people could acquire new ideas only from invaders or other races; that race was a biological, not a social, concept and thus rationalised ranking people in a hierarchy and the caste system; that the north Indian people descended from invaders from Europe, and so socially were closer to the British, thus rationalising colonialist presence; that the British were reforming India like the Aryans did thousands of years ago, thus justifying the role and the status of the Raj. Finally it says, ‘‘it downgraded the intellectual status of India and its people by giving falsely a later date to the elements of Indian science and culture.’’ Believe it? This confession of wrong done to India and high praise for India’s endogamous antiquity from an unlikely source approves of not just what Swami Vivekananda said over a century ago, but validates the ‘saffron’ view. This endangers the ‘secular’ scholarship whose bread and butter is now under threat. How will they continue to assert that India is more a khichadi than a continuity of undated antiquity? How will they go on asserting that there is nothing Indian about India; that there was never anything called India at all; that there is today an India courtesy the invaders – the Aryans, Turks, Moghuls or the British; that thanks to the British we are a nation.... Yes, the secular scholarship is in deep trouble. But they have a solid reason to feel assured that it will take decades for this truth to overcome the billions of pages of falsehood printed and circulated so far. For the grains of truth to emerge from this mountain of falsehood will take a life’s time. http://newindpress.com/column/News.asp?Topic=-97&Title=S%2EGurumurthy&ID=IE620051028230551&nDate=&Sub=&Cat=&

Posted by: Aryawan Nov 2 2005, 06:04 PM

The Aryan Invasion Theory One of the most controversial ideas about Hindu history is the Aryan invasion theory. This theory, originally devised by F. Max Muller in 1848, traces the history of Hinduism to the invasion of India's indigenous people by lighter skinned Aryans around 1500 BCE. The theory was reinforced by other research over the next 120 years, and became the accepted history of Hinduism, not only in the West but in India. There is now ample evidence to show that Muller, and those who followed him, were wrong. Why is the theory no longer accepted? The Aryan invasion theory was based on archaeological, linguistic and ethnological evidence. Later research has either discredited this evidence, or provided new evidence that combined with the earlier evidence makes other explanations more likely. Modern historians of the area no longer believe that such invasions had such great influence on Indian history. It's now generally accepted that Indian history shows a continuity of progress from the earliest times to today. The changes brought to India by other cultures are not denied by modern historians, but they are no longer thought to be a major ingredient in the development of Hinduism. Dangers of the theory The Aryan invasion theory denies the Indian origin of India's predominant culture, but gives the credit for Indian culture to invaders from elsewhere. It even teaches that some of the most revered books of Hindu scripture are not actually Indian, and it devalues India's culture by portraying it as less ancient than it actually is. The theory was not just wrong, it included unacceptably racist ideas: it suggested that Indian culture was not a culture in its own right, but a synthesis of elements from other cultures it implied that Hinduism was not an authentically Indian religion but the result of cultural imperialism it suggested that Indian culture was static, and only changed under outside influences it suggested that the dark-skinned Dravidian people of the South of India had got their faith from light-skinned Aryan invaders it implied that indigenous people were incapable of creatively developing their faith it suggested that indigenous peoples could only acquire new religious and cultural ideas from other races, by invasion or other processes it accepted that race was a biologically based concept (rather than, at least in part, a social construct) that provided a sensible way of ranking people in a hierarchy, which provided a partial basis for the caste system it provided a basis for racism in the Imperial context by suggesting that the peoples of Northern India were descended from invaders from Europe and so racially closer to the British Raj it gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British Raj, who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier it downgraded the intellectual status of India and its people by giving a falsely late date to elements of Indian science and culture http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history5.shtml

Posted by: dhu Nov 4 2005, 12:22 AM

A New Article by Dr. Koenraad Elst : Petty Professorial Politicking in The Indo-Aryan Controversy http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/articles/fascism/witzelmisattribute.html

QUOTE
However, in this case we don't have to deduce nor accept "unsubstantiated articles of faith": we know for fact, on the basis of plenty of archaeological evidence, that the Indus basin had hundreds of cities, many of them of the same size of Babylon or larger.
QUOTE
It is a fact that the Kassites conquered parts of Mesopotamia from the East. It is also a fact that their nomenclature included some Indo-Aryan names and terms, just as the Mitannic language did.

Posted by: aruni Nov 5 2005, 07:55 PM

http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2005/11/from-mailbox-indian-civilization.html

QUOTE
From: B Date: Nov 5, 2005 2:58 AM Subject: Indian Civilization To: Rajeev.srinivasan@gmail.com Sir, As an Indian , I most wholeheartedly agree with the constant drumbeat against our civilization by negative elements from outside and within India. But this is not the sole fault of Indian Marxists and others. India was founded by people who believed in socialism as portrayed by the Democrats of America and other such parties. Even today , Indians migrating to the USA tend to lean for the ideology of the Democrats who represent marxists, socialists and those of the liberal left who still want to distribute other people's hard earned wealth. However, in India's case you blamed the left and people of such beliefs for the disarray and distortion of India's history and rightly so. But there are a few outstanding things which trouble not only bona fide Indian historians but western ones as well. There are some revisionists who are now trying to stretch back the ancient history even further WITHOUT providing the necessary solid evidence that, that history existed. Here are a few of them: 1: Nowhere in the archaeological record, or writings of India are there evidence that cremation was practiced for funeral purposes before 1500BC. 2: The Dalits of India have always been complaining that they were brutally oppressed by the Aryan newcomers. While this is true there are no bona fide records to indicate their suppression at the hands of the Aryans before 1500 BC 3: Also, if Aryans occupied India before 1500BC , are there any evidence to show that the caste system existed before 1500BC? 4: Again, if Aryans occupied India before 1500 BC, why is there no record among the other ancient people whose records are bereft of such accounts such as cremation, horse sacrifice, horses, chariots and religious customs which were an important part of the life of the Aryans? 5: Recent research by scholars of the Tamil language and literature are empty of Aryan loan words, no record in their literature of Aryan customs, rites and other such things before 1500BC 7: The attempt by certain historians and writers of India , who I presume that in rewriting India's history is doing something noble, which I applaud, is having the opposite effect. For, example Mr. N. Rajaram's attempt to falsely insert the image of the horse in the Indus civilization, only tarnishes India's reputation abroad in the eyes of Western scholars. Everyone knows that the IVC did not possess, the horse, the chariot, the swastika or the horse nor did they practice cremation. The archaeological record reveals that the IVC buried their dead because their custom was from the south and probably among the first people to occupy India. 8: Although, one of India's most distinguished historian, Mr. Iyengar whose book" DRAVIDIAN INDIA " emphatically states that cremation only came to India after 1500 BC , the revisionists still insist that Aryans occupied India before that date and in doing so, making millions of Indians believe that the Aryans were not the progenitors of Indian history. 9: Recent research has shown that although some scripts of the Indus has been found in the surrounding civilizations, but curiously enough no languages of those countries has been found among the Indus ruins. Why? 10:Certain segments of the population, especially the educated vast majority of Indians apparently the white nomadic Aryans, who play such an important part of Indian history. 11:Do you Mr.Srinivasan and others really do believe that an ancient, supposed to be barbaric and crude characters as the Aryans is capable of building such magnificent cities as the IVC? If you do , then you will have to produce evidence of such earlier cities from the supposed time the Aryans occupied India and that is from before 1500 BC. 12: Finally, I would invite any viewer and writer of your website to reply to me, even Mr. N Rajaram! Thanks for reading my boring beliefs.
An anonymous response:
QUOTE
1: Nowhere in the archaeological record, or writings of India are there evidence that cremation was practiced for funeral purposes before 1500BC When other religions go by the "book", we should also do the same based on our puranic (read ancient) writings. Our Mahabharatha has cremations in them. There is no evidence that 1500BC was the beginning of the Hindu civilization. This was an unsubstantiated theory conveniently inserted as a fact by British and missionary sponsored historians (who are also in control of history in India today) which you and me have simply accepted without questioning! Going by other indigenous schools of thought (who are likely more credible) the Mahabaratha was much before 1500BC, so the practice of cremation existed before. Unless ofcourse you we stick to our belief in ignorance. Education is in reading, questioning and accepting more credible points of view and not pandering to one's blind beliefs. 2: The Dalits of India have always been complaining that they were brutally oppressed by the Aryan newcomers. While this is true there are no bona fide records to indicate their suppression at the hands of the Aryans before 1500 BC The Tamizh puranams (especially the Peria puranam) categorically show that all are equal before God -- though a Tamizh purana this is the same theme in all our Puranas. Don't go all the way bak to 1500BC (which is again an interesting date, the Dalits have completely accepted that date from the missionry and missionary sponsored propaganda). The Dalits have been brainwashed by the missionaries and missionary sponsored subverts to believe that their enemies are their own bretheren, while the enemies are the Christist whites -- Dalits are as much Hindus as anyone else; see the name of Dalits is iteself a divisionary tacktic as are Animists, Tribals etc. Wherever the society stands in Chaos, the non-white world such divionary tactics were employed. Instead of posting such a question, ask an Hindu who claims to be a Dalit, to prove that there were Aryans in the first place and then that they were peresucted by these Aryans after 1500BC -- in variably you will find only hate filled, unsubstantiated propaganda. The so called Dalit and non_Dalit divide today is the Hindu society's problem, not the Christist's. 3: Also, if Aryans occupied India before 1500BC , are there any evidence to show that the caste system existed before 1500BC? The Mahabharatha is replete with such example and most indigenous therories are more credible in this regard. 4: Again, if Aryans occupied India before 1500 BC, why is there no record among the other ancient people whose records are bereft of such accounts such as cremation, horse sacrifice, horses, chariots and religious customs which were an important part of the life of the Aryans? Simple, because the Aryan invasion theory is a myth created by the colonial masters and thier missionary stooges! Turn the question around, ask the AIT proponets to conclusively pove to you that AIT was indeed a reality! 5: Recent research by scholars of the Tamil language and literature are empty of Aryan loan words, no record in their literature of Aryan customs, rites and other such things before 1500BC Again, because there was no AIT!! Please note that certain Tamizh scholars are now tending to believe that Sanskrit was archaic Tamizh! Please Google for more info. 7: The attempt by certain historians and writers of India , who I presume that in rewriting India's history is doing something noble, which I applaud, is having the opposite effect. For, example Mr. N. Rajaram's attempt to falsely insert the image of the horse in the Indus civilization, only tarnishes India's reputation abroad in the eyes of Western scholars. Everyone knows that the IVC did not possess, the horse, the chariot, the swastika or the horse nor did they practice cremation. The archaeological record reveals that the IVC buried their dead because their custom was from the south and probably among the first people to occupy India. First you seem to believe one set of theories without questioning its authenticity, such as AIT, since it perhaps comes from Western sources but in the same breadth you easily question the work of a person of Indian origin -- think about the implication of that carefully! That aside, the history as it stands today is a shame thrust on us by our erstwhile rulers, now perpetuated by our own traitors. History is not recorded as was done during the old days of our Indian kings, instead it is doctored to further foreign interests! Please educate yourself with the Tamizh puranas for more information. Leave aside the N. Rajaraman's controversy, how much of Tamizh history and Indian history do you know. Educate yourself in real stuff before posting questions for which you cannot get conclusive answers from anyone on public forums like this. You should question those "emminent" Historians that you trust on the veracity of their writings. 8: Although, one of India's most distinguished historian, Mr. Iyengar whose book" DRAVIDIAN INDIA " emphatically states that cremation only came to India after 1500 BC , the revisionists still insist that Aryans occupied India before that date and in doing so, making millions of Indians believe that the Aryans were not the progenitors of Indian history. Poor brahmin, this Iyengar! Anyway, can the "expert" prove his assertion that cremation did not exist before 1500BC? Guy/Gal, you are so impressed by this Arayan and Davidian theory! Why not question the "emminent" Romilla Thappar to prove such a division ever existed. 9: Recent research has shown that although some scripts of the Indus has been found in the surrounding civilizations, but curiously enough no languages of those countries has been found among the Indus ruins. Why? Interestingly new research is out there to show a continuity between Saraswati and Indus civilizations, Google! But then you will bilieve only whom you want to believe. I suggest you read through all the material and quesition those AIT "experts" to prove thier case. 10:Certain segments of the population, especially the educated vast majority of Indians apparently the white nomadic Aryans, who play such an important part of Indian history. Boy this is propaganda stuff! Visit the Bradshaw foundation for information on genetics to be more educated. Also visit atlan.org for an exhaustive reaseach. 11:Do you Mr.Srinivasan and others really do believe that an ancient, supposed to be barbaric and crude characters as the Aryans is capable of building such magnificent cities as the IVC? If you do , then you will have to produce evidence of such earlier cities from the supposed time the Aryans occupied India and that is from before 1500 BC. I am sure that Rajeev and other readers believe that India was one of the greatest civilization's on earth, perhaps even the mother of all civilizations. Again please visit bradshaw foundation that has published the results of human migration patterns in the last 200,000 years -- a product of the genome project. 12: Finally, I would invite any viewer and writer of your website to reply to me, even Mr. N Rajaram! Thanks for reading my boring beliefs. Who ever you are, one thing is for sure -- you are as confused about our culture and history as I am! I went to a Catholic school, despite that I question the history as it is accepted today. Cartels seem to have a stangle hold on free information, in the fear that it might affect their religious and political agendas. So today fiction is fact and fact is suppressed! I am certain of one thing, that a discontinuity was created by the colonialists and their masters, simply to confuse the heck out of all Indians -- then we become easy prey, for easy picking!! We fight against one another, forgetting our common ancestory and glorious history. In that melee, the subverts, the traitors, and thier sponsors thrive!! Now can we start seeing the game or play along for tactical gains! The sad part is I spent so much time on so much of nonsense posting! Well I guess it makes me a bigger moron than you! Honestly I did it in the hope that you wil first get educated properly, jettision your own biases and start seeing things not though the clouds of your prejudices but through the strength of your wisdom gained from knowledge. Good luck to you in your quest for the truth!

Posted by: Mudy Nov 7 2005, 02:27 PM

http://airindia.com/page.asp?pageid=15

QUOTE
That’s India. Home to the Aryans, Moguls, Arabs, Persians, Portuguese, French and British, we are a veritable melting pot of the world’s finest philosophies, sciences, arts and skills. But more than one religion, our sculpture, our architecture, dance and music which weave a common fabric, it is our food, our refined sense of taste, that defines us as a people.

Posted by: agnivayu Nov 12 2005, 07:20 AM

What a bunch of dumb morons. Is there any progress at the street level in India or are kids just as brainwashed with their convent education. The invaders Max was talking about could be this mysterious race which invaded europe around 1500 BC... user posted image

QUOTE(Mudy @ Nov 8 2005, 02:57 AM)
http://airindia.com/page.asp?pageid=15
QUOTE
That’s India. Home to the Aryans, Moguls, Arabs, Persians, Portuguese, French and British, we are a veritable melting pot of the world’s finest philosophies, sciences, arts and skills. But more than one religion, our sculpture, our architecture, dance and music which weave a common fabric, it is our food, our refined sense of taste, that defines us as a people.
*

Posted by: Khudiram Nov 12 2005, 05:13 PM

So, where do we go from here? AIT is still widely propagated within India and in the global community. More importantly, it is taught as fact in schools creating a new generation who believe in the same lie. People who oppose it are immediately labeled as "Hindu nationalists", when there are people of other religions and races who have contributed much scientifically and historically to prove the falsity of this theory. We have scientific evidence and historical evidence to support our view. But, why do many Indians still believe this lie? What can we do to change this?

Posted by: Bharatvarsh Nov 12 2005, 06:12 PM

QUOTE
We have scientific evidence and historical evidence to support our view. But, why do many Indians still believe this lie?
Simple, repeated brainwashing through textbooks by JNU types (aka Romila Thapar) and her cohorts who are fierce Hindu haters. Forgot to add, I heard Thapar now changed her stance to AMT (Aryan Migration Theory).
QUOTE
What can we do to change this?
We need to gain control of the media and book writing, the first step is to expel this Hindu hating cabal of academic terrorists from influential positions, only then can true history be taught in India, I request everyone to read the book "Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud" by Arun Shourie, it exposes how these marxist historians have been brainwashing generation after generation of Hindus with their fabricated stuff and how they sihponed off public money and continue to do so.

Posted by: agnivayu Nov 13 2005, 06:06 AM

The BJP didn't have strong enough rule or length of rule to pull the communist parasites who have comfortably settled into the Indian Bureaucracy. This is a war of defiance, keep fighting, at some point the enemy will weaken, that's the time to unleash the full scale assault. The defiant will triumph in the end. Many of the ideas brought by our side did not even exist in the recent past, so just by creating noise, we are creating doubt in the enemy, and slowing moving the agenda to our side.

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Nov 13 2005, 06:42 AM)
QUOTE
We have scientific evidence and historical evidence to support our view. But, why do many Indians still believe this lie?
Simple, repeated brainwashing through textbooks by JNU types (aka Romila Thapar) and her cohorts who are fierce Hindu haters. Forgot to add, I heard Thapar now changed her stance to AMT (Aryan Migration Theory).
QUOTE
What can we do to change this?
We need to gain control of the media and book writing, the first step is to expel this Hindu hating cabal of academic terrorists from influential positions, only then can true history be taught in India, I request everyone to read the book "Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud" by Arun Shourie, it exposes how these marxist historians have been brainwashing generation after generation of Hindus with their fabricated stuff and how they sihponed off public money and continue to do so.
*

Posted by: Viren Nov 14 2005, 09:59 AM

Was posted in Sulkeha newshoper. intellibriefs.com could be source of this article.

QUOTE
http://intellibriefs.com/HISTORY_IN_OUR_GENES.doc SUMMING UP: FROM POLITICS TO GENETICS The Aryan myth fostered in ‘special conditions’ Having examined several sides of the so-called Aryan problem, it is time to take a final look at the ‘special conditions’ (as Huxley called it) that led to its being foisted as the central dogma in ancient Indian history and historiography. In the process we will also present in a single section the scientific evidence that will enable us give this pernicious myth its long overdue burial. The notion that Indians are one branch of a common stock of people who lived originally in Central Asia or in the Eurasian steppes arose in the late eighteenth century. It began as a linguistic theory to account for similarities between Sanskrit and classical European languages like Greek and Latin. From this modest beginning it soon acquired a life of its own when scholars, especially in Germany, concluded that Europeans and ancient Indians were two branches of a people they called Aryans and later as Indo-Europeans. A whole new academic discipline called Indo-European studies came into existence whose very survival is now at stake. The Aryan theory, which began life as a linguistic theory soon acquired a biological form. Scholars, mostly linguists, began to talk about not just Aryan languages, but also an Aryan race. Since Indology had its greatest flowering in nineteenth century Germany it is not surprising that racial ideas that shaped German nationalism should have found their way into scholarly discourse on India. The Indo-European hypothesis and its offshoot of the Aryan invasion (or migration) theory came to dominate this discourse for over a century. The German born Oxford linguist Friederich Max Müller was the most influential proponent of this theory. It is important to recognize that the people who created this theory were linguists, not biologists. Scientists, including German scientists had little use for it. As far back as 1939, Sir Julian Huxley, one of the great natural scientists of the twentieth century observed: In 1848, the young German scholar Friederich Max Müller (1823 – 1900) settled in Oxford…. About 1853 he introduced into the English language the unlucky term Aryan as applied to a large group of languages. … Moreover, Max Müller threw another apple of discord. He introduced a proposition that is demonstrably false. He spoke not only of a definite Aryan language and its descendants, but also of a corresponding ‘Aryan race’. The idea was rapidly taken up both in Germany and in England. (Ibid.) Here is what Huxley had to say regarding the scientific view at the time (1939): In England and America the phrase ‘Aryan race’ has quite ceased to be used by writers with scientific knowledge, though it appears occasionally in political and propagandist literature…. In Germany, the idea of the ‘Aryan race’ received no more scientific support than in England. Nevertheless, it found able and very persistent literary advocates who made it appear very flattering to local vanity. It therefore steadily spread, fostered by special conditions. These ‘special conditions’ were the rise of Nazism in Germany and British imperial interests in India. While both Germany and Britain took to idea of the Aryan race, its fate in the two countries was somewhat different. Its perversion in Germany leading eventually to Nazism and its horrors is too well known to be repeated here. The British, however, put it to more creative use for imperial purposes, especially as a tool in making their rule acceptable to Indians. A recent BBC report admitted (October 6, 2005): It [Aryan invasion theory] gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British Raj, who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier. That is to say, the British presented themselves as a ‘new and improved brand of Aryans’ who were only completing the work left undone by their ancestors in the hoary past. This is how the British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin put it in the House of Commons in 1929: Now, after ages, …the two branches of the great Aryan ancestry have again been brought together by Providence… By establishing British rule in India, God said to the British, “I have brought you and the Indians together after a long separation, …it is your duty to raise them to their own level as quickly as possible …brothers as you are…” This leaves little to the imagination. Today it is sustained by other ‘special conditions’, like political chauvinism in India, and vested interests in the survival of Indo-European studies in Western academia. It is only a matter of time before this vestige of colonial politics disappears from the scene making way for a more rational approach to the study of ancient India. This is already happening. On the scientific side, the emergence of molecular biology and the growth of population genetics in the second half of the twentieth century have delivered the coup de grace to this pseudo-discipline. The story which science has to tell us is very different from what had been believed for well over a century. We have already presented parts of it in several contexts against the background of natural history. What follows is a summing up of the current state of knowledge of human populations and their movements. We begin with a brief summary of human population genetics. Genetics on inherited and acquired traits The Aryan invasion (or migration) theory is only one of several theories created during the European colonial period. Most of them start with the belief that civilizations in different parts of the world began with a massive migration from a central homeland. This belief is usually presented in terms of arguments based on physical appearance of different population groups. Skin and eye color get extraordinary attention and importance in this ‘science’. The emergence of genetics, which is the study of inheritance, has discredited the whole approach. Two key concepts play a fundamental role in the scientific study of populations, including human populations: genotype and phenotype. Genotype is what we inherit and phenotype is what is observable. The most common error is to confuse the phenotype, or an observable feature like skin color for an inherited trait (genotype) without taking note of the environment in which it evolved. Here is the key issue: any phenotype (observable feature) is the result of the interaction between the genotype (inherited factors) and the environment. The same genotype can produce different phenotypes in different environments, or even if the environment changes over time as almost all environments do. This is why people in different parts of the world look different even though all of us are descended from Africans. By ‘environment’ we mean external factors that include food habits and diseases that result in adaptation as well as the elimination of those unfit to survive. (This is called natural selection, but can also be called natural elimination.) Most changes brought on by the interaction between inherited features (genotype) and the environment take thousands to tens of thousands of years, if not more. A phenotype (like skin color) that we observe in an individual or a group today is the result of this long evolutionary history. To disentangle a specific original trait from features observed today is next to impossible since the environment has also changed with the phenotype. For example, Europeans today, whose ancestors came from South Asia perhaps 40,000 years ago, look quite different from what their ancestors did when they arrived in Europe. To compound the difficulty, differences between individuals within a group are always greater than the differences between different groups. That is to say, human beings now inhabiting the world are extraordinarily close, genetically speaking, though they exhibit great variability in observable traits (phenotypes) like physical appearance. They are a complex mix of inheritance and environment. This fact makes it virtually impossible to trace the origin of any population based purely on physical appearance since the environment in which it evolved cannot be recreated. This means we have to find some inherited traits that have been preserved over very long periods. Harvard geneticist Lewontin puts it this way: “Reconstructing the evolutionary past of the human species is almost as difficult as predicting the future, although both are common exercises that biologists engage in, especially when they address a nonscientific public.” In using genetic data to study ancient populations and their migrations, all we can do at this time is to look at some traits that are not affected by the environment and study their distribution among different human groups. It is important to note that this cannot be a phenotype or a superficially observable feature like skin color, which is the result of interaction between what is inherited and the environment. A particular trait that we choose as characterizing a population group is called a genetic marker. One such marker that has proven useful is the M17 genetic marker. It is common in India and in adjacent regions but becomes increasingly rare as we move westward into Europe. This, combined with the fact that Indian carriers of M17 are genetically more diverse than European carriers shows that the Indian population is older than the European. Space, time and genes Population geneticists have identified two objects that carry genetic information that is passed on from generation to generation. They are the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and the Y-chromosome. mtDNA is inherited through the female line (or from mother to daughter) while the Y-chromosome is transmitted through the male line. There are individual quirks in these cells that are specific to regions like Africa, India, Southeast Asia and so forth. These are the genetic markers we look for. Mapping them allows us to study the possible origins of different population groups now inhabiting the globe. For example, we know that all humans living in the world today are descended from a relatively small African population because Africa contains almost all the genetic markers found in other parts of the world, but the reverse is not true. Following more than a century of research in genetics, especially molecular genetics, it is becoming possible to trace the origins of different population groups in the world. It is important however to approach it with care because it has some pitfalls. In particular, since all humans living in the world today have 99.98 percent of their genes in common, almost any two groups can be found to be genetically similar. Failing to recognize this has led to absurd conclusions like the claim that upper caste Indians are of European origin, who “imposed the oppressive caste system” on the indigenous population. (There is no oppressor gene.) The error here was in assigning biological causes to a man-made classification like caste. Nature, however, does not recognize man-made boundaries. Similar claims can be made for religion— finding a genetic basis for Christianity. Taking this a step further, one may identify Catholic genes, Protestant genes, and presumably even Mormon genes in Salt Lake City, Utah, the home of the Mormon Church, where the claim about genes and caste was first made. Similarly impossible claims have been made about language, social habits and the like that can have no biological basis. The error consists in confusing the phenotype for a purely inherited trait or genotype. In addition, some workers have tried to use genetics to justify their own beliefs and pet theories like the Aryan invasion. This has led to absurdities like one group claiming that only males migrated (more of which later) while another claimed only females did! Obviously both cannot be true, but both can be false. After some initial hiccups, the definitive statement about the genetic composition of the Indian population was summarized as follows by researchers led by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza: Taken together, these results show that Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have received limited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene. The phylogeography [neighboring branches] of the primal mtDNA and Y-chromosome founders suggests that these southern Asian Pleistocene coastal settlers from Africa would have provided the inocula for the subsequent differentiation of the distinctive eastern and western Eurasian gene pools.” (Italics added.) Noting that mtDNA is carried by the female line, while Y-chromosome is passed on through the male line, what this means is that the Indian population is largely indigenous in origin and has received negligible external input (gene flow) since the end of the last Ice Age (Holocene). This means that various migration theories like the Aryan invasion in 1500 B.C.E. simply cannot be true. The Oxford geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer is more specific and also more emphatic, focusing on the M17 or the so-called ‘Caucasoid’ (politically correct for ‘Aryan’) genetic marker: …South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his [Sic] ancestors; and sure enough we find highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia, but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a ‘male Aryan invasion’ of India. So there was no Aryan invasion— by males or by females. This also means that the tribal or the so-called ‘indigenous’ populations of India are not any different from the people making up the bulk of the Indian population, which is what Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues also found. As Oppenheimer observes, genetics is quite specific on this point. One age estimate for the origin of this line in India is as much as 51,000 years. All this suggests that M17 could have found his [Sic] way initially from India or Pakistan, through Kashmir, then via Central Asia and Russia, before finally coming to Europe. (Ibid) It is worth noting that this is the exact reverse of the scenario postulated by various invasion/migration theories including the Aryan invasion theory. This is not by any means the last word on population genetics, but new findings are unlikely to salvage these 19th centuries theories or their modern incarnations founded on beliefs and political needs. Let us accept this basic scientific fact: outside of Africa, South Asia contains the world’s oldest populations, and modern Europeans are themselves among the peoples descended from migrants from India, going back more than 40,000 years. This should be the starting point for studying history in the Holocene or the post Ice Age period.

Posted by: Viren Dec 2 2005, 11:05 AM

x-post: http://jitnasa.india-forum.com/Docs/ait.htm

Posted by: Shambhu Dec 2 2005, 01:09 PM

QUOTE(Viren @ Dec 2 2005, 11:35 PM)
x-post: http://jitnasa.india-forum.com/Docs/ait.htm
*
Nice letter! biggrin.gif

Posted by: Ravi Chaudhary Dec 6 2005, 09:06 AM

To see how this debate is haping up see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_invasion_theory, see discussion sectio

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 9 2005, 02:14 PM

we have had the AIT the the counter AIT. now AIT does a brilliant job of explaining everything. how the swaraswati valley civilization winded up. why there are 2 families of languages in india why we have caste system. and why we have tribes. and why people from the south are darker on the average than north indians etc etc. the importance of horces in vedic society. thing is, AIT violated all boundary conditions. -there never was any invasion. no archeological evidence -horses were indeed found. -nor do north indians have any record of existing outside india, unless you consider gandhara in afghanistan. -dravidian speaking people have no historical or archeological evidence of ever living north of vindyas (the have the opposite evidence though - kumari kandum) -the tribes similarly have records of migrating into india at varius times during the last 2000 years. -the Rg ved could not have been less older than about 5000 years. - there was indeed a river called swaraswati and the thar desert is only about 5000 years old etc. the counter AIT theory doesnt violate any of the boundary conditions. but does it suceed in explaining all anomalies????????? till such time it does so, it will never be accepted (main reason neo nazis still believe in ait) so what are the counter invasion theory's explainations to the following - why was not a single vedic literature written in aggulutinative language but always in inflective sanskrit?? - why are the lower castes darker than upper castes?? - who exactly are the dalits and the tribes?? are they hindu?? why are rheir languages different?? - why are south indians darker and often have different features?? - how come there is no link between harappan script and brahmi (or is there. i dunno for sure) -if there was no invasion who then are the people who painted the bhimbetika caves? - how come upper castes are more closely genetically related to whites - how do you explain all the language connections (even koenraad elst admits that a complete explaination to this hasnt been come upon) - if we are the real aryans, how come the whites have all the inventions or most of them - why this fetish for fair skin in india? - why are all/most beggars and poor people and proletariat dark skinned?? - why again, are most well to do types - advani, jaitley, buddhadev bhattacharya fair?? - how come that about the only fair types in the south are brahmins or coorgs or reddys or konkanis or some other upper caste? - if we are the real aryans then who are the dravidians?? did we have a dravidian invasion from kumari kandum ?? - why this north-south divide of various kinds (language, culture, complexion, many others) then if both are the same people?? - how come none of the hindu gods have dravidian names?? how come that gods worshipped in south india like muraga have no mention in sanskrit?? - who are the kuruks, amaltuks and the brahui ?? - why is the caste system so strict?? is it indeed a sort of apartheid?? many many more.... when ever i (or others) try to trash AIT in neo nazi forums, these are the questions i am met with. see i am not trying to stir a hornets nest. i just am pointing out that as long as we dont have all these answers and many more the AIT brigade will still be around. for the counter ait theory to suceed, we have to (1) stick within the boundary conditions/inarguables (which it does) and also (2) explain all the anomalies. the counter theory dont explain as nicely as the ait, though it is within the boundary conditions. with AIT its the othr way round. so what are the explainations.

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 12:23 AM

answers anyone ??

Posted by: ashyam Dec 10 2005, 01:29 AM

QUOTE(ben_ami @ Dec 10 2005, 02:44 AM)
- why again, are most well to do types - advani, jaitley, buddhadev bhattacharya fair??
How many hours a day do they get exposed to sunlight? Was Gandhiji fair? (may be brown because he had spent a lot of time under the protection of shadow of jails)

Posted by: Sunder Dec 10 2005, 01:32 AM

I shall try and answer the easy ones.. smile.gif

QUOTE
- why are the lower castes darker than upper castes??
This is an irrational assumption. Akin to asking why do men have tails. Men and women belonging to "higher castes" have been dark (or even black.) Rama, Bharatha, Krishna, Ravana, Draupathi, Krishna Dvaipayana (Vyasa) etc were black. Thus to assume and assign a color difference is not right.
QUOTE
- how come upper castes are more closely genetically related to whites
Assumption again.
QUOTE
- if we are the real aryans, how come the whites have all the inventions or most of them
Assumption again. They plagiarized most of the Indian findings. Indian Institute of Scientific Heritage (http://www.iish.org/contactus.asp) can give you a plethora of these inventions.
QUOTE
- why this fetish for fair skin in india?
Never seemed to be the case During Rama or Krishna's time. Or even Chanakya's time.
QUOTE
- why are all/most beggars and poor people and proletariat dark skinned??
Your eyes see what they want to see. The poor, homeless, and the beggars in Canada are mostly white skinned. Is there a reason ?
QUOTE
- why again, are most well to do types - advani, jaitley, buddhadev bhattacharya fair??
Are Atal Bajpayee white, Dhirubhai Ambani, Vijay Amritraj fair too?
QUOTE
- how come none of the hindu gods have dravidian names?? how come that gods worshipped in south india like muraga have no mention in sanskrit??
Murugan is Karthikeya, Kumara, Skandha, Subrahmanya. Murugu in tamil means beautiful. It is another epithet like Gaangeya or Saravana.
QUOTE
- why is the caste system so strict?? is it indeed a sort of apartheid??
Wasn't meant to be an opressive hierarchy. Vedic hymns like Sri Rudram have verses that go - Salutations and salutations, To him who is the soldier, And to him who is the leader of the armies. Salutations and salutations, To him who drives chariots well, And to him who can hold the chariot from moving. Salutations and salutations, To him who is a carpenter, And to him who makes chariots. Salutations and salutations, To him who is the potter, And to him who is the black smith. Salutations and salutations, To him who is the hunter of birds who uses nets, And to him who is the fisherman. Salutations and salutations, To him who makes arrows, And to him who makes bows. Salutations and salutations, To him who hunts animals, And to him who drags dogs using a rope. Salutations and salutations, To him who is a dog, And to him who protects the dogs. http://www.geocities.com/ramya475/Rudram.htm

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 02:27 AM

ty.

QUOTE(Sunder @ Dec 10 2005, 02:02 PM)
I shall try and answer the easy ones.. smile.gif
QUOTE
- why are the lower castes darker than upper castes??
This is an irrational assumption. Akin to asking why do men have tails. Men and women belonging to "higher castes" have been dark (or even black.) Rama, Bharatha, Krishna, Ravana, Draupathi, Krishna Dvaipayana (Vyasa) etc were black. Thus to assume and assign a color difference is not right. no i mean, look around in india. you will notice that the upper castes have 75% of the "fair" peopel in india and the lower castes are mostly darker, even those from north india
QUOTE
- how come upper castes are more closely genetically related to whites
Assumption again. not. there is genetic evidence to that effect. http://www.white-history.com/aryangene.htm
QUOTE
- if we are the real aryans, how come the whites have all the inventions or most of them
Assumption again. They plagiarized most of the Indian findings. Indian Institute of Scientific Heritage (http://www.iish.org/contactus.asp) can give you a plethora of these inventions. possible. but still how come we could not invent anything/nothing mucj during the last 300 years while they went from barbarian to hightech....
QUOTE
- why this fetish for fair skin in india?
Never seemed to be the case During Rama or Krishna's time. Or even Chanakya's time. yes. thats the problem. their interpretation is that back then the caste system was still very effective and the aryans were not yet absorbed amongst the natives. ie. everyone was white. then over time as the aryans in india become darker due to racial mixing the longinf and fetish for fair skin grew. also there are quotations in rg veda which are sort of white vs black. http://www.white-history.com/hwr5c.htm
QUOTE
- why are all/most beggars and poor people and proletariat dark skinned??
Your eyes see what they want to see. The poor, homeless, and the beggars in Canada are mostly white skinned. Is there a reason ? in canada all are whites. how many beggers in india do you see of the complexion of an amir khan or aish rai?? most of the well off people are fairer and most of the destitutes are dark. its there to be seen all around india. which only makes the neo-nazis more confident that ait is right.
QUOTE
- why again, are most well to do types - advani, jaitley, buddhadev bhattacharya fair??
Are Atal Bajpayee white, Dhirubhai Ambani, Vijay Amritraj fair too? vijay amritraj is the exception which proves the law. also he is only a sportsman. most of the movers and shakers of society, most of the emminent people are fair. again i am not saying that ait is right - just pointing out that these anomalies exist and till such time we can explain them properly the ait brigade will not stop. and dont quote one or two examples and say that jaylalita is fair and mashelkar (present chairman of csir) is dark. i am talking in general terms and not particular terms.
QUOTE
- how come none of the hindu gods have dravidian names?? how come that gods worshipped in south india like muraga have no mention in sanskrit??
Murugan is Karthikeya, Kumara, Skandha, Subrahmanya. Murugu in tamil means beautiful. It is another epithet like Gaangeya or Saravana. ok if murugan is only an attribute (in tamil language) then all is cool. attributes are common ways to describe gods. mahakaleshwar, jagannath, vishwanath - none are the names of gods actually.
QUOTE
- why is the caste system so strict?? is it indeed a sort of apartheid??
Wasn't meant to be an opressive hierarchy. Vedic hymns like Sri Rudram have verses that go - Salutations and salutations, To him who is the soldier, And to him who is the leader of the armies. Salutations and salutations, To him who drives chariots well, And to him who can hold the chariot from moving. Salutations and salutations, To him who is a carpenter, And to him who makes chariots. Salutations and salutations, To him who is the potter, And to him who is the black smith. Salutations and salutations, To him who is the hunter of birds who uses nets, And to him who is the fisherman. Salutations and salutations, To him who makes arrows, And to him who makes bows. Salutations and salutations, To him who hunts animals, And to him who drags dogs using a rope. Salutations and salutations, To him who is a dog, And to him who protects the dogs. http://www.geocities.com/ramya475/Rudram.htm
*
so how come no brahmin is prepared to marry his daughter to a sudhra or a dalit, how so ever well to do?

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 02:32 AM

QUOTE(ashyam @ Dec 10 2005, 01:59 PM)
QUOTE(ben_ami @ Dec 10 2005, 02:44 AM)
- why again, are most well to do types - advani, jaitley, buddhadev bhattacharya fair??
How many hours a day do they get exposed to sunlight? Was Gandhiji fair? (may be brown because he had spent a lot of time under the protection of shadow of jails)
*
how coem all the leaders of india except lower caste leaders like jagjivan ram are fair (j.ram is dark meanwhile) how come whites in usa and oz are all fair though usa ad oz are hot in places. how come punjabi farmers are fair too despite spendiong day after day in sarsoon ka saag ka khet??

Posted by: vijnan_anand Dec 10 2005, 08:10 AM

not. there is genetic evidence to that effect. http://www.white-history.com/aryangene.htm Wow, you must be very fair skinned, even the neo Nazis agree with you. What higher authority than white racists, your masters. Confirms my suspicion that you are a troll. i am talking in general terms and not particular terms. It only shows that you have diseased mind since succesful dark skinned do not register in your brain. Where did you get statistics like "75%" of succesful people are fair skinned. Cooked them up for effect? This guy is clearly a TFTA paki. Kick him out.

Posted by: vijnan_anand Dec 10 2005, 08:13 AM

how coem all the leaders of india except lower caste leaders like jagjivan ram are fair You are very correct. One has to have the caucasian gene to be succesful in India. You see all the leaders have fair skin. One has to be upper caste and fair skinned to succeed in India.

Posted by: Ashok Kumar Dec 10 2005, 08:32 AM

To add to Vijnan's post: Ben Ami, Have you seen Kanshi Ram or Baba Ambedkar's pictures?? Do you even know who they are?

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 08:33 AM

lmao !! now i am a paki cos you could not answer the questions i asked?? you are just a halfwit - can come up with nothing better than kneejerk reactions. i remain convinced - the counter ait theory still needs improvements cos it cant explain everything. so go bark up some other tree and mix with fellow halfwits anand till such time you can come up with logical answers !!

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 08:35 AM

QUOTE(Ashok Kumar @ Dec 10 2005, 09:02 PM)
To add to Vijnan's post: Ben Ami, Have you seen Kanshi Ram or Baba Ambedkar's pictures?? Do you even know who they are?
*
lmao.... you are the person with whom i talked about anandomath right ?? you ask me if i know ambedkar and kanshi ram ?? have you ever been to the tribal belts of madhya pradesh and orrissa?? have you been to slums in delhi and mumbai (dharvi) have you seen the dalit rallies in bihar and up??

Posted by: Ashok Kumar Dec 10 2005, 08:40 AM

Yes to all. And tribals are not dalits.

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 08:52 AM

i know that !!! but what are the answers to the questions i asked?? why does a panjabi look nothing like a malayalle, if they are the same people ?? you see, much as you would like to believe that i am some imposter, i am not. quite the opposite. only that when ever i raised objections to the ait, in many forums including hard core neonazi forums and even lonely planet thorn tree (india branch) the results were the same. genetic evidence. dark/fair totally different languages. no vedic mantras etc in dravidian languages lower castes and destitutes are darker by and large etc etc. each time the counter invasion theory met the same dead ends. so i tried to raise it here in the hope of getting a few valid replies - what i got is skepticism and halfwit replies. this has happened to me in other indian sites as well. people quoted examples like aish rai to show tha south indians are infact no different from northindians. so i wash my hands off this. you all can stay with your insufficient counter invasion theory which fails to explain stuff. i am off to find a counter invasion theory that is both within the boundary conditions and also explains everything just as nicely as the flawed ait.

Posted by: Bharatvarsh Dec 10 2005, 09:06 AM

QUOTE
so how come no brahmin is prepared to marry his daughter to a sudhra or a dalit, how so ever well to do?
Consequently how come many Jats want to marry other Jats and Khatris want to marry other Khatri's, why don't you ask about them? or is it only Brahmins who should marry other castes and did you take a survey among all Brahmins before you write such nonsense, I know plenty of people who were born Brahmins but would marry Hindus from any other jati.

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 09:08 AM

want to see an imposter, then check out ARC_MAR here http://www.hindunet.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=59995&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 09:13 AM

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 10 2005, 09:36 PM)
QUOTE
so how come no brahmin is prepared to marry his daughter to a sudhra or a dalit, how so ever well to do?
Consequently how come many Jats want to marry other Jats and Khatris want to marry other Khatri's, why don't you ask about them? or is it only Brahmins who should marry other castes and did you take a survey among all Brahmins before you write such nonsense, I know plenty of people who were born Brahmins but would marry Hindus from any other jati.
*
brahmin was only an example. i too know plenty of brahmins who married non brahmins. only that there is a greater resentment, from upper castes if their child marries a lower caste than the other way round. so if you are such a great expert on the counter ait theory, why dont you answer the questions. till now only the muruga answer was satisfactory. that its not a name but just a attribute, which obviously is in the vernacular language (tamil in that case) and hence has no mention in sanskrit. in north india, the attributes are in sanskrit though. for example, durga = durgati nashini. mahakaleshwar = atttibute of shiva = maha-kaal-ishwar etc. so one one of my questions is answered. how about thrying to answer the rest instead of trying deliberate padding and er.. sledging??

Posted by: Bharatvarsh Dec 10 2005, 09:22 AM

QUOTE
so if you are such a great expert on the counter ait theory, why dont you answer the questions.
Where did I declare myself as an expert, show me where I said that before you write your rubbish and if you know plenty of Brahmins who married non Brahmins then why did you say that "no Brahmin is prepared to marry marry his daughter to a sudhra or a dalit, how so ever well to do?", is it because you have an agenda against Brahmins?

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 09:33 AM

its called being sardonic. its not rubbish i wrote. rubbish are the answers i have been getting so far. so how about answering the questions. how did south indians become hindu if not a single ved, upanishad, puran or sutra is in aggulutinative language?? why are the oldest and best temples from south india - and meanwhile vedas dont have any allusions to temples (so far i know) ?? was there an interchange of culture and religion?? i doubt any of you have till now managed to understand the drift of my posts and what i am trying to point out - that there are simply to many questions that the counter theory fails to answer nicely enough. that there was no invasion is not an answer the out-of-india theory postulates. its what history and evidence postulates. its a boundary condition. there simply was no invasion. dravidians simply have no recollection of living north of the vindyas (they have recollection of kumari kandam though). meanwhile north indians simple have no recollection of ever bursting into the subcontinent from outside. these are FACTS. not theory. the counter invasion theory is woven around these facts/boundary conditions. but it fails to give the clear cut explainations of the fake ait (which breaks all facts/boundary conditions)

Posted by: bengurion Dec 10 2005, 09:37 AM

QUOTE
why does a panjabi look nothing like a malayalle, if they are the same people ??
Kerala, Tamil nadu get more sunshine than Punjab, haryana. Even Marathi people are darker than punjabis. But they are fairer than Tamils!! Are you going to tell that they are invaders mixed with "natives"? For proper genetic evidence see, Stephen openheimer's book The real Eve (there is a discussion thread in this forum also)
QUOTE
genetic evidence. dark/fair totally different languages. no vedic mantras etc in dravidian languages lower castes and destitutes are darker by and large
Totally different language!! I doubt that. Can you tell some more on how different they are? Its a different issue what academic circle believes now. Most of them are from the Hate ideology churned products of the Dravidian movement. bengurion

Posted by: Aryawan Dec 10 2005, 09:39 AM

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 10 2005, 09:36 PM)
QUOTE
so how come no brahmin is prepared to marry his daughter to a sudhra or a dalit, how so ever well to do?
Consequently how come many Jats want to marry other Jats and Khatris want to marry other Khatri's, why don't you ask about them? or is it only Brahmins who should marry other castes and did you take a survey among all Brahmins before you write such nonsense, I know plenty of people who were born Brahmins but would marry Hindus from any other jati.
*
Every body on this thread, An arranged marriage cannot take place outside the caste/community in majority of the cases. There can hardly be an arranged marriage between a Tamilian Brahmin and a Punjabi Khatri. If it is a love marriage then really caste/community or even religion hardly matters. Cupid's arrows knows no caste. I really think Indians should stop thinking in terms of caste or color or Aryan or Dravidian. Even if AIT is true what you can do about it. Over the last 50 years Indians have spread all over India outside their states, the economy in irreversibly inter-twined, there has been marriages outside caste, community, states and most of them are doing well. Ben_Ami, Swami Vivekananda had said about 100 years back that there is no such silly thing as Aryan Invasion Theory.Swamiji said this after travelling all over India and through his yogic powers he could see many things which many of the anthropologists/palaentologists/archeologist..... can never see. Remember, color is not a correct criteria to judge this theory. Also to remind you that food, climate, activity, or even the thinking process can change the color of a person. Sadness, anxiety, tension can also change the color of a person. Happiness brings glow agree or not? Many Indians living in cold countries become fairer...yes only Indians do that. Just like excessive drinking can change the color of a face of an India, agreed? Working in the sun can tan the colors. I have come across situations where same family members can be very fair and dark even coming from the same parents. Even the psyche of Indians do not vary that much all over the India. Even Vishnu has taken avatar sometimes as dark colored person such as Krishna now don't tell that because he was born in Lower caster Yadav...Laloo seems to be fair.......(caste color failed here).I have myself seen many valmiks (Dalits) quite fair. Ben-Ami.... What makes you so sanquine that AIT theory written by EPNS is correct?Do you agree to then other acts of the same people such as partition of Bengal & Pak, economic expoitation, brutality, famine creation (Bengal & others),.........Not only AIT but there are hundreds and thousands of such theories circulated by many vested parties...do you agree to all of them??? Including some very disparaging remarks about our Deities, Saints, and other respected Personalities?

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 09:48 AM

QUOTE(bengurion @ Dec 10 2005, 10:07 PM)
QUOTE
why does a panjabi look nothing like a malayalle, if they are the same people ??
Kerala, Tamil nadu get more sunshine than Punjab, haryana. Even Marathi people are darker than punjabis. But they are fairer than Tamils!! Are you going to tell that they are invaders mixed with "natives"? For proper genetic evidence see, Stephen openheimer's book The real Eve (there is a discussion thread in this forum also)
QUOTE
genetic evidence. dark/fair totally different languages. no vedic mantras etc in dravidian languages lower castes and destitutes are darker by and large
Totally different language!! I doubt that. Can you tell some more on how different they are? Its a different issue what academic circle believes now. Most of them are from the Hate ideology churned products of the Dravidian movement. bengurion
*
these are your "explainations" ?? you expect people to see light with these ?? that sun shines more?? rajasthanis should be darkest of all then?? as for whether i will say that invaders mixed with natives..... i thought i already pointed out that neither are the north indians the invaders, nor are south indians the natives of any arya beyond the vindys - they simply never lived these. and i know about that book. that tells about the human history of migrations based on genetic evidence. yet much research has been done, including by indians, which show that upper castes and/or north indians have genes closer to europeans while lower castes/dravidians dont. so be that as it may (stephen oppie's book as it may), i suppose there has been changes in genes since then?? see i am trying to go about it rationally. trying to keep within the boundary condition of stephen's book and also explain the differences. if the ait is wrong - and the counter invasion theory is right - then no explaination is needed as to why north indians have genes closer to europeans (cos thats where the migration was from - from the north). what needs answering is how come the genes of lower castes and dravidians have now become different in so far as they hve less in common with european (ie. other caucasian) genes. is it because of "fitting" ?? you know the caste system was briliant at absorbing wave after wave of outsiders. by fitting them into sections of society according to their trade. thus the magi mixed with the brahmins. the sakas mixed with the kshatriyas to form the rajputs (this one is debated. correct me if i am wrong). could it be possible that the austronesian (khemyr) tribes have similarly fitted with the proletariat sudras ?? could it be that kumari kandam is true and dravidians indeed have genes from australoids ?? even malayasia and indonesia have hindus of the dravidian kind notice. i want answers. not allegations.

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 09:52 AM

Totally different language!! I doubt that. Can you tell some more on how different they are? Its a different issue what academic circle believes now. Most of them are from the Hate ideology churned products of the Dravidian movement. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ one set of languages is inflective the other aggulutinative. one set has script that is either brahmi (bengali), devnagri (hindi, marathi) or gurmukhi (punjabi) - while the other set has scripts which are different and in general are a sort of "curved" script. i know the reason for this "curved"/"rounded" script though. and most importantly the root words of sanskrit based and dravidian languages are altogether different. script can chage over time. even the system of language (inflective or aggulutinative or otherwise) could be altered using the same root words. but when 2 languages have 2 differnt sets of root words, you know they never came from the same sounce. or are you going to tell me that shiva had 2 drums in 2 hands??

Posted by: rajesh_g Dec 10 2005, 09:56 AM

BenAmi, I think the assumption that the lack of a counter-AIT theory indicates that AIT is true doesnt make much sense to me. Simple logic tells me that when a theory is proposed, the theory should give falsifiable criteria, and when falsified that theory is BS.

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 10:00 AM

a highly rational answer (welcome change of pacer). so congrats.

QUOTE(Aryawan @ Dec 10 2005, 10:09 PM)
QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 10 2005, 09:36 PM)
QUOTE
so how come no brahmin is prepared to marry his daughter to a sudhra or a dalit, how so ever well to do?
Consequently how come many Jats want to marry other Jats and Khatris want to marry other Khatri's, why don't you ask about them? or is it only Brahmins who should marry other castes and did you take a survey among all Brahmins before you write such nonsense, I know plenty of people who were born Brahmins but would marry Hindus from any other jati.
*
Every body on this thread, An arranged marriage cannot take place outside the caste/community in majority of the cases. There can hardly be an arranged marriage between a Tamilian Brahmin and a Punjabi Khatri. If it is a love marriage then really caste/community or even religion hardly matters. Cupid's arrows knows no caste. no i was talking about brahmin-sudra marriage, not bengali-gujrati or tamil-punjabi marriage. I really think Indians should stop thinking in terms of caste or color or Aryan or Dravidian. Even if AIT is true what you can do about it. Over the last 50 years Indians have spread all over India outside their states, the economy in irreversibly inter-twined, there has been marriages outside caste, community, states and most of them are doing well. yes. well said. by no means are you to assume that i believe AIT is right. but if you have been all over india, even if a kid goes all over india, he woudl disagree that a sindhi and a tamil are the same people. Ben_Ami, Swami Vivekananda had said about 100 years back that there is no such silly thing as Aryan Invasion Theory.Swamiji said this after travelling all over India and through his yogic powers he could see many things which many of the anthropologists/palaentologists/archeologist..... can never see. Remember, color is not a correct criteria to judge this theory. Also to remind you that food, climate, activity, or even the thinking process can change the color of a person. Sadness, anxiety, tension can also change the color of a person. Happiness brings glow agree or not? Many Indians living in cold countries become fairer...yes only Indians do that. yes i noticed it among indian cricketers sometimes after a 3 month tour to say england. Just like excessive drinking can change the color of a face of an India, agreed? yes again. Working in the sun can tan the colors. I have come across situations where same family members can be very fair and dark even coming from the same parents. yes. so how come white collar tamilians are not fairer than rajasthani farmers ?? see the problem with the counter invasion theory ?? it still needs working on. Even the psyche of Indians do not vary that much all over the India. Even Vishnu has taken avatar sometimes as dark colored person such as Krishna now don't tell that because he was born in Lower caster Yadav...Laloo seems to be fair.......(caste color failed here).I have myself seen many valmiks (Dalits) quite fair. Ben-Ami.... What makes you so sanquine that AIT theory written by EPNS is correct?Do you agree to then other acts of the same people such as partition of Bengal & Pak, economic expoitation, brutality, famine creation (Bengal & others),.........Not only AIT but there are hundreds and thousands of such theories circulated by many vested parties...do you agree to all of them??? Including some very disparaging remarks about our Deities, Saints, and other respected Personalities?
*
when the deuce did i say that the AIT is correct?? i said the counter invasion theory is I-N-C-O-M-P-L-E-T-E. ok ?? if it isnt incomplete and all is prim and proper, then why cant my question be answered?? why isnt the rg ved in tamil?? what is the original tamil religion then if its not hinduism ??

Posted by: bengurion Dec 10 2005, 10:00 AM

I guess the AIT/AMT is a Circular logic. Definition: a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this". Almost all the AIT proponents do the same mistake. bengurion.

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 10:05 AM

QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Dec 10 2005, 10:26 PM)
BenAmi, I think the assumption that the lack of a counter-AIT theory indicates that AIT is true doesnt make much sense to me. Simple logic tells me that when a theory is proposed, the theory should give falsifiable criteria, and when falsified that theory is BS.
*
i have never ever assumed that the incompleteness of the counter invasion theory proves that ait is correct. thats whats the neo nazis assume and i just pointed as much. simple logic (at least in physics) states, that when a new theory has to replace an old theory, it has to 1) avoid making the mistakes of the old theory/explaination (in this case, the counter invasion theory INDEED does avoid breaking the boundary conditions that ait repeatedly breaks) and 2) explain all the questions thrown at it. the problem is that the AIT was always aimed at #2. at providing explainations. and that it did - only after breaking all logic and historical evidence. the problem with the counter theory is that it merelay points out all the boundary conditions and thus trashes the AIT. but fails to explain the anomalies and differences thats the AIT so brilliantly, albeit wrongfully, explained. and till such time the counter invasion theory does that, it will have few takers in western circles.

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 10:07 AM

QUOTE(bengurion @ Dec 10 2005, 10:30 PM)
I guess the AIT/AMT is a Circular logic. Definition: a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this". Almost all the AIT proponents do the same mistake. bengurion.
*
thanks. i know whats a tautology/circular logic. and i know exactly what the tautology of AIT is. which is why it is wrong. but fact remains, the counter theory needs working upon. sure its correct since it doesnt break any "facts" - but its far from nailed.

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 10:16 AM

yeah. so lets accept things as they are - lets accept that the counter theory is far from complete and try to further it. cos this one in its present state and pointing out that hema malini and vishwa nathan anand are fair - WONT FLY. i have been disappointed in other forums before. i have read the posts in this forum and have found most of the stuff of very high quality and/or authenticity. and was hopeful that some further answers would come out. to wit one - that muruga thing.

Posted by: rajesh_g Dec 10 2005, 10:22 AM

BenAmi What theory did AIT replace ? And why ?

Posted by: Aryawan Dec 10 2005, 10:22 AM

QUOTE(ben_ami @ Dec 10 2005, 10:37 PM)
QUOTE(bengurion @ Dec 10 2005, 10:30 PM)
I guess the AIT/AMT is a Circular logic. Definition: a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this". Almost all the AIT proponents do the same mistake. bengurion.
*
thanks. i know whats a tautology/circular logic. and i know exactly what the tautology of AIT is. which is why it is wrong. but fact remains, the counter theory needs working upon. sure its correct since it doesnt break any "facts" - but its far from nailed.
*
I think with passage of time many of the answers to AIT theory can be found. AIT theory was created using the inherent weaknesses of the Indian society. It was created in a way knowing very well that answers to the questions it is putting up will be difficult to find. Many years ago I doubt if many Indians were even debating this theory. With the advent of an open medium like internet at least a healthy debate has begun. Just today see many Indians sitting in different parts of the world discussing AIT. Remember many of the answers lie in remote areas, villages, with people who are not very educated , might be having old books, scripts living in inaccessible areas...or an unexplored part of the sub-continent having answers to AIT frequented by tribal people knowing nothing about AIT. It's like this... can we say the internet didn't exist 100 years before......it was not there because nobody discovered it...

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 10:29 AM

QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Dec 10 2005, 10:52 PM)
BenAmi What theory did AIT replace ? And why ?
*
ait never replaced any theory. its the one that needs replacing. if i wrote anywhere that the ait replaced some theory. then its a typo. but yes, the ait replaced the existing sense we had of out history. from the first line's of Elst's book - Until the mid-19th century, no Indian had ever heard of the notion that his ancestors could be Aryan invaders from Central Asia who had destroyed the native civilization and enslaved the native population. Neither had South-Indians ever dreamt that they were the rightful owners of the whole subcontinent, dispossessed by the Aryan invaders who had chased them from North India, turning it into Aryavarta, the land of the Aryans. Nor had the low-caste people heard that they were the original inhabitants of India, subdued by the Aryans and forced into the prisonhouse of caste which the conquerors imposed upon them as an early form of Apartheid. All these ideas had to be imported by European scholars and missionaries, who thought through the implications of the Aryan Invasion Theory

Posted by: rajesh_g Dec 10 2005, 10:37 AM

If I propose a theory that says goats have black manure but are white in color because white aryans screwed black goats then all that needs to be done is falsify the theory that no matter how many times a white aryan screws a black goat a baby goat is not forthcoming or that the correlation between goat sh1t and goat fur color has no correlation. The falsification doesnt *require* a new theory.

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 10:38 AM

I think with time many of the answers to AIT theory can be found. lmao !!! isnt that a tacit admission that with time the counter theory presenty still needs working upon and in future will/may be perfected ?? AIT theory was created using the inherent weaknesses of the Indian society. It was created in a way knowing very well that answers to the questions it is putting up will be difficult to find. agreed. Many years before I doubt if many Indians were even debating this theory. With the advent of an open medium like internet at least a healthy debate has begun. agreed again. unfortulately the rise of internet use coincided with the rise of the bjp and so most westerner consider this tendency of indians discussing their history and other matters as signs of "hindu nationalism" - something bjp pulled out of their bag! Jus today see many Indians sitting in different parts of the world discussing AIT. Remember many of the answers lies in remote areas, villages,with people who are not very educated , might be having old books, scripts living in inaccessible areas...or an unexplored part of sub-continent having answers to AIT frequented by tribal people knowing nothing about AIT. yes. and thts what we need to work on. we need to decipher those scripts, unravel those books, dig out those artefacts and sites etc. ie. we still need to keep working on the counter invasion theory, before AIT is consigned to flames. some of them are goiung to be very difficult. for example deciphering the aussie aboriginal tales. they dont have sophisticated script or literature. there arnt very many of them around either. long back - about 10 years back, i read the exerpt of a book by an indian author in a magazine - the author says that ram actually went to australia and its in the deserts of australia where the archeological evidence is to be found. sometimes i fear the colonians destroyed evidence while they were in power. i am dead sure that in europe at least, the missionaries and templar knights destroyed evidence especially of the celtic/keltic peoples about their unmistakable connectios with india. It's like this... can we say the internet didn't exists 100 years before......it was not there because nobody discovered it...

*
[/quote] yes i see your point. the evidence is already there - we just need to find/decipher them. which is what i was trying to point out all along !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 10:41 AM

QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Dec 10 2005, 11:07 PM)
If I propose a theory that says goats have black manure but are white in color because white aryans screwed black goats then all that needs to be done is falsify the theory that no matter how many times a white aryan screws a black goat a baby goat is not forthcoming or that the correlation between goat sh1t and goat fur color has no correlation. The falsification doesnt *require* a new theory.
*
agreed. ait is false so it needs to be trashed. and your crappy (pun intended) example wasnt needed to point that out. that was the starting ppoint of my discussion. that ait is wrong. the next point was that WHAT ARE THE FRIGGING EXPLAINATIONS TO THE ANOMALIES AND DIFFERENCES THEN?????

Posted by: rajesh_g Dec 10 2005, 10:48 AM

For that you will have to show a proper correlation between various elements that need explaining without any pre theoretical assumptions, like AIT itself.

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 10:50 AM

fine lets do that. lets start from 1850. no indian has a clue about the things that ait says. (as koenraad elst's quote explains) now answer my questions.

Posted by: vijnan_anand Dec 10 2005, 10:51 AM

Most sucessful people have faith skin ... actually not all but precisely 75% of them are fair skinned. Fair skin and brains are strongly correlated This is the gospel truth. If you don't believe it you don't have the answers.

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 10:56 AM

well that sort of explains why you dont have any of the answers doesn't it ?? (cos you believe that74% of the successful types are fair)

Posted by: Aryawan Dec 10 2005, 10:57 AM

QUOTE(vijnan_anand @ Dec 10 2005, 11:21 PM)
Most sucessful people have faith skin ... actually not all but precisely 75% of them are fair skinned. Fair skin and brains are strongly correlated This is the gospel truth. If you don't believe it you don't have the answers.
*
Some of the worst criminals are also fair skinned..what is to that..Hitler, Osama Bin LAden (fair and tall), Many terrorists are fair skinned........so what do want to say.....Most of the wars in this world have been organized by fair skinned peolpe .. Gandhi was a dark skinned and a very good human being.....

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 10:59 AM

er i am not going to answer this one. in fact i am not going to try to answer anything from anand. he is insane and dense. the rest at least see some light (no pun with "fair", mind you) - that we need improvements yet.

Posted by: rajesh_g Dec 10 2005, 11:26 AM

So what is the correlation ? What needs to be explained by *one* grand theory ? Why such logic ?

QUOTE
we still need to keep working on the counter invasion theory, before AIT is consigned to flames.

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 11:34 AM

no doesnt have to be a unified anti-invasion theory. when did i say as much ?? the anomalies can be explained piecemeal as well. just as long as they are explained convincingly. afterall, the anomalaies arent related either - so its only natural that different explainations fit different er.. bottlenecks. and to see just what the problem is with selling the counter ait to westerners, have a look here - i can post more too, http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=208791&page=9

Posted by: Ashok Kumar Dec 10 2005, 12:22 PM

Ben Ami, Your posts lose most of their value when they are interspersed with gross presumptions and plain old wrong facts. To top is the 'paNDimmanyamAnaH' (I am sure you would know the meaning of this sanskrit word) attitude without sufficient evidence to convince yet. Let me point out one more silly argument you made:

QUOTE
one set has script that is either brahmi (bengali), devnagri (hindi, marathi) or gurmukhi (punjabi) - while the other set has scripts which are different and in general are a sort of "curved" script. i know the reason for this "curved"/"rounded" script though.
Anyone who knows enough about Indian scripts, and there are many on this forum, will find the above statement ridiculous. FYI ALL Indian scripts except Urdu, have their basis in Brahmi. Check any good reference. But instead of doing your homework, you are indulging in some childish theorizing about Bengali being Brahmi and south Indian scripts being 'curved', and expecting the whole forum to sit up and listen to you. Well, we are listening, but haven't found anything very striking to get excited about.

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 12:39 PM

bengali is not brahmi really. its off brahmi. (as is tibetan) hindi is indeed devnagri. and south indian scripts are indeed curved. i know the reason (more or less) why they are curved/curvy. what i didnt know is that they are also derived from brahmi. can you point out a reference which would prove that they come from brahmi. and even if they are - will you try to tell me there is no other difference in the 2 language families?? their root words are also same???? their "system" is also same and not different (inflective and agg)

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 12:40 PM

and nothing striking or exciting ought to be found from what i wrote - i was only asking questions and not producing marvellous answers.

Posted by: Aryawan Dec 10 2005, 12:51 PM

QUOTE(ben_ami @ Dec 11 2005, 01:09 AM)
bengali is not brahmi really. its off brahmi. (as is tibetan) hindi is indeed devnagri. and south indian scripts are indeed curved. i know the reason (more or less) why they are curved/curvy. what i didnt know is that they are also derived from brahmi. can you point out a reference which would prove that they come from brahmi. and even if they are - will you try to tell me there is no other difference in the 2 language families?? their root words are also same???? their "system" is also same and not different (inflective and agg)
*
Now what is this about languages. Most of the Indians are bi/tri-linguals. In most of the cities, save a couple of South Indian cities, most of the people speak at least two Indian languages. I know in Kolkata every body speaks Bengali and Hindi doesn't matter if he/she is a Hindi or Bengali speaking person. Success of Indians in software area is precisely because of the lingual ability of Indians. My theory is that Indians find it easier to translate written codes/logic in to computer languages because of the inherent mental faculty developed over the period of being conversant with2/3/4 languages.

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 12:58 PM

thats all fine. i didnt say that the different languages are a problem. thats a totally different aspect - how we do function despite differences in castes, color, language, and individual state histories. and yes, language wise we ae indeed "baptised by fire" - ie. except for villagers who live a frog-in-the-well existance, most of us have to venture out of your native land very early and get used to difference of language, subculture etc. how does that explain the differences amongst us - if indeed we are all the self same people. i have noticed you have been trying to do this "fix" act for some time now. that wasnt necessary though. my intention when i raised those questions was not to "divide" us. just to point out that we have left a lot of things unexplained. remember the longer it takes us to explain everything, the bigger of a problem the AIT will snowball into.

Posted by: ashyam Dec 10 2005, 01:03 PM

Regarding Rajasthani and Tamil farmers you need to look at their clothing because of weather conditions there. In Rajasthan, temperature goes to both extremes, extremely hot in summer and extremely cold during winter. Because of this they are always completely clothed. Also you can see a lot of dark low class Rajastanis. In TN and Andhra, it is always hot. When they work in the fields they remove shirts and wear only a loin cloth. The humid climate in south helps this. Even upper caste people were not used to wearing shirts in old days and they were exposed to sunlight. Look at Arabs, even though that place is very hot, those places are similarly cold during winter. They cover their body properly too.

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 01:06 PM

QUOTE(ashyam @ Dec 11 2005, 01:33 AM)
Regarding Rajasthani and Tamil farmers you need to look at their clothing because of weather conditions there. In Rajasthan, temperature goes to both extremes, extremely hot in summer and extremely cold during winter. Because of this they are always completely clothed. Also you can see a lot of dark low class Rajastanis. In TN and Andhra, it is always hot. When they work in the fields they remove shirts and wear only a loin cloth. The humid climate in south helps this. Even upper caste people were not used to wearing shirts in old days and they were exposed to sunlight. Look at Arabs, even though that place is very hot, those places are similarly cold during winter. They cover their body properly too.
*
i rest my case. despite your post lifting the fog somewhat, it confirmed more doubts than answered. the counter ait is I-N-C-O-M-P-L-E-T-E. period.

Posted by: ashyam Dec 10 2005, 01:09 PM

Too quick to rest? Those dark low classes are the ones who work in sunlight.

Posted by: Aryawan Dec 10 2005, 01:10 PM

QUOTE(ashyam @ Dec 11 2005, 01:33 AM)
Regarding Rajasthani and Tamil farmers you need to look at their clothing because of weather conditions there. Rajasthan, temperature goes to both extremes, extremely hot in summer and extremely cold during winter. Because of this they are always completely clothed. Also you can see a lot of dark low class Rajastanis. In TN and Andhra, it is always hot. When they work in the fields they remove shirts and wear only a loin cloth. The humid climate in south helps this. Even upper caste people were not used to wearing shirts in old days and they were exposed to sunlight. Look at Arabs, even though that place is very hot, those places are similarly cold during winter. They cover their body properly too.
*
In Rajasthan people are fully clothed because of the dry and sandy wind which blows. Unlike to Southern India which is more Balmy and Humid. In Rajasthan if you take off your clothes, you will get a sun stroke (Loo). Plus clothes protect against sand. In Rajasthan there is no color basis. Lower caste people can be quite fair and upper caste can be dark. I have seen in villages, lower caste Rajasthanis being quite fair. In fact, tanned is the correct color of Rajasthani. If you see most of the Rajputs are tanned/copper colored. Women, because they stay at home, are fairer and lighter skinned irrespective of caste.

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 01:11 PM

QUOTE(ashyam @ Dec 11 2005, 01:39 AM)
Too quick to rest? Those dark low classes are the ones who work in sunlight.
*
those low class people are also the low CASTE people. you know while writting that i think i figured out the answer to one question - why the lower caste people are generally darker, even in the north. i'll leave it to u to work out

Posted by: ashyam Dec 10 2005, 01:15 PM

The point is if weather in your area force you to cover your body, you tend to be light skinned. Otherwise you become dark. That is why there are some upper castes in TN may be darker than some lower castes in Rajasthan. Why are Italians dark skinned than Germans? Answer of course is weather and clothing. I've not seen Julius Ceaser's image with heavy clothes.

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 01:17 PM

i ask again. why are lower caste people darker?? irrespective of where in india we are talking about?? i feel i have the answer.

Posted by: ashyam Dec 10 2005, 01:18 PM

Italians are not lower caste/class compared to Germans. During Roman empire times, Germans were considered as tribals

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 01:20 PM

barbarians in fact. is that er... germane to this discussion??

Posted by: ashyam Dec 10 2005, 01:21 PM

Not bringing in Germans. Just to prove that what decides your color is the kind of environment you are exposed to. Not if you are superior or inferior to the other group.

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 01:24 PM

ashok kumar - i concede - all scripts come from brahmi. http://www.hindu.com/2004/05/26/stories/2004052602871200.htm though differences in root words and system (inflective/agg) need to be explained. script is theleast of the differences really - afterall any language can we written in the script of another - transliteration.

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 01:26 PM

QUOTE(ashyam @ Dec 11 2005, 01:51 AM)
Not bringing in Germans. What decides your color is the kind of environment you are exposed to. Not if you are superior or inferior to other group.
*
yes. and thats the answer. that is why the lower castes are dark - despite being the same people. ie. a lower caste punjabi or rajasthani is darker than brahmin punjabis/rajasthanis. since the caste system is essentially birth based and also invariably trade based, the proletariat have become darker over generations. add to that the "fitting" - the fair saka, magi enhanced the upper caste complexion towards fair whilst the darker munda and other tribes pushed the sudras towards darker. so thats 2 answers - the muruga and the colour difference (inter caste. not yet inter north-south indian). also half the lamguage difference - ie., the common origin of script is explained. what about the rest of the questions.

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 02:17 PM

well ??

Posted by: Ashok Kumar Dec 10 2005, 03:00 PM

Ben Ami, Brahmi as mother of all Indian and many asian scripts refs: http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/scripts.html http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/9594/brahmi.html ------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Agglutinative vs Inflective According to wikipedia, Dravidian Languages are both agglutinative and highly inflective! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflected_language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agglutinative

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 10 2005, 03:09 PM

about the brahmi bit, i already agreed with. as for aggulutinative language being inflective as well - its simply not possible for a language to be purely aggulutinative. especially when the same word is changed according to different situations. for example in kannada, kuro = do/deux (hindi) = give (english) = de/they (bengali)-----------> used with juniors kuri = dijiye (hindi) = give (english) = deen/theen (bengali) ----------> used with elders. now of course kuro and kuri come from the same root and one of them is the inflected version. such inflexion (of tense, of degree of respect, singular-plural etc) is not avoidable in ANY language i believe. but aside of being inflective, dravidian languages are also aggulutinative - of which no trace exists in sanskrit based languages. and then there is the small matter of torally different set of root words.

Posted by: vijnan_anand Dec 10 2005, 04:29 PM

ben_ami, As they say 82.345% of all statistics are made up. So some "facts" need not be "facts".

Posted by: Mudy Dec 10 2005, 04:49 PM

QUOTE
that is why the lower castes are dark - despite being the same people. ie. a lower caste punjabi or rajasthani is darker than brahmin punjabis/rajasthanis.
Not necessary. My grand mother was very clear skin, can call her white/yellow color, but her younger brother is very dark as they call in Punjab "Ulta Tava" (Back of Hot plate). Now offspring are mixed even my grand father was very light color. Cousins are mixed color from fair to dark, one can find all shades. biggrin.gif All genes.

Posted by: Ashok Kumar Dec 10 2005, 04:56 PM

QUOTE
but aside of being inflective, dravidian languages are also aggulutinative - of which no trace exists in sanskrit based languages.
Sanskrit 'samAsa' does function a lot like agglutination. Especially tatpuruSha samAsa. Indo-European languages like German use a lot of agglutination too. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Linguistics:_Typology

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 11 2005, 01:05 AM

QUOTE(Mudy @ Dec 11 2005, 05:19 AM)
QUOTE
that is why the lower castes are dark - despite being the same people. ie. a lower caste punjabi or rajasthani is darker than brahmin punjabis/rajasthanis.
Not necessary. My grand mother was very clear skin, can call her white/yellow color, but her younger brother is very dark as they call in Punjab "Ulta Tava" (Back of Hot plate). Now offspring are mixed even my grand father was very light color. Cousins are mixed color from fair to dark, one can find all shades. biggrin.gif All genes.
*
i am aware of such peculiarities amongst indians. i have often seen siblings with totally different complexions. it happens often when one parent if fair and another not - one sibling takes after the fairer parent while another takes after the other parent. but still, the fact that the proletariat have to work hard and often out in the open/sun + the fact that caste system is by and large heridetary + the "fitting" that took place over the years (iranian/saka for upper castes and kheymer for lower)----- together could explain the inter-caste complexion anomaly, decently well. if there is some other answer, then i'd like to know. either way we need to come up with all the requisite explainations to be able to bury the AIT. the sooner the better.

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 11 2005, 01:06 AM

QUOTE(vijnan_anand @ Dec 11 2005, 04:59 AM)
ben_ami, As they say 82.345% of all statistics are made up. So some "facts" need not be "facts".
*
thanks for another assclown post.

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 11 2005, 01:38 AM

QUOTE(Ashok Kumar @ Dec 11 2005, 05:26 AM)
QUOTE
but aside of being inflective, dravidian languages are also aggulutinative - of which no trace exists in sanskrit based languages.
Sanskrit 'samAsa' does function a lot like agglutination. Especially tatpuruSha samAsa. Indo-European languages like German use a lot of agglutination too. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Linguistics:_Typology
*
hmmm yes. no language is purely agg or inflective. esp, purely agg is not possible at all. and yes the samasha and yuktakshar in sanskrit is agg or like agg. even english is both agg and inflective. - English is both agglutinative, as, manlike, headache, and inflective, as, he, his, him. Cf. Agglutinative. i guess when they say inflective they mean BASICALLY inflective (like when we say so and so is a batsman, it doesnt mean that he never bowls, means he is basically a batter) and agg similarly means basically agg. be that as it may, there is still absolutely no way the two sets of languages could have had a common source. common script yes. either language system having both agg and inflective - in different ratios - yes. but root words are poles apart. in no language classification chart will you be able to show me, sanskritic languages clubbed with dravidian or vice versa. yet sanskritic languages share root words with the romance and even germanic languages of europe, whilst dravidian languages share root words (as do dravidians share features) with srilankans, malaysians etc. could kumari kandam be correct ??? is it possible that while north indians moved in from the swaraswati valley - after the river died - to the interior of the sub continent - similarly dravidians moved in and concentrated in the peninsula, once the rest of kumari kundam sank. they do have allusions to kumari kandam in their literature. tamil literature says that there were some 13 "nadus" or lands. does anyone know of lemuria? even karnataka gets its name from kara-nadu (or similar. i forgot). meaning elevated land. if thats is indeed the case.... whats the proto dravidian religion?????? how come dance and temples come primarily from south india???? i get the feeling that there was a interchange of religion as well as culture. and where does that leave the munda, the tudu and the other tribes???? who were the painters of the bhimbetika caves ??? .............

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 11 2005, 01:47 AM

very good chart. if true it shows how all scripts came from brahmi. http://www.ontopia.net/i18n/ftree.jsp?id=1547

Posted by: narayanan Dec 11 2005, 08:25 AM

QUOTE
yes. so how come white collar tamilians are not fairer than rajasthani farmers ?? see the problem with the counter invasion theory ??
Oh Brother! This is where I decided that this thread requires my learned input. Give it 5000 years, and there will most certainly be a tribe with long thin fingers, flat-screen faces, a chair-shaped behind and not much else. Homo Sapiens Derivatus Geekus Rodent-Pushus People in the Temperate Zone evolve into designs optimized for survival in colder climates, etc. OTOH, the Counter AIT is NOT that Caucasian tribes never migrated to Northern India - they did. The Truth is that this migration had nothing to do with the writing of the Vedas etc. any more than the Gypsies wrote Iliad, Odyssey and the Bible. The AIT issue is that its fanatics insist on models were all realities are bent to assure that western civilization comes out the winner.

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 11 2005, 09:26 AM

Oh Brother! This is where I decided that this thread requires my learned input. thanks for your learned input. Give it 5000 years, and there will most certainly be a tribe with long thin fingers, flat-screen faces, a chair-shaped behind and not much else. Homo Sapiens Derivatus Geekus Rodent-Pushus i see your point. so how many years have we to wait till the people of hot rajasthan become dark lioke tamilians?? the rajasthan desert has existed ever since the swaraswati dried up remember. People in the Temperate Zone evolve into designs optimized for survival in colder climates, etc. yes thats why polar bears are white and sloth bears are black and grizzlies are brown. so how come only the lower castes (more or less) are the ones who have turned dark in north india whilest the upper castes are by and large fari?? we have already answered this question so no need to harp on it any more. but the climate of southern states and the southern amongst northern states arent too different - ie. maharashtra, m.p. and orissa. yet the colplexion and features to some extent are different. i remain convinced - that there were 2 inward exodus-es. from indus valley to middle india - and from kumari kandam to dravir. OTOH, the Counter AIT is NOT that Caucasian tribes never migrated to Northern India - they did. The Truth is that this migration had nothing to do with the writing of the Vedas etc. any more than the Gypsies wrote Iliad, Odyssey and the Bible. aha ! so caucasian tribes migrated into india?? from where pray ?? and whats otoh The AIT issue is that its fanatics insist on models were all realities are bent to assure that western civilization comes out the winner. that bit we all know and realise. to trash those lunatics and their canards - we need a counter ait theory, that EXPLAINS EVERYTHING.

Posted by: G.Subramaniam Dec 11 2005, 09:50 AM

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/stephenoppenheimer/ Shows DNA proving OIT India in fact shows classic evolution It takes about 20000 years for skin color to change from jet black to white India shows people of all colors Jet black - Tribals Dark brown - South India Light brown - North India Dark White - Kashmir As you move away from the equator, you have to lose melanin to make enough Vit D, hence north Indians tend to be lighter color than south Indians

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 11 2005, 12:51 PM

yes. i never doubted that oit is right. but tell me .... why when you drive from 10 kms inside karnataka to 10 kms inside maharashtra - you find that there is a sudden change in colour and language type. why the hell should the line of demarcation of colour also coincide with the line of demarcation of language as well. why is there no reference of temples in vedic literature?? why are india's oldest and best temples found in south india - and infact as you go north the temples ae more and more ordinary in their craftsmanship. only jain temples, khajuraho and orissa temples have craftsmanship as exquisite as those of south india. rest of north india has big and important temples - but not exquisitely engraved etc. how come dances are primarily south indian ,.. and again orissan?? how come none of the veds, sutras, upanishads, etc are written in dravidian language?? how come the 5 tamil epics are unheard of in north india?? and are those epics wrong when they allude to kumari kandam?? even stephen oppenheimer mentions the explosion of a volcano in sumatra or thereabots?? why is holi meaningless in south india, or only recenty has gained prominence? is it possible that south indians carry australasian blood from java, sumatra, borneo and kumari kandam which made the differnce in complexion widen somewhat more (meanwhile upper caste north indians got "fitted" with the saka, dhruva and magi and got skewed towards fairness - as also the lower caste/sudhras got fitted with the khemyr and got skewed towards darkness) and who exactly are the tribals?? are they originally from india or are they khemyr who migrated into india the way gypsies went to europe?? is it possible that andhrites have by now got tribal blood in them - i know its a problem with orissa - not only has there been marriage with tribals, there also has been exchange of their toddi drinking culture. what was the proto dravidian religion?? if it was indeed always hinduism then how come none of hindu scripture is in a dravidian language??? see i am not trying to be derogatory. not trying for once to say ait is correct. just pointing out that there are many frigging questions that OIT has left unanswered. its basic premise - out of india - has been proved. but no more has been done and OIT has not been developed further. even koenraad elst in the last chapter of his book "a new loo at the ait" (or similar) has admitted that the OIT model is far from complete. which is what i was trying to point out all along. btw - can someone tell me what does the hindu creation myth and patriachial story have to say?? manu - illa - bharat - puru (purush i know, and even persians?? ) - danu - etc. does there exist any puranic story saying that north and south indians came from different sons of manu/illa ??

Posted by: G.Subramaniam Dec 11 2005, 03:29 PM

QUOTE
ben_ami,Dec 12 2005, 01:21 AM]
yes. i never doubted that oit is right.
QUOTE
but tell me .... why when you drive from 10 kms inside karnataka to 10 kms inside maharashtra - you find that there is a sudden change in colour and language type. why the hell should the line of demarcation of colour also coincide with the line of demarcation of language as well.
I seriously doubt that all marathi speakers are fair and all kannada speakers are dark There is a substantial overlap in color even in the same family
QUOTE
why is there no reference of temples in vedic literature?? why are india's oldest and best temples found in south india - and infact as you go north the temples ae more and more ordinary in their craftsmanship. only jain temples, khajuraho and orissa temples have craftsmanship as exquisite as those of south india. rest of north india has big and important temples - but not exquisitely engraved etc. how come dances are primarily south indian ,.. and again orissan??
Read Sita Ram Goel's Hindu Temples what happened to them vol 1 and vol 2 All north Indian temples post date Aurangzeb, all the earlier temples were destroyed Temple building started along with jainism and hence dont find mention in the vedas Regarding dances, islam probably destroyed much of original north Indian hinduism North Indian hinduism is heavily islamified - sufi dargahs, veils etc
QUOTE
how come none of the veds, sutras, upanishads, etc are written in dravidian language?? --- How come the koran is written in arabic and the bible in latin until recently ---- how come the 5 tamil epics are unheard of in north india?? ----
Those 5 tamil epics were written in 500 AD, and 2 of them were buddhist and jain epics. How many Jains and buddhists are there in north India Of the 5 epics, even the tamils have lost 2 epics, only 3 are still remnant Islam eradicated buddhism in north India There are chinese buddhists who are well aware of these epics ----
QUOTE
and are those epics wrong when they allude to kumari kandam?? even stephen oppenheimer mentions the explosion of a volcano in sumatra or thereabots??
No ---
QUOTE
why is holi meaningless in south india, or only recenty has gained prominence? is it possible that south indians carry australasian blood from java, sumatra, borneo and kumari kandam which made the differnce in complexion widen somewhat more (meanwhile upper caste north indians got "fitted" with the saka, dhruva and magi and got skewed towards fairness - as also the lower caste/sudhras got fitted with the khemyr and got skewed towards darkness)
The gene flow is almost always out of India The Sunda people originated in India per DNA As Sundaland got submerged, some Sunda people undoubtedly migrated back to India
QUOTE
and who exactly are the tribals??
Veddas etc who resemble Australian aborigines --
QUOTE
are they originally from india or are they khemyr who migrated into india the way gypsies went to europe?? is it possible that andhrites have by now got tribal blood in them - i know its a problem with orissa - not only has there been marriage with tribals, there also has been exchange of their toddi drinking culture.
Given that 99% of Indian residents have been resident in India for 80K years there is certainly admixture Even Dr.Ambedkar refers to this and denies AIT
QUOTE
what was the proto dravidian religion?? if it was indeed always hinduism then how come none of hindu scripture is in a dravidian language???
There is tons of Shaivite and Vaishnavite scripture in tamil In fact next to Sanskrit, tamil has the most hindu religious scripture I had to learn much of this during school In tamil literature, only the 3rd Sangam literature survives Per tamil tradition, Shiva was the chief moderator of the first Sangam, in pre-historic times G.S ---- see i am not trying to be derogatory. not trying for once to say ait is correct. just pointing out that there are many frigging questions that OIT has left unanswered. its basic premise - out of india - has been proved. but no more has been done and OIT has not been developed further. even koenraad elst in the last chapter of his book "a new loo at the ait" (or similar) has admitted that the OIT model is far from complete. which is what i was trying to point out all along.

Posted by: mitradena Dec 11 2005, 07:23 PM

G. Subramaniam, What are the five Tamil epics called and which 2 are Buddhist/Jain? Are there English translations available?

Posted by: chandramoulee Dec 11 2005, 08:05 PM

QUOTE(mitradena @ Dec 12 2005, 07:53 AM)
G. Subramaniam, What are the five Tamil epics called and which 2 are Buddhist/Jain? Are there English translations available?
*
I am sure G.Sub will answer you, but here is what I can contribute (for what it is worth). The five Tamil epics are called Aimperum Kappiyangal : 1. Kundalakesi 2. Valayapathi 3. Jeevakachinthamani 4. Silappathikaram and 5. Manimekalai. Of the above. as far as I know, Silappathikaram is widely translated and is known as the Story of the Anklet The last named, Manimekalai is somewhat like a sequel to Silappadikaram

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 12 2005, 05:25 AM

http://www.wikimirror.com/Kumari_Kandam http://www.onpedia.com/encyclopedia/Dravidian-race read both and even the links on bottom of the first webpage. . extremely interesting article - http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/reviews/atlantis.html isnt it possible to check amongst the tribes of present day java and sumatra if they have any passed down lore to corroborate the same?? read the last paraghaph here - http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/books/ait/ch63.htm and here koenraad elst cuts out the agenda - http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/books/ait/ch62.htm gs.... then did hinduism come by consensus between sanskrit speaking peoples and tamil speaking peoples?? surely there is no way one can claim that these 2 languages are from the same family, given their root words are totally different. so, if hinduism is by concensus, and if there is no difference betwwwen the two peoples except what thousands of years of different weather and "fitting" did to them - then why should they have 2 completely different language families?? finally - can someone please tell me about the manu lineage. where can i find out about his offsprings - illa, bharat, dhruva and puru. is it possible that the jewish story of ham, shem and japeth is plagiarised form manu smriti and matsya purana?? could it be possible that manu smtriti is right and dravidians and north indians have different sons of manu as their patriachs?

Posted by: G.Subramaniam Dec 12 2005, 06:45 AM

The five Tamil epics are called Aimperum Kappiyangal : 1. Kundalakesi 2. Valayapathi 3. Jeevakachinthamani 4. Silappathikaram and 5. Manimekalai. Of the above. as far as I know, Silappathikaram is widely translated and is known as the Story of the Anklet The last named, Manimekalai is somewhat like a sequel to Silappadikaram ---- Kundalakesi and Valayapati are lost epics Nobody has a copy of them Silappadikaram is a hindu epic Manimekalai is a buddhist epic and widely known among chinese buddhists Jeevakachintamani is a Jain epic Thiruvalluvar was most likely a Jain Hence it is not surprising that north Indian hindus are unaware of these epics ---

QUOTE(ben_ami @ Dec 12 2005, 05:55 PM)
http://www.wikimirror.com/Kumari_Kandam gs.... then did hinduism come by consensus between sanskrit speaking peoples and tamil speaking peoples?? surely there is no way one can claim that these 2 languages are from the same family, given their root words are totally different. so, if hinduism is by concensus, and if there is no difference betwwwen the two peoples except what thousands of years of different weather and "fitting" did to them - then why should they have 2 completely different language families?? ----- About 40% of tamil is originated in sanskrit Look at the father of the Dravidian movement Rama Swamy Naicker The first 2 parts of his name are sanskritic LTTE chief Prabhakaran Sanskritic name Both tamil and sanskrit script is originated in brahmi script Hinduism is a consensus religion of all the tribal religions of India Jagannath of Puri is a tribal deity Sandhya Jain has written a book on the tribal origins of hinduism --- finally - can someone please tell me about the manu lineage. where can i find out about his offsprings - illa, bharat, dhruva and puru. is it possible that the jewish story of ham, shem and japeth is plagiarised form manu smriti and matsya purana?? could it be possible that manu smtriti is right and dravidians and north indians have different sons of manu as their patriachs?
*
-- I personally dont know about the above G.S

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 12 2005, 07:15 AM

Kundalakesi and Valayapati are lost epics ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ are missionaries and/or muslims to blame for this loss?? is it likely that a copy exists in translation somewhere else?? like lots oh sanskrit stuff exists in chineese after buddhism acted as a vehicle in transporting them there

Posted by: k.ram Dec 12 2005, 07:30 AM

Mod Hat On! b_cowboy.gif Guys, Please post in relevant threads and please scan the forum for such threads- discussions about Tamil/Sanskrit; Dark/Fair; Short/Tall; North/South; Grand Unified Theories et al. This thread is just to discuss what it says - AI(M)T. Thanks. Hat off!

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 12 2005, 01:35 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Noah http://users3.ev1.net/~dcris/lcog/biblestudies/Origin%20of%20the%20Nations.htm

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 12 2005, 06:17 PM

http://murugan.org/research/valluvan.htm so much for common source !! the sooner we find out a complete GUT of non-invasion, the sooner we can shut the ait blokes.

Posted by: Aryawan Dec 12 2005, 09:45 PM

Don't know if this one was ever posted here. BY Professor Goel from University of West Florida. THE MYTH OF ARYAN INVASIONS OF INDIA Dr. MADAN LAL GOEL UNIVERSITY OF WEST FLORIDA www.uwf.edu/lgoel The often perceived and frequently quoted racial division in India between the fairer Aryan North and the darker Dravidian South is pernicious and dangerous. The British gave currency to this view of racial divide in India. It was part of their “divide and rule” strategy. The Northern people in India got especially sucked into this interpretation of history because it made the “Aryan” northerners appear racially closer to the white races of Europe. This viewpoint is also popular in Sri Lanka, where the Singhalese believe that they are descendants of Aryans from the North of India and that Tamils of Sri Lanka are not. This short article summarizes recent scholarship on the Aryan invasion theory. New interpretations of ancient Indian history do not accept the view that Aryans entered India from the outside. New information rejects the notion that the Dravidian people were the conquered races, or that the Dravidians were pushed down south by the invading Aryans. Sri Aurobindo (1872-1950), a scholar of Latin and Greek as well as of Sanskrit, debunked this theory of the North-South racial divide in India. Sri Aurobindo did not subscribe to the theory that the languages of North and South India are unrelated. Sri Aurobindo’s study of the Tamil led him to discover that the original connection between the Sanskrit and Tamil languages was “far closer and more extensive than is usually supposed.” These languages are “two divergent families derived from one lost primitive tongue.” And, “My first study of Tamil words had brought me to what seemed a clue to the very origins and structure of the ancient Sanskrit tongue.” –See The Secret of the Veda, V 10, the Centenary Edition, p 36, 46. Sri Aurobindo also noted that a large part of the vocabulary of the South Indian languages (Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam) is common with Sanskrit. For anyone who seriously wishes to pursue the topic of north-south division in India in the light of Sri Aurobindo, I recommend K. D. Sethna’s The Problem of Aryan Origins, New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan, 1980 and 1992. Also recommended are the following two titles. Rewriting Indian History by Francois Gautier, New Delhi, Vikas Publishers, 1996, and The Invasion That Never Was by Michael Danino and Sujata Nahar, published by Mira Aditi, 1996. Hindus collectively have no memory of an Aryan invasion of India that supposedly took place around 1,500 B.C. Hindu epics do not mention any such invasion. Surely, the extensive Hindu literature would describe the Aryan invasions if such had indeed taken place. http://www.uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/AMythofAryanInvasionsofIndia.pdf

Posted by: ashyam Dec 12 2005, 10:31 PM

This is a simple question I heard long back and I still don't have an answer. Please let me know if you have any. Dravidian movement argued that Ramayana was written by North Indians (another word for Aryans). The Sugreeva, Hanuman and the vanarasena came from South India. i.e. South Indians are monkeys. The Ravana was in Lanka and he was a rakshasa and so the people of Sri Lanka are rakshasas. i.e. according to Ramayana the people of north are the normal people and those of south are monkeys and rakshasas. What is the explanation for this?

Posted by: bengurion Dec 12 2005, 11:39 PM

QUOTE(ashyam @ Dec 13 2005, 11:01 AM)
This is a simple question I heard long back and I still don't have an answer. Please let me know if you have any. Dravidian movement argued that Ramayana was written by North Indians (another word for Aryans). The Sugreeva, Hanuman and the vanarasena came from South India. i.e. South Indians are monkeys. The Ravana was in Lanka and he was a rakshasa and so the people of Sri Lanka are rakshasas. i.e. according to Ramayana the people of north are the normal people and those of south are monkeys and rakshasas. What is the explanation for this?
*
There is a Ramayana written purely in Tamil by Kamban (the most renowned poet in Tamil literature). If ramayana was written by Aryans (north indians ) and South indians were monkeys and Rakshashas, why would the most venerated poet glorify a "villain" and make him hero of the book? The book is called Kamba Ramayanam!. And the poet has a title Kavichakkaravarthi.! Due to this Dravidianist movement's illiteracy of tamil literature and their stupid belief system many of the original tamil scholar do not accept to this kind of perversion. bengurion.

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 13 2005, 09:41 AM

can anyone give me some info about that "australian ramayan" theory some author har written about?? he claimed that ram actually went to australia and not lanka (the name lanka occurs to an island closer home cos people have a habit of naming new places from the old names.. ie. usa has a new hampshire, new york. that kind of stuff. even rajesh kochar in his canard book supporting ait said as much). so anyway - that author claimed that ram went to australia. according to ramaysn, the people of the land ram went to, look like monkeys. kumari kandam is not false and nor is the sinking of sundaland due to that volcano. andaman gets its name from hanuman. there is an island called bali - anothr monkey. here is what the people of andaman look like - http://www.andaman.org/book/chapter1/text1.htm http://www.andaman.org/book/chapter5/text5.htm i wonder if there is a connection. ramayan is afterall a fable based on fact. is it likely that australia thing is true?? and that ram was helped by a andamanese....hanuman ??

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 13 2005, 09:45 AM

btw, and with the mod's permission - this is what i wrote in the feedback section of the same website. i know its not relevant to this thread, but i still want to post it here - cos its important. if the mods so wish then they can stick this post in some more appropriate thread. you can read my feedback here (about quater of the way from the top. posted as eye_in_the_sky- http://www.andaman.org/data-andaman/gubook.htm I loved the way you propounded the canard of the population of andaman having gone down due do disease, due to england's illegation occupation of india. much in the same way the native populations of the both america's and the population of OZ and NZ also went down due to disease. while you were in the process mentioning this profound truth, you might as well have named the disease that caused the deaths. its called "white man", the most kiler disease in history. the tamPoms wanted to use andaman as a "penal colony" and even built the cellular jail there, so that they could transfer indian freedom fighters away from mainland india. to that end they hacked and shot and butchered the natives of andaman as much as they could and thus of the original 13 odd tribes only about 3 are alive and that too in their 100s instead of in 1000s. the story should be familiar to the er.. "diseased" amongst you. afterall your ancesters similarly hacked the tasmanians to oblivion and inflicted a cathocalypse on latin america and darn near replicated it in the 2 americas and in the Z (o and n) countries. speaking of cathocalypse, i just wish those damn pesky missionaries would stay away from the innocent unsuspecting tribes of andamans and not try to convert them into their half cast (judaic cross pagan) gobbledegook religion. and finally, your characteristically spineless accusation of the govt of india, (which has since the poms were kicked out of india, gone out of its way to salvage and reverse the damage the barbarian poms did) - that they tried to integrate the andamanese into indian society - was amongst the lousiest canards i'he ever had the displeasure of reading. we leave them well alone - unlike your white bum ancesters and blod brothers in usa and the Z countries - who have the beautiful national policies of secretly sterilizing the amerindians and kidnapping aboriginal babies so that they can grow up with a "white christian" families (like simmons the aussie cricketer or their "australian idol" - both of whom have been made to forget their father's ways and were forced to adopt x-ianity !!).so thats that - dont throw stones at other windows when your entire house is glass. after all, we already have too many instances of "pot-kettle-black" already, without you having to spew out baseless apologist canards defending the attrocities of colonization. so stop making half assed attemptes to deny the true history of the world greatest disease, that stares you in your face all over the globe, not the least in andaman. the natives of andaman were nearly hacked to oblivion by the damned tamPoms - so they they could claim the islands as a New Something-or-the-other.

Posted by: Mitra Dec 13 2005, 12:41 PM

ashyam, bengurion The proponents of the early dravida movement actually misinterpreted Kamban's Ramayan. However there is a very well known historical theory regarding the names Vanara, Rakshasas etc., propounded by the famous Historian Damodar Dharmanand Kosambi. He maintained that ancient tribal people nearly always identified their tribal identity with an animal or natural totem. Therefore the Vanaras would be a warlike tribe who used the Monkey totem as the symbol of their tribe. Likewise Jambuvan would not literally be a bear but of a tribe that used the bear totem. This theory bears equally true with Rigvedic tribes. If taken literally tribes or 'Janas' like the 'Matsya' or 'Aleena' would actually mean swarms of fishes or bees. (or maybe marvel comic like -The Fishguy and The Sting) That is ridiculous. These were tribes that used the Fish and the Bee as their tribal symbol (maybe also on their banner). Otherwise 'Matsyadesa' of the Vedas & Upanishads, located in semi arid Rajasthan would have been swarming with aquatic life. biggrin.gif There was also a tradition in ancient India to ascribe animal names or features to persons credited with extraordinary proficiency or propensity in one thing or the other. Like Bhimsen was also called "Vrikodar", which literally means wolfs belly, implying a person with a voracious appetite like the wolf. And not 'Wolfman'. Superlative warriors were referred to as 'Kesri' - like the Lion or 'Kakudmi' like the bull (Kakud means the hump of a bull). Krishna's wife Revati's father was known as 'Revat Kakudmi'. Sometimes ones physical features were also referred to in a name. Like Hanuman literally means 'one with high cheekbones'. (Hanu - sanskrit = cheekbones) Regarding the Rakshashas Kosambi ruled out cannibalism. No cannibalistic tribe could or did ever create the civilisational heights achieved in Ravan's Lanka. However it strongly appears that they might have indulged in a lot of Blood Rituals. Indrajit's Nikumbhila Yagna appears to be the rudimentary form of what would become the fearsome 'Abhichara Kriya' of Atharva Veda in the near future. You might remember in this context that on his deathbed after the Kurukshetra War Bhishma advised Yudhishthir that a King should execute anybody who performs the Atharva Vedic 'Abhichara' rituals. Maybe this last veda was compiled between the periods of these two epics. It must also be mentioned that as late as the mid 19th Century, followers of the the extreme Tantrik cults like the 'Kapalikas' widely practiced human sacrifices - although under great secrecy. ben_ami That andamans was named after Hnauman does not appear to be very probable. There might be another source for ths name. Whaddya say guys?

Posted by: acharya Dec 13 2005, 01:02 PM

ANNEXURE ON THE ARYANS: SCIENCE, HISTORY AND POLITICS By Dr. N.S. Rajaram Background The recent controversy surrounding the curriculum revision in California schools, particularly with regard to Harvard linguist Michael Witzel's attempts to influence the curriculum has created the need for a proper understanding of the issues involved. The present document summarizes different aspects of the issue- the latest scientific evidence and the historical position. The author of this report is not associated with any group or institution. He is a former U.S. academic with more than twenty years experience as a faculty member and administrator in Indiana, Ohio and Texas. He is currently an independent researcher and author on the ancient world including India. Scientific evidence Before we go into the history and the politics of the controversy that let to Mr. Witzel insist on his 'Aryan' version of the history being included in the California school curriculum, it is useful to have an idea of what science has to say about Aryans and the Aryan invasion (or migration). It essentially boils down to the following two questions: 1. Was the civilization of India, the Vedic civilization in particular, the result of an 'Aryan invasion' (or migration) in secondmillennium B.C.? 2. Is there such a human group identifiable as 'Aryan'? The answer to both these questions is an emphatic NO. Taking up the first question, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Emeritus Professor at Stanford University and widely regarded as the world's foremost population geneticist, notes that the people of India, whatever their present ethnic identity, are largely of indigenous origin, going back to the Pleistocene, or the last Ice Age. The exact words used by Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues in a recent paper are: Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have receivedlimited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene. In non-technical language, this means their current genetic heritage goes back to the Ice Age (Pleistocene), or more than 50,000 years. Further, they have received limited external gene flow since the Holocene meaning they are not the result of any major invasion or migration since the Ice Age ended more than 10,000 years ago. This is what Dr. Metzenberg, who served on the Commission appointed by the California's State Board of education, was referring to when he said: "I've read the DNA research and there was no Aryan migration. I believe the hard evidence of DNA more than I believe historians." Similar views have been expressed by many others like the geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer of Green's College at Oxford University. This, and not Mr.Witzel 's Aryan theories, represents the scientific consensus today. In the face of this overwhelming evidence, it is presumptuous to say the least for Mr. Witzel or anyone else to claim that the exclusion of his favorite Aryan theories would "lead without fail to an international educational scandal if they [curriculum changes] are accepted by the California's State Board of Education." Next, is there an Aryan race, or, does such a thing as race exist at all? Again, the answer of science is a resounding NO. Here is what Sir Julian Huxley, one of the great biologists of the twentieth century had to say as far back as 1939: In England and America the phrase 'Aryan race' has quite ceased to be used by writers with scientific knowledge, though it appears occasionally in political and propagandist literature.. In Germany, the idea of the 'Aryan race' received no more scientific support than in England. Nevertheless, it found able and very persistent literary advocates who made it appear very flattering to local vanity. It therefore steadily spread, fostered by special conditions. In other words, the whole idea of 'Aryan' is a myth. The passage cited above sheds light on two factors (shown in italics) that have kept this discredited and indefensible idea alive, especially in academia: (1) political and propagandist interests; and (2) special conditions. This is what is examined next. The Aryan myth fostered in 'special conditions' Having looked at the so-called Aryan problem from the scientific angle, we may next take a brief look at the 'special conditions' (as Huxley called it) that led to this scholarly pathology being foisted as a central dogma of ancient historiography. These conditions grew out of nineteenth and twentieth century political currents arising out of German nationalism and British imperial needs. The notion that Indians are one branch of a common stock of people who lived originally in Central Asia or in the Eurasian steppes arose in the late eighteenth century. It began as a linguistic theory to account for similarities between Sanskrit and classical European languages like Greek and Latin. From this modest beginning it soon acquired a life of its own when scholars, especially in Germany, concluded that Europeans and ancient Indians were two branches of a people they called Aryans and later as Indo-Europeans. A whole new academic discipline called Indo-European studies came into existence whose very survival is now at stake following scientific discoveries. The Aryan theory, which began life as a linguistic theory soon acquired a biological form. Scholars, mostly linguists, began to talk about not just Aryan languages, but also an Aryan race. Since Indology had its greatest flowering in nineteenth century Germany, it is not surprising that racial ideas that shaped German nationalism should have found their way into scholarly discourse on India. The Indo-European hypothesis and its offshoot of the Aryan invasion (or migration) theory came to dominate this discourse for over a century. It is important to recognize that the people who created this theory were, and are today, linguists (like Michael Witzel), not biologists. We have already seen that scientists, including German scientists, have no use for it. Its perpetuation then and its survival today is the result of 'special conditions.' These 'special conditions' were the rise of Nazism in Germany and British imperial needs in India. While both Germany and Britain took to the idea of the Aryan race, its fate in the two countries was somewhat different. Its perversion in Germany leading eventually to Nazism and its horrors is too well known to be repeated here. The British, however, put it to more creative use for imperial purposes, especially as a tool in making their rule acceptable to Indians. A recent BBC report admitted as much (October 6, 2005): It [the Aryan invasion theory] gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British Raj, who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier. That is to say, the British presented themselves as a 'new and improved brand of Aryans' who were only completing the work left undone by their ancestors in the hoary past. This is how the British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin put it in the House of Commons in 1929: Now, after ages, .the two branches of the great Aryan ancestry have again been brought together by Providence. By establishing British rule in India, God said to the British, "I have brought you and the Indians together after a long separation, .it is your duty to raise them to their own level as quickly as possible .brothers as you are." After this, nothing needs to be said. Today it is sustained by other 'special conditions', like vested interests in the survival of Indo-European studies in Western academia. It is only a matter of time before this vestige of colonial politics disappears from the scene making way for a more enlightened approach to the study of ancient India. Mr. Witzel's campaign to have his Aryan theories made part of the California school curriculum is simply a last ditch effort to keep alive his academic discipline from sinking into oblivion under the impact of science. The 'scholarship' that is being put forward in its cause is little more than "political and propagandist literature" (as Huxley put it) dressed up in academic jargon. In drawing lessons from this distasteful episode, it is necessary to go beyond the immediate causes and effects of Mr. Witzel's campaign by placing it in the proper moral and ethical context. When we do so, one fact stands out above all: Mr. Witzel's reckless disregard for the sensitivities of young minds in his effort to use them to serve his personal interests. Can there be education without human feeling? The California State Board of Education has done the right thing in not giving in to the lobbying pressure from Mr. Witzel and his group. _______________ Dr. N.S Rajaram, formerly a U.S. academic, is the author of several books on ancient history. He is currently working on Mekong to Indus: A natural history of the Vedic Age.

Posted by: Bharatvarsh Dec 13 2005, 02:21 PM

QUOTE
It was my stay in Southern India which first seriously turned my thoughts to the Veda. Two observations that were forced on my mind gave a serious shock to my second-hand belief in the racial division between Northern Aryans and Southern Dravidians. The distinction had always rested for me on a supposed difference between the physical types of Aryan and Dravidian and a more definite incompatibility between the northern Sanskritic and the southern non-Sanskritic tongues. I knew indeed of the later theories which suppose that a single homogeneous race, Dravidian or Indo-Afghan, inhabits the Indian peninsula; but hitherto I had not attached much importance to these speculations. I could not, however, be long in Southern India without being impressed by the general recurrence of northern or “Aryan” type in the Tamil race. Wherever I turned, I seemed to recognise with a startling distinctness, not only among the Brahmins but in all castes and classes, the old familiar faces, features, figures of my friends of Maharashtra, Gujerat, Hindustan, even, though this similarity was less widely spread, of my own province Bengal. The impression I received was as if an army of all the tribes of the North had descended on the South and submerged any previous populations that may have occupied it. A general impression of a Southern type survived, but it was impossible to fix it rigidly while studying the physiognomy of individuals. And in the end I could not but perceive that whatever admixtures might have taken place, whatever regional differences might have been evolved, there remains, behind all variations, a unity of physical as well as of cultural type[10] throughout India.... But what then of the sharp distinction between Aryan and Dravidian races created by the philologists? It disappears. If at all an Aryan invasion is admitted, we have either to suppose that it flooded India and determined the physical type of the people, with whatever modifications, or that it was the incursion of small bands of a less civilised race who melted away into the original population. We have then to suppose that entering a vast peninsula occupied by a civilised people, builders of great cities, extensive traders, not without mental and spiritual culture, they were yet able to impose on them their own language, religion, ideas and manners. Such a miracle would be just possible if the invaders possessed a very highly organised language, a greater force of creative mind and a more dynamic religious form and spirit. And there was always the difference of language to support the theory of a meeting of races. But here also my preconceived ideas were disturbed and confounded. For on examining the vocables of the Tamil language,[11] in appearance so foreign to the Sanskritic form and character, I yet found myself continually guided by words or by families of words supposed to be pure Tamil in establishing new relations between Sanskrit and its distant sister, Latin, and occasionally, between the Greek and the Sanskrit. Sometimes the Tamil vocable not only suggested the connection, but proved the missing link in a family of connected words. And it was through this Dravidian language that I came first to perceive what seems to me now the true law, origins and, as it were, the embryology of the Aryan tongues. I was unable to pursue my examination far enough to establish any definite conclusion, but it certainly seems to me that the original connection between the Dravidian and Aryan tongues was far closer and more extensive than is usually supposed and the possibility suggests itself that they may even have been two divergent families derived from one lost primitive tongue. If so, the sole remaining evidence of an Aryan invasion of Dravidian India would be the indications to be found in the Vedic hymns. It was, therefore, with a double interest that for the first time I took up the Veda in the original, though without any immediate intention of a close or serious study. It did not take long to see that the Vedic indications of a racial division between Aryans and Dasyus[12] and the identification of the latter with the indigenous Indians were of a far flimsier character than I had supposed. But far more interesting to me was the discovery of a considerable body of profound psychological thought and experience lying neglected in these ancient hymns. And the importance of this element increased in my eyes when I found, first, that the mantras of the Veda illuminated with a clear and exact light psychological experiences of my own for which I had found no sufficient explanation either in European psychology or in the teachings of Yoga or of Vedanta, so far as I was acquainted with them, and, secondly, that they shed light on obscure passages and ideas of the Upanishads to which, previously, I could attach no exact meaning and gave at the same time a new sense to much in the Puranas.36 http://voiceofdharma.com/books/ir/IR_part2.htm#_ftnref11

Posted by: rajesh_g Dec 13 2005, 03:20 PM

We had this vanara discussion some time ago. Search for Vanara in the foll link. http://indiaforumarchives.blogspot.com/2005/02/itihasa-purana.html

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 14 2005, 03:01 AM

QUOTE(Mitra @ Dec 14 2005, 01:11 AM)
ben_ami That andamans was named after Hnauman does not appear to be very probable. There might be another source for ths name.
nope. andaman DOES get its name from hanuman.

Posted by: Sunder Dec 14 2005, 09:52 AM

QUOTE(ben_ami @ Dec 14 2005, 03:31 PM)
QUOTE(Mitra @ Dec 14 2005, 01:11 AM)
ben_ami That andamans was named after Hnauman does not appear to be very probable. There might be another source for ths name.
nope. andaman DOES get its name from hanuman.
*
Are you refering to this one Ben ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andaman_and_Nicobar_Islands The name Andaman presumably comes from Handuman, which is Malay for the Hindu god Hanuman. The name Nicobar is Malay for land of the naked (people).

Posted by: Mitra Dec 14 2005, 10:43 AM

A little info. Nicobar was originally named by the ancient Tamil mariners as Nakkavaram or Nakkapuram - land of the naked.

Posted by: ben_ami Dec 14 2005, 11:46 AM

i got the andaman hanuman connection from kaun banega krorepati

Posted by: Viren Dec 15 2005, 08:49 AM

From: http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2005/12/aryan-invasion-or-migration-fantasy.html

QUOTE
aryan invasion or migration fantasy: san? dec 6th san, since you have mentioned a couple of times that you believe in this much-discredited theory, will you post your reasons why you believe in it? as you might know, the reason for the creation of this mythology in the first place was to find a rationale for white christist people (british) to conquer territory and find a moral justification for it: "see, this has been done before by the aryans who were our white ancestors. so we're just taking over what is ours anyway". this is the christist version of the mohammedan or chinese vanity: "at some time in the past, some local king of yours paid us mohammedans or chinese tribute, therefore your territory is ours for all time." it was an excuse for land-grab and imperialism. also, at the time, whites were successfully wiping out non-white natives all over the place, so they thought that was the way the world had always worked. but today all these reasons are null and void. the facts are against 'aryan' invasion (which is why the true believers have now started weasel-wording it to 'migration'. soon they will be talking about 'aryan' 'tourism', i predict). 1. the weight of genetic evidence is now accumulating that instead of an in-migration into india, it was an out-migration from india, and that too long ago. see the discussions based on oppenheimer's and macaulay's work (note the delicious irony in the latter's name!): http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/13/science/13migrate.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1116180255-HCwNSux1xetEdoSaH/eLpA&pagewanted=print 2. acceptance of 'aryan' anything essentially requires you to suspend your disbelief about the following scenario: a bunch of war-like barbarians with no written history "thundered over the Khyber pass in their horse-drawn chariots" (actual quote from an 'eminent historian', but it's ROTFL -- no chariot would survive such a 'thundering'), incidentally bringing horses to india (as horse's ass witzel claims). they defeated and enslaved the peaceful city-folks of the indus-sarasvati valley while carefully leaving no traces of war -- no skeletons with weapons marks on them, no traces of burning, etc. suddenly, the barbarians discovered that they (the barbarians) had a written language and a great literature (the vedas), town-planning skills etc. which they kindly allowed the defeated natives to use (much like the british christists kindly allowed indians to pay for the railways the british built to move their troops around). the defeated peaceful natives, of course, despite their highly advanced civic organization, had no literature or other signs of culture all other advanced civilizations have. if you believe all this, i have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you. it is a complete crock. witzel and company cling on to this because their entire careers are built upon this fabrication. on the other hand, by occam's razor, the simplest explanation (the most likely correct one) is that there were no 'aryans'. the advanced indus-sarasvati valley civilization declined when the river disappeared. some indus-sarasvati people moved west to iran, still remembering their sacred writings based in the land of the seven rivers. still later, some of these people may have migrated further west to people europe. after all, there is another proof by existence: the gypsies from india migrated into much of europe after the mohammedan invasion. so instead of accepting the word of malafide whites, christists and marxists, i suggest you think through this whole thing logically. you'll see that the 'aryan' 'migration' or 'aryan' 'tourism' or whatever is complete bullshit. always consider: who benefits from any act? here the only ones who benefit from shoving the 'aryan' nonsense down peoples' throats are a) academics who dont want their life's work to vanish and to have to lose lucrative sinecures. i call this the galileo syndrome, after the refusal of vatican theologists to accept (for 400 years!) that their theory about the sun going around the earth was complete and utter nonsense b) christists who want to divide and conquer (and their neo-semitic allies like 'dravidians' c) neo-semitic marxists who wish to soften up india for the chinese conquest. none of these have anything other than self-interest in mind. as you have seen with the natwar singh episode, those who are hanging on to power for personal enrichment have no shame whatsoever, and are willing to tell any lies at all.

Posted by: gangajal Dec 15 2005, 03:01 PM

I do not know how one can separate the historical from the spiritual aspects of the Rg Veda. I personally think that it is an impossible task. There is, however, one way to use the information that we have about Rg Veda or any other Vedas to interpret Indian history. We know that the Vedas were transmitted orally over a long period. The Vedas were NOT written down till a fairly recent period. This is not a unique thing in world history. Gaius Julius Caesar has written in his book "The Conquest of Gaul" that the Druidic religion forbade the Druids to commit their religious teachings to writing. The public work was done using Greek alphabet. It seems to me that this model, that the language used for religion is different from the language used for secular matters, could apply to the Indus-Saraswati civilization also. One of the reasons why Indologists want an Aryan migration around 1500 bce is that the street signs of the Indus-Saraswati civilization are not recognizably Vedic Sanskrit. WHat I am suggesting is that just like the Gaul of Caesar's time, Indus-Saraswati civilization was a 2-language civilization where Vedic Sanskrit was too holy to be used for secular works. Thus it would seem to me that all the 60+ efforts to explain the signs in terms of Sanskrit or Dravidian are totally misplaced. These signs are not Vedic Sanskrit simply because Vedic Sanskrit was not the official secular language. Why is it then that Sanskrit seems to have become the language of the educated after around 1500 bce? The answer seems to me to be that the taboo against writing down Sanskrit was removed after Saraswati river began to dry out. The priesthood and other educated people realized that the entire Sanskrit heritage would be lost as people migrated to the Ganges valley. This, the effort to save Sankrit, is the reason why after about 1000 bce one comes across a ferment in India. Once the taboo to the use of Sankrit was removed, the language began to evolve. Pali which is a simplified Sanskrit arose around this time. Buddha, c550 bce, spoke in Pali. Panini around c900 bce composed the grammer of Sanskrit in order to standardize and save the Sanskrit language. Such a scenario seems to me to be more in accord with recent evidence (no archeological or DNA evidence for an Aryan migration around 1500 bce) and the fact that Indus-Saraswati civilization street signs are not recognizably Vedic Sanskrit. Such a scenario will also restore the Vedas as the spiritual source of the I-S civilization. Right now the Vedas seem to have the status of Banquo's ghost in Macbeth's dinner party. Any way I am probably completely wrong but I do not know enough to know if I am wrong or not wrong. Gangajal

Posted by: rudra Dec 18 2005, 10:27 AM

QUOTE(gangajal @ Dec 15 2005, 05:01 PM)
I do not know how one can separate the historical from the spiritual aspects of the Rg Veda. I personally think that it is an impossible task. There is, however, one way to use the information that we have about Rg Veda or any other Vedas to interpret Indian history. We know that the Vedas were transmitted orally over a long period... Such ascenario will also restore the Vedas as the spiritual source of the I-S civilization. Right now the Vedas seem to have the status of Banquo's ghost in Macbeth's dinner party. Any way I am probably completely wrong but I do not know enough to know if I am wrong or not wrong. Gangajal
*
I don't even for one minute think that The Rg Veda is not a spiritual text. I truly believe that the Vedic "poetry" works in multiple levels -- like multiple layers of an onion (each of us see whatever our layer of the onion lets us see). My point is that: There are descriptions of the lifestyle of those people that lived during course of the Rg Veda being composed. If we were to try and find anything useful from historical perspective about Indic people (from that period), should'nt an effort be necessary to reconcile the "literalist" vs. "Spiritual" reading of the Rig Veda. Admittedly a monumental task, but there are some who have tried. Take for instance, Subhash Kak's book on the "Astronomical Code of the Rg Veda". Using the Nakshatra positions, he was able to track back the "Timelines of these events/periods" (taking it far beyond the AIT/AIM Brigade's 1500 BCE). Why would one want to do so (since admittedly the spiritual aspect of the Vedas is overwhelming)? Without considering these scriptures as being partially historical, we run the risk of opening up the legacy of these scriptures to attack by subversive forces (a little bit of politics does rub in here). You have to read Prof. Balu's book (The Heathen in his blindness). His thesis traces the life and path (and wake) of Christianity and it's effect and tactics since the times of Ancient Rome. He demonstrates how Christianity obfuscates the distinction between "tradition" and "religion" and actually sets up "Religion" against "Tradition". The Vedic way that we admire today is actually like the "traditio" (tradition) of the Ancient Romans. By standing up "religio" against "traditio" and by establishing an antiquity to itself (that it didn't really possess), Christianity uprooted Ancient Roman Pagan traditions and eventually destroyed them. The case of the Veda not being considered (at least remotely) a historical text sets it up to attack by similar subversive forces (like Christianity, Modernism, "Secularism" etc) and eventual (already happened) result of it being "cast-aside". If it positive evolution that's not a bad thing -- if it degenrates to replacement by a only Christianity-like system, that's bad. Regards, Rudra

Posted by: gangajal Dec 19 2005, 11:43 AM

QUOTE
I don't even for one minute think that The Rg Veda is not a spiritual text. I truly believe that the Vedic "poetry" works in multiple levels -- like multiple layers of an onion (each of us see whatever our layer of the onion lets us see). My point is that: There are descriptions of the lifestyle of those people that lived during course of the Rg Veda being composed. If we were to try and find anything useful from historical perspective about Indic people (from that period), should'nt an effort be necessary to reconcile the "literalist" vs. "Spiritual" reading of the Rig Veda. Admittedly a monumental task, but there are some who have tried. Take for instance, Subhash Kak's book on the "Astronomical Code of the Rg Veda". Using the Nakshatra positions, he was able to track back the "Timelines of these events/periods" (taking it far beyond the AIT/AIM Brigade's 1500 BCE). Why would one want to do so (since admittedly the spiritual aspect of the Vedas is overwhelming)? Without considering these scriptures as being partially historical, we run the risk of opening up the legacy of these scriptures to attack by subversive forces (a little bit of politics does rub in here). You have to read Prof. Balu's book (The Heathen in his blindness). His thesis traces the life and path (and wake) of Christianity and it's effect and tactics since the times of Ancient Rome. He demonstrates how Christianity obfuscates the distinction between "tradition" and "religion" and actually sets up "Religion" against "Tradition". The Vedic way that we admire today is actually like the "traditio" (tradition) of the Ancient Romans. By standing up "religio" against "traditio" and by establishing an antiquity to itself (that it didn't really possess), Christianity uprooted Ancient Roman Pagan traditions and eventually destroyed them. The case of the Veda not being considered (at least remotely) a historical text sets it up to attack by similar subversive forces (like Christianity, Modernism, "Secularism" etc) and eventual (already happened) result of it being "cast-aside". If it positive evolution that's not a bad thing -- if it degenrates to replacement by a only Christianity-like system, that's bad. Regards,
Rudra, You are right that history and spirituality are indeed mixed up in the Vedas. The question is how to develop a method that can be used to de-entangle the two streams. Western scholars like Witzel make the claim that the Sanskrit of the Rig Veda is very archaic and meanings of various words have undergone change since the Rig Veda was stabilised. If you accept that fact how can you then deduce unambiguous history from such a text. I mean suppose you say that Rig Vedic people used chariots, probably did not use iron etc. Another person can say that since the meanings of those words have changed since the Rig Veda was stabilized those words did not mean chariots or meant iron during the Rig Vedic time. If one is not completely sure of the meaning of these words then one is left high and dry. This is the point I was making. By the way have you read the Griffiths translation of the Rig Veda? If yes, is it good? Regards Gangajal

Posted by: Admin Dec 20 2005, 11:27 AM

http://www.india-forum.com/articles/60/1/Romila-Thapar-Defends-the-Aryan-Invasion-Theory%21 By Vishal Agarwal http://tinyurl.com/d32gr

Posted by: mitradena Dec 20 2005, 12:12 PM

Admin, There are lots of question marks in the above article. Can you remove them. thanks.

Posted by: Mudy Dec 20 2005, 10:32 PM

QUOTE
Death of the Aryan Invasion Theory By: Prof. Dipak Basu December 12, 2005 Views expressed here are author’s own and not of this website. Full disclaimer is at the bottom. British linguist Max-Muller has invented the Aryan invasion theory that ancient Aryans invade India at about 1500BC, driven out the Dravidians from their land, have imported the Hindu civilization along with Sanskrit language from the steppes of central Asia. The theory was the justification for the British occupation of India, as Winston Churchill remarked. Although there was no archeological evidence to support this theory, it has become the most important doctrine on the ancient Indian history. Although it was opposed by prominent historians like Ramesh Chandra Mazumdar and archeologists like Rakhaldas Banerjee and S.P.Gupta, the pro-British historians of India so far have disregarded all arguments against this theory. However, some recent archeological discoveries in India, Russia and Japan have pushed back the antiquity of the Aryans to at least 6000BC and proved beyond doubt that the ancient Aryans were not nomadic tribes from central Asia but had very advanced urban civilizations. Russian archeologists and linguists also proved that the Aryans have migrated not from the Russian steppes but came to Russia via Armenia and Georgia. There are increasing evidence that India was the original home of the Aryans. Advanced civilization of the Aryans in Chelyabinsk, Russia President Putin has recently visited one of the most mysterious places on planet Earth - the ruins of the ancient town of Arkaim, which is situated on the outskirts of the city of Chelyabinsk. Pravda reported (on 16 July 2005) about the starling discovery of ruins of a very advanced civilization of Indo-Aryan origin, which was at least 4000 years old in Arkaim. The Arkaim valley in the south of Ural was supposed to be flooded in 1987; local authorities were going to create a water reservoir there to irrigate droughty fields. However, scientists found strange circles in the center of the valley: the authorities gave archaeologists time to explore the area. Scientists were shocked to find out that Arkaim was the same age as Egypt and Babylon. Archaeological excavations showed that the people, who inhabited Arkaim, represented the ancient Indo-Aryan civilizations. Arkaim had not only a city, but also a temple and an astronomic observatory. Prof. Gennady Zdanovich, the chairman of the archaeological expedition said, "We achieved what seemed to be absolutely unreal. How did people of such ancient civilization manage to accomplish incredible technological progress, which still seems to be unachievable nowadays?” A group of Russian researchers, headed by Prof. Vadim Chernobrovy, has recently returned from the mysterious region. He said, “A flight above Arkaim on board a helicopter gives you an incredible impression. The huge concentric circles on the valley are clearly visible. The town and its outskirts are all enclosed in the circles. We still do not know what point the gigantic circles have, whether they were made for defensive, scientific, educational, or ritual purposes. Some researchers say that the circles were actually used as the runway for an ancient spaceport." Researchers discovered that the ancient town was equipped with the storm sewage system, which helped Arkaim`s residents avoid floods. The people were protected against fires as well: timbered floorings and houses themselves were imbued with fireproof substance. It was a rather strong compound, the remnants of which can still be found in the ruins of the town. Each house was outfitted with "all modern conveniences”, as they would say nowadays. There was a well, an oven, and dome-like food storage in every house. The well was branching out into two underground trenches: one of them was directed to the oven and the other one ended in the food storage. The trenches were used to supply chilly air to the oven and to the food storage. The cool air from the trenches was also creating a very powerful traction force in the Aryan oven, which made it possible to smelt bronze there. The central square in Arkaim was the only object of square shape in the town. Judging upon traces of bonfires that were placed in a specific order on the square, the place was used as a site for certain rituals. Arkaim was built according to a previously projected plan as a single complicated complex, which also had an acute orientation on astronomic objects. Prof.Grigoryev of the Institute of History and Archaeology, Ural branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Chelyabinsk, Russia, said recently, “ There are no features of “Steppe cultures” in cultures of India and Iran. There are no Finno-Ugric borrowings in languages of Avesta and Rig Veda." According to him (1996, 1998), Ancient Aryans came originally from Iran to Russia via Syria, Anatolia, Armenia and formed the vast cities in Sintashta-Petrovka area near Chelyabinsk. Earlier linguistic experts Prof.Gamkrelidze and Prof.Ivanov (1984) confirmed that explanation. How far is Iran from Sindh-Saraswati valley? We also know from the Purana, that Aryans were divided into two groups, Sur of India and Asura of Iran. Russian archeologists are not aware of the submarine ruins of Dwarka and Cambay yet. If they would know, it would be possible to prove what Rakhaldas Banerjee; Ramesh Chadra Mazumdar said all along that India was the origin of the ancient Aryans, who had migrated to Russia via Armenia. The discovery made by the Russian archeologists of the temple of Mithra under the basement of the world’s oldest official Christian church in Yerevan, Armenia shows that link. Archeological Details of Arkaim in Chelyabinsk: The site is known by the Russian archeologists for at least 70 years as Sintasha-Petrovka cultural area of ancient Aryans, but it was ignored by the Anglo-American historians. Sintashta-Petrovka cultural area runs along the eastern Urals of the Eurasian steppe for about 400 km south of Chelabyansk and to the east for about 200 km. There are 23sites recognized as belonging to this group. The Sintashta burials, and those found at other Arkiam sites, vary greatly in detail. These burials provide archaeological evidence of the burial rituals set down in the Rig Veda and Avesta and, thus, these are called Indo-Iranian. The sites have been called “towns” and, most of them have been discovered through aerial photography; they are laid out in round, square, or oval shapes. While only two of these “towns”, Arkaim and Sintashta, have been excavated largely, they are characterized as being fortified, having connecting houses, and having extensive evidence for metallurgy. The excavator of Sintashta, Gening (1979), has shown that the burials from Sintashta do, how-ever, provide archaeological evidence for numerous aspects of the burial rituals set down in texts of Rig Veda and Avesta. The Avesta, was composed by Zorathustra, who attempted to erase the earlier practice of worship of God Mithra. The dating of the Avesta is problematic, since there are disputes about the time of Zorathustra. According to Xanthus of Lydia, it was 6480BC; according to Aristotle it was 6350BC ( in Heredotus). According to Ferdowsi’s Shahnamah, it was 6600BC; according to the Roman historian Plutarch it was 6000BC. Suppose we accept it was 6000BC, and given the fact the Rig Veda was older than Avesta, as Zorathustra has tried to erase out worships of Vedic gods in favour of only one God Asura Mazda, Aryans were in India before 6000BC. Sintashta Culture, in which Arkaim is a part, was formed in Chelyabinsk in about 2000BC, according to the radiocarbon tests (Trifonov 1997). This culture was spread over a vast geo-graphic region from the Dnieper River in Ukraine to eastern Kazakhstan. The investigation of the metal ores was undertaken using spectral analysis. The results indicated that the ores recovered from Sintashta settlements did not contain arsenic while in contrast, slag retrieved from the same sites contained high levels of the element. However, metal structures of the Caucasus and Anatolia are similar to the metal structure of the Sintashta Culture, and the tradition of alloying during the ore smelting stage was well established in the Caucasus region. All the features of the Syro-Anatolian cultures have parallels with the archaeological cultures of this region, the most remarkable of which are the Sintashta fortified settlements that are identical to Anatolian settlements. In addition, there are many analogies with the Sintashta Culture in the ceramics, and stone and metal artifacts of the Syro-Anatolian cultures. This is the basis of the conclusion suggested by the Russian archeologists and linguistics (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, 1984; Grigoryev, 1996, 1998) that the Aryans migrated from Iran to Armenia and then to Russia; Aryans never came down from Russia to India. According to them, Aryans most possibly had started migrating from Iran in 8000BC. They had reached Balkan Peninsula and Anatolia in about 6000BC and had reached Russian steppes in Chelyabinsk in about 4000BC. By that time, they had very advanced urban civilization, not at all nomadic in any way. The Indo-Europeanization of the Armenia, Georgia, Ukraine lasted for a long time, from the Neolithic to the beginning of the Iron Age. In the Middle Bronze Age Indo-Aryans came to Bulgaria, former Yugoslavia, and Greece. Russian archeologists were not aware of the Sindhu-Saraswati civilization or Dwarka. I have drawn the attention of Prof.Grigoryev to these ruins, perhaps in future he and his team will prove the migration of the Aryans had started from India, not from Iran. Relationship with Krishna’s Dwarka: The discoveries at Gulf of Cambay by the National Institute of Ocean Technology established, using carbon-14 date of 7,500 years for the wood samples excavated from under the sea, the existence of a civilization dating to that period. Krishna’s Dwarka existed some 4,000 years ago. There was a rise in the sea level about 30 metres in 7,500 years, approximately at the rate of 10 metres in 3,500-3,800 years. Eroded debris and pottery provided evidence of a port town destroyed by sea about 3,500 years ago. The marine archaeologists in India have found enough proof to assert that Mahabharata is not a myth, but history. The discovery of submerged buildings of the legendary city of Dwarka indicates that Indians were masters in town planning and maritime activity, 4,000 years ago. The rise in the sea level in Dwarka is a scientific truth. Studies have proved that the sea considerably and suddenly rose to submerge the city. Harivamsha describes the submerging of Dwarka saying Krishna instructed Arjuna, who was then visiting Dwarka; to evacuate the residents of the city as the sea was going to engulf the city. “On the seventh day (of Krishna saying this), as the last of the citizens were leaving the city, the sea entered the streets of Dwarka.” [in ‘Search on Krishna´s Dwarka comes to a standstill’, By Vaidehi Nathan; Organiser, 2004, June20] Ruins of Dwarka also show a very advanced civilization of at least 4000 years old, which could not be formed by semi-nomadic Aryans coming down from central Asia in 1500BC. The city originally itself could be about 6000 years old. Bankim Chandra Chatterjee in his essay ‘Is Krisna a historical figure’ (in ‘Krisna Charita’) has calculated the time of the war described in Mahavarat. According to him, the war took place in about 3700BC. Aryan city under the sea near Japan: Another nail was struck on the British theory of Aryan invasion in 1500BC by the discovery of ruins of a city, at least 6000 years old, under the sea near Okinawa, Japan. The original people of Japan were Indo-Aryans and the structure of the ruins has close similarities to the ancient architecture of India, Iran, and Egypt. A unique structure was once found beneath the sea where Japan`s western most Yonaguni Island lies. In 1997, an investigation team from the University of the Ryukyus in Okinawa discovered the site. Prof. Masaaki Kimura, professor at the University of the Ryukyus, a marine geologist, said that, "We found that the ruins are at least 6000 years old. It could go back another 4000 years when we consider the length of time before they sank into the water. " Okinawa was once connected to the Asian continent. Geologic chronology shows that the area in Yonaguni was already underwater 6000 years ago. Prof. Kimura says "During the past 10,000 years, the ocean water level rose about 40 meters. From this fact, it is only natural to think that the ancient civilization is now deep in water. All of a sudden, such an advanced civilization was discovered, so we believe there must be a lost culture before that.” (in his book "Mu Tairiku Wa Ryukyu ni Atta" or The legendary sunken continent was in the Ryukyus" published in 1997) Marine geologists think that the lost civilization was once on ground level, but now it has sunk into the ocean. The ocean surface has risen land100 meters in the past 20,000 years. Undersea ruins near Yonaguni Island stand 25 meters tall and 100 meters long. This megalithic structure was artificially formed. There are a number of these types of ruins off the coast of Okinawa. However, this one in Yonaguni is the largest, and the only authenticated one. The structure of the buildings are not Mongolian in character but related to the ruins of India, Middle East and Egypt. The ancient people of Japan were not Mongolian, but Indo-Aryans; Mongolians began to migrate to Japan about 2000 years ago. The decendants of the ancient Indo-Aryans of Japan, Aino people, are still there in the northern island of Hokkaido; they have distinct Indo-Aryan physical features. Details of this lost civilizations and photos of the undersea buildings are in the website [http://www.pref.okinawa.jp/summit/tokusyu/ruins1.htm] I have mentioned this discovery to Dr. Shila Tripati of the Marine Archaeology Centre, National Institute of Oceanography in Goa. Dr.Tripati has contacted Prof.Kimura already and we hope in future their joint efforts will show the link between Cambay, Dwarka and Okinawa’s undersea ruins of very advanced civilizations of the Indo-Aryans. Joker in the pack: Prof.D.N.Jha of Delhi University: Given these overwhelming evidences of archeological findings in India, Russia, Japan it is surprising still the Anglo-American historians and their Indian agents are insisting that Aryans came from the central Asia in only 1500BC to India. Prof. D.N. Jha recently wrote a book and several articles to prove that ancient semi-Nomadic Aryans, who according to him invaded India about 1500BC, used to eat beef. (in his book, The Myth of the Holy Cow, Verso, 2002). To prove his points he has committed fraud and misinterpretations. He has quoted from Rig Veda, (VIII.43.11) as " Agni ...is one whose food is the ox and the barren cow". This is a wrong quotation. The exact quotation should be " Let us serve Agni with our hymns, disposer, fed on ox and cow, who bears the soma on his back" (in Griffith’s translation of Rig Veda). It does not mean ancient Aryans used to eat ox and cow, but Agni can dispose of any wealth, ox and cow used to be the symbol of wealth. He also has quoted from Rig Veda( X.79.6) as " Cow was cut up with a sword or an axe". This quotation is totally wrong. The exact quotation should be, " Agni, hast thou committed sin or treason among the Gods? In ignorance I ask thee, playing, not playing, he gold-hued and toothless hath cut his food up as the knife a victim"(in Griffith’s translation of Rig Veda). It does not say anything about cutting cows or ox. Using these false quotations he has tried to prove Aryans used to eat beef. How can he reconcile to all these evidences from Chelyabinsk, Okinawa, Dwarka, and Cambay that Indo-Aryans have developed very advanced civilizations at least 7000 years ago and according to the Russian archeologists, they have migrated not from Russian steppes to India but from India to Russia via Syria, Anatolia, Armenia? Given the very advanced technology the ancient Aryans have used in Chelyabinsk, it cannot be said that this civilization was born only 4000 years ago, but only the ruins are 4000 years old. It is probable the ancient Aryans have migrated eastwards to Japan, as there are every evidences that the Aino people, descendants of the ancient Indo-Aryans in Japan, came originally from eastern Siberia. The ruins of submarine city near Okinawa were probably developed by the same Indo-Aryans nearly 10,000 years ago. Where does that leave the theory propagated by Max-Muller, and assorted British historians and their Indian agents like Romila Thaper, D.N.Jha, and Irfan Habib? Recently the Indian History Congress, dominated by the historians of India with slave mentality, has proposed that there should not be any archeological excavations in any of the ancient religious sites in India. Slaves are afraid of the truth. Prof. Dipak Basu Send your views to author References: Chatterjee, Bankim Chandra, Krisna Charita, first published 1886 Gamkrelidze T.V and Ivanov, V.V, Indoevropejskil Yazak I Indo-evropejci, Tbilisi & Mouton de Gruyter-Berlin, 1984 (in Russian) Gening, V. F, The Cemetery at Sintashta and the EarlyIndo-Iranian Peoples. Journal of Indo-European Studies 7, 1-30, 1979. Griffith,Raplh, The Rig Veda ( translation from Sanskrit), Motilal Banarsidass, 1992 Grigoryev, S.A., The Sintashta Culture and Some Questions of Indo-European Origins, Proceedings of the Chelyabinsk Scientific Center, Vol 2, pp 82-85, 1998 Grigoryev, S.A, ‘Sintashta I Ariyaskiye Migracii’ in Novoye v Arkkheologii Yuzhnogo Urala, Chelyabinsk State University, 1996 (in Russian) Herodotus, Books I and II. Harvard University Press (1990 reprint). Jha, D.N, The Myth of the Holy Cow, Verso, 2002 Kimura, M, "Mu Tairiku wa Ryukyu ni Atta"( The legendary sunken continent was in the Ryukyus), Ryukyus University Press, 1997 ( in Japanese) Nathan Vaidehi, ‘Search on Krishna´s Dwarka comes to a standstill’, 20 June, Organiser, 2004 Pravda, ‘Ancient Aryan civilization achieved incredible technological progress 40 centuries ago’, 16 July 2005 Trifonov, V. A. 1997. K absolyutnoy khronologii evro-aziatskikhkulturnykh kontaktov v epokhu bronzy. Radiouglerod I Arkheologiya 2, 94–7 (in Russian)

Posted by: abdul_bin_mao Dec 21 2005, 03:20 AM

Aryan Invasion Theory is apparently going the same route as the Thousand Year Reich Flush.gif Flush.gif Flush.gif See this Petition apparently created by Harvard alumni and friends not impressed with the AIT proponents. Interesting. End Harvard Assocation of Hate groups! http://www.petitiononline.com/stopIER/petition.html tv_feliz.gif tv_feliz.gif tv_feliz.gif

Posted by: Viren Dec 23 2005, 01:15 AM

x-post came via email:

QUOTE
QUOTE
ATT is a trademark of Rajeev Srinivasan. It is an acronym for 'Aryan Tourist Theory' ™. Everytime the phrase is used, the attribution to Rajeev Srinivaan should be included, please, since it is trade-marked. Now for the breath-taking ice age footsteps. This is the decisive blow to the creationist indologists who believe in AIT (Aryan Influx Theory) because the universe according to the Bible was created only in 4004 BC. Any evidence prior to this date is a scientific hoax if the indologists are to be believed. When will the indologists learn to respect science? -xxxx
Associated Press. Updated: 10:22 p.m. ET Dec. 21, 2005 See the photo at http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/ap/syd80112220055.hmedium.jpg In this photo released by the Environment Ministry, a footprint believed to be that of a man is shown in the Willandra Lakes district in western New South Wales of Australia. Michael Amendolia / AP CANBERRA, Australia - Hundreds of human footprints dating back to the last Ice Age have been found in the remote Australian Outback, an official and media reported Thursday. The 457 footprints found in Mungo National Park in western New South Wales state is the largest collection of its kind in the world and the oldest in Australia, The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper reported. The prints were made in moist clay near the Willandra Lakes 19,000 to 23,000 years ago, the newspaper reported ahead of archeologists' report on the find to be published in the Journal of Human Evolution. State Environment Minister Bob Debus said the site showed a large group of people walking and interacting. "We see children running between the tracks of their parents; the children running in meandering circles as their parents travel in direct lines," Debus told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio. "It's a most extraordinary snapshot of a moment or several moments in the life of Aboriginal people living on the edge of the lake in western New South Wales 20,000 years ago," he added. The first print was reported by a local Aboriginal woman two years ago and a team of archaeologists led by Bond University archaeologist Steve Webb uncovered more than 450, the newspaper said. Webb was not immediately available for comment. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10566347/

Posted by: Viren Dec 23 2005, 01:26 AM

QUOTE
ANNEXURE ON THE ARYANS: SCIENCE, HISTORY AND POLITICS By Dr. N.S. Rajaram Background The recent controversy surrounding the curriculum revision in California schools, particularly with regard to Harvard linguist Michael Witzel’s attempts to influence the curriculum has created the need for a proper understanding of the issues involved. The present document summarizes different aspects of the issue and the latest scientific and the historical position. The author of this report is not associated with any group or institution. He is a former U.S. academic with more than twenty years experience as a faculty member and administrator in Indiana, Ohio and Texas. He is currently an independent researcher and author on the ancient world including India. Scientific evidence Before we go into the history and the politics of the controversy that let to Mr. Witzel insist on his ‘Aryan’ version of the history being included in the California school curriculum, it is useful to have an idea of what science has to say about Aryans and the Aryan invasion (or migration). It essentially boils down to the following two questions: 1. Was the civilization of India, the Vedic civilization in particular, the result of an ‘Aryan invasion’ (or migration) in second millennium B.C.? 2. Is there such a human group identifiable as ‘Aryan’? The answer to both these questions is an emphatic NO. Taking up the first question, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Emeritus Professor at Stanford University and widely regarded as the world’s foremost population geneticist, notes that the people of India, whatever their present ethnic identity, are largely of indigenous origin, going back to the Pleistocene, or the last Ice Age. The exact words used by Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues in a recent paper are: …Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have received limited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene. In non-technical language, this means their current genetic heritage goes back to the Ice Age (Pleistocene), or more than 50,000 years. Further, they have received limited external gene flow since the Holocene meaning they are not the result of any major invasion or migration since the Ice Age ended more than 10,000 years ago. This is what Dr. Metzenberg, who served on the Commission appointed by the California’s State Board of education, was referring to when he said: "I've read the DNA research and there was no Aryan migration. I believe the hard evidence of DNA more than I believe historians." Similar views have been expressed by many others like the geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer of Green’s College at Oxford University. This, and not Mr. Witzel’s Aryan theories, represents the scientific consensus today. In the face of this overwhelming evidence, it is presumptuous to say the least for Mr. Witzel or anyone else to claim that the exclusion of his favorite Aryan theories would "lead without fail to an international educational scandal if they [curriculum changes] are accepted by the California's State Board of Education." Next, is there an Aryan race, or, does such a thing as race exist at all? Again, the answer of science is a resounding NO. Here is what Sir Julian Huxley, one of the great biologists of the twentieth century had to say as far back as 1939: In England and America the phrase ‘Aryan race’ has quite ceased to be used by writers with scientific knowledge, though it appears occasionally in political and propagandist literature…. In Germany, the idea of the ‘Aryan race’ received no more scientific support than in England. Nevertheless, it found able and very persistent literary advocates who made it appear very flattering to local vanity. It therefore steadily spread, fostered by special conditions. In other words, the whole idea of ‘Aryan’ is a myth. The passage cited above sheds light on two factors (shown in italics) that have kept this discredited and indefensible idea alive, especially in academia: (1) political and propagandist interests; and (2) special conditions. This is what is examined next. The Aryan myth fostered in ‘special conditions’ Having looked at the so-called Aryan problem from the scientific angle, we may next take a brief look at the ‘special conditions’ (as Huxley called it) that led to this scholarly pathology being foisted as a central dogma of ancient historiography. These conditions grew out of nineteenth and twentieth century political currents arising out of German nationalism and British imperial needs. The notion that Indians are one branch of a common stock of people who lived originally in Central Asia or in the Eurasian steppes arose in the late eighteenth century. It began as a linguistic theory to account for similarities between Sanskrit and classical European languages like Greek and Latin. From this modest beginning it soon acquired a life of its own when scholars, especially in Germany, concluded that Europeans and ancient Indians were two branches of a people they called Aryans and later as Indo-Europeans. A whole new academic discipline called Indo-European studies came into existence whose very survival is now at stake following scientific discoveries. The Aryan theory, which began life as a linguistic theory soon acquired a biological form. Scholars, mostly linguists, began to talk about not just Aryan languages, but also an Aryan race. Since Indology had its greatest flowering in nineteenth century Germany, it is not surprising that racial ideas that shaped German nationalism should have found their way into scholarly discourse on India. The Indo-European hypothesis and its offshoot of the Aryan invasion (or migration) theory came to dominate this discourse for over a century. It is important to recognize that the people who created this theory were, and are today, linguists (like Michael Witzel), not biologists. We have already seen that scientists, including German scientists, have no use for it. Its perpetuation then and its survival today is the result of ‘special conditions.’ These ‘special conditions’ were the rise of Nazism in Germany and British imperial needs in India. While both Germany and Britain took to the idea of the Aryan race, its fate in the two countries was somewhat different. Its perversion in Germany leading eventually to Nazism and its horrors is too well known to be repeated here. The British, however, put it to more creative use for imperial purposes, especially as a tool in making their rule acceptable to Indians. A recent BBC report admitted as much (October 6, 2005): It [the Aryan invasion theory] gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British Raj, who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier. (See Appendix at the end of this article.) That is to say, the British presented themselves as a ‘new and improved brand of Aryans’ who were only completing the work left undone by their ancestors in the hoary past. This is how the British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin put it in the House of Commons in 1929: Now, after ages, …the two branches of the great Aryan ancestry have again been brought together by Providence… By establishing British rule in India, God said to the British, “I have brought you and the Indians together after a long separation, …it is your duty to raise them to their own level as quickly as possible …brothers as you are…” The After this, nothing needs to be said. As the BBC report (Appendix) also noted: “The theory was not just wrong, it included unacceptably racist ideas” Today it is sustained by other ‘special conditions’, like vested interests in the survival of Indo-European studies in Western academia. It is only a matter of time before this vestige of colonial politics disappears from the scene making way for a more enlightened approach to the study of ancient India. Mr. Witzel’s campaign to have his Aryan theories made part of the California school curriculum is simply a last ditch effort to keep alive his academic discipline from sinking into oblivion under the impact of science. The ‘scholarship’ that is being put forward in its cause is little more than “political and propagandist literature” (as Huxley put it) dressed up in academic jargon. In drawing lessons from this distasteful episode, it is necessary to go beyond the immediate causes and effects of Mr. Witzel’s campaign by placing it in the proper moral and ethical context. When we do so, one fact stands out above all: Mr. Witzel’s reckless disregard for the sensitivities of young minds in his effort to use them to serve his personal interests. Can there be education without human feeling? The California State Board of Education has done the right thing in not giving in to the lobbying pressure from Mr. Witzel and his group. ________________ Dr. N.S. Rajaram, a former U.S. academic, is an independent researcher and writer based in Oklahoma City and Bangalore, India. He is the author of several books and articles on ancient history and history and history of science. He is currently working on the book Mekong to Indus: A natural history of the Vedic Age. APPENDIX: BBC REPORT ON THE ARYAN THEORIES The Aryan Invasion Theory http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history5.shtml One of the most controversial ideas about Hindu history is the Aryan invasion theory. This theory, originally devised by F. Max Muller in 1848, traces the history of Hinduism to the invasion of India's indigenous people by lighter skinned Aryans around 1500 BCE. The theory was reinforced by other research over the next 120 years, and became the accepted history of Hinduism, not only in the West but in India. There is now ample evidence to show that Muller, and those who followed him, were wrong. Why is the theory no longer accepted? The Aryan invasion theory was based on archaeological, linguistic and ethnological evidence. Later research has either discredited this evidence, or provided new evidence that combined with the earlier evidence makes other explanations more likely. Modern historians of the area no longer believe that such invasions had such great influence on Indian history. It's now generally accepted that Indian history shows a continuity of progress from the earliest times to today. The changes brought to India by other cultures are not denied by modern historians, but they are no longer thought to be a major ingredient in the development of Hinduism. Dangers of the theory The Aryan invasion theory denies the Indian origin of India's predominant culture, but gives the credit for Indian culture to invaders from elsewhere. It even teaches that some of the most revered books of Hindu scripture are not actually Indian, and it devalues India's culture by portraying it as less ancient than it actually is. The theory was not just wrong, it included unacceptably racist ideas: a.. it suggested that Indian culture was not a culture in its own right, but a synthesis of elements from other cultures b.. it implied that Hinduism was not an authentically Indian religion but the result of cultural imperialism c.. it suggested that Indian culture was static, and only changed under outside influences d.. it suggested that the dark-skinned Dravidian people of the South of India had got their faith from light-skinned Aryan invaders e.. it implied that indigenous people were incapable of creatively developing their faith f.. it suggested that indigenous peoples could only acquire new religious and cultural ideas from other races, by invasion or other processes g.. it accepted that race was a biologically based concept (rather than, at least in part, a social construct) that provided a sensible way of ranking people in a hierarchy, which provided a partial basis for the caste system h.. it provided a basis for racism in the Imperial context by suggesting that the peoples of Northern India were descended from invaders from Europe and so racially closer to the British Raj i.. it gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British Raj, who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier j.. it downgraded the intellectual status of India and its people by giving a falsely late date to elements of Indian science and culture

Posted by: TruthAsSolution Jan 1 2006, 04:34 PM

sad.gif

QUOTE(AIT is still an active subject despite its numerous limitations)
Hi, I would like to share my views on AIT based on Y gene theory. I firmly beleive Y gene theory holds the key to the understanding of AIT. I also condemn all sorts of attempts to nullify or fully accept the theory as an instrument of politics. AIT is definitely controversial, never fully proven theory. However, it is also true that patrons of indigenous origin theory could not explain the evidences which support the existence of Indo-Europian languages! In India, research on AIT is still an active subject despite its numerous limitations. Historians like Romila Thapaer, Irfan Habib accepted its limited merit. In the preface to the book Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate (1999), American historian K. Elst writes that "it hurts to release a book in mid-debate, knowing that much of it will be dated by the time a new consensus will have evolved", since "every hypothesis which is now carrying the day may be blown away by a new discovery tomorrow." In this book, Koenraad Elst points out that the theory of an Aryan invasion of India has not been proven by prevalent standards and that all relevant facts can just as well be explained with alternative models. In the last chapter of the book, Koenraad Elst writes: "One thing which keeps on astonishing me in the present debate is the complete lack of doubt in both camps. Personally, I don’t think that either theory, of Aryan invasion and of Aryan indigenousness, can claim to have been “proven” by prevalent standards of proof; eventhough one of the contenders is getting closer. Indeed, while I have enjoyed pointing out the flaws in the AIT statements of the politicized Indian academic establishment and its American amplifiers, I cannot rule out the possibility that the theory which they are defending may still have its me” While Elst is closest to the truth, recent invention of Y gene theory will be the ultimate speaker of history-whether mutation in Y genes among Indian youths are similar to that of Caucasians and to what extent Dravidian genetic mutations resemble North Indian mutations. Y-Gene Theory to support or oppose AIT: This is an extremely hot topic of research. Here is a summery of Y-gene mutations that support Aryan Invasion Theory and thus the origin of scheduled casts as described by Max Muller. In 2001 examination of male Y-DNA by Indian and American scientists indicated that higher castes are genetically closer to West Eurasians than are individuals from lower castes, whose genetic profiles are similar to other Asians. These results indicates that at some point male West Eurasians provided a significant genetic input into the higher castes, a result which supports the notion that the caste system was an attempt by these predominantly male arrivals to keep themselves separate from the native population. (http://jorde-lab.genetics.utah.edu/elibrary/Bamshad_2001a.pdf) The genetic studies by Michael J Bamshad and his team (2001) from University of Utah and Dr. Spencer Wells (2003) from Harvard University, give strong backing to the Aryan invasion theory. In the study by M.J Bamshad and his team (http://jorde-lab.genetics.utah.edu/elibrary/Bamshad_2001a.pdf) they wrote, "Our results demonstrate that for biparentally inherited autosomal markers, genetic distances between upper, middle, and lower castes are significantly correlated with rank; upper castes are more similar to Europeans than to Asians; and upper castes are significantly more similar to Europeans than are lower castes." The genetic study involves the analysis of genetic material known as the Mitochondrial DNA which is only passed maternally and so it is used to study female inheritance. The male-determining Y chromosome, is passed along paternally and is therefore used to study male inheritance. The evidence implies that few millennia ago group of males with (Eastern) European affinities invaded the Indian subcontinent from the Northwest of the sub-continent. The researchers went on to state that the genetic variations among the upper castes and lower castes is the evidence to the origin of the caste system. The people who were either migrating or invading the sub-continent had descendants in the male population largely in the higher castes than in the lower castes. The researchers state that these invading or migrating people might have instituted the caste system. In the abstract to their paper the researchers stated, "In the most recent of these waves, Indo-European -speaking people from West Eurasia entered India from the Northwest and diffused throughout the subcontinent. They purportedly admixed with or displaced indigenous Dravidic-speaking populations. Subsequently they may have established the Hindu caste system and placed themselves primarily in castes of higher rank." The study also revealed another classic anthropological observation, that of women being significantly more mobile in terms of caste and hierarchical class than men, who are almost not socially mobile at all in terms of caste and hierarchical class. Genetic evidence reveals that over millennia men have married women from lower castes but women have rarely married men from lower castes. Thus the researchers imply that caste and class to a large extent is perpetuated by women and has also thereby contributed to the minimal mixing of Aryan blood with the natives. The latest genetic research paper (2004) on Indo-European origins, support the conclusions of the (2001) study, backing the Aryan invasion theory (http://www.gnxp.com/IndependentOriginsOfIndianCaster.pdf). However see Kivisild (http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Kivisild2003b.pdf) and (http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Kivisild2003a.pdf),for a different view and also Renfrew (http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~traub/sloan/RenfrewXPM.pdf)). The most of the pro-invasionist papers imply that R1a1 is the genetic marker that is representative of an invasion, due to its high frequency in Euro-asia. But an equally likely genetic marker is haplogroup L. This haplogroup is present in Greek, Turkish, Lebonese, Iranians, Central Asian and Indian populations (and Europe, see Kivisild). This marker is found in locations where written sources record the presence of Indo-European languages and people: i.e. Greek, Hittite, Hyksos, Mitanni, Iranians and Indians. Its peak frequency is found in Indo-Iranian populations. Another possible marker is J2. Also the 'Western Euroasian' components that are found in Indian mtdna show a distribution closer to that found in the Southern Caucasus and Middle East, than in Eastern Europe. There is also the question of why one should assume only one Y haplogroup is representative of the Aryan gene pool. R1a1, R1b, J2, L and H - all of which are present in India and Central and West Asia - are all possibilities. Genetic studies in favor of indigenous Indian origin: debunking AIT: The recent advances in Archaeogenetics have some interesting results for the Aryan invasion theory but are still in the early stages. Genetic study shows that Indian population as a whole has little similarity to other areas of supposed Indo-European settlement, indicating there was no mass settlement. Indian maternal DNA is generally similar right across the country indicating that the mass of population has been in place there for a long period. (http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Cordaux_et_al_2003.pdf) More recent results (Kivsild 2003, Cordeaux 2003) show that the combined results from mtDNA, Y-chromosome and autosomal genes indicate that "Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have received limited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene." The Haplogroup R1a has been previously linked with the ancient Kurgans and/or Indo-Europeans of southern Russia/Ukraine, who supposedly migrated to Europe, central Asia and India between 3000-1000 BC. (Passarino 2001; Quintana-Murci 2001; Wells 2001). However, the high frequency of R1a found in Punjab and in the South Indian Chenchu tribe, together with a highter R1a-associated short tandem repeat diversity in India and Iran compared with Europe and central Asia, indicates that R1 and R1a differentiation may have originated in South or West Asia.(Kivisild 2003) The defining M17 mutation has also been found in several south indian tribes (Kivisild 2003, Ramana 2001, Wells 2001). Stephen Oppenheimer, who reports upon the results of the Human Genome Diversity Project in his book "The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey out of Africa, (p.152)" comments these findings with the conclusion that: "For me and for Toomas Kivisild, South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his ancestors; (...),thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a `male Aryan Invasion of India'." Oppenheimer further believes, that it is highly suggestive that India is the birthplace of the eurasian mtDNA haplogroups, the Eurasian eves. According to Oppenheimer, nearly all human maternal lineages in Europe descended from only four mtDNA lines that originated in South Asia 50'000-10'000 years ago. The neolithic spread of farmers to Europe from Levant/Middle East has also been linked to 12f2 (haplogroup 9) and the markers M35 (haplogroup 21) and M201. But while M35 is present in Europe, Anatolia, South Caucasus and Iran, Indians generally do not have the Alu insertion in their Y chromosomes. The lack of YAP+chromosomes in India suggests that M35 appeared in the Middle East only after a migration from Iran to India had taken place, but earlier than the later migration of near- and middle eastern farmers to Europe. (Kivisild 2003) Since virtually all central asian haplogroups of M seem to belong to the Mongolian, and not the Indian type of haplogroup M, this indicates that no large-scale migration from the present Turkish-speaking populations of Central Asia to India could have occurred (Kivisild 2000) According to a study by Bamshad et al. (2001), higher caste Telugus have a higher frequency of haplogroup 3 than lower castes, Haplogroup 3 is also characteristic of eastern Europeans. However, further studies have revealed that a high frequency of haplogroup 3 occurs in about half of the male population of northwestern India and is also frequent in western Bengal. These results, together with the fact that haplogroup 3 is much less frequent in Iran and Anatolia than it is in India, indicates that haplogroup 3 among high caste Telugus must not necessarly have originated from eastern Europeans. The high diversity of haplogroup 3 and 9 in India suggests that these haplogroups may have originated in India. (Kivisild, 2003) Conclusion: Well, it proves beyond any doubt that this is a very active area of research unlike what Hinduvta is claiming to appease its Hindu customers! Internet resources available on http://www.bostoncoop.net/~tpryor/wiki/index.php?title=Aryan_invasion_theory Further source: · J. Bronkhorst and M.M. Deshpande. 1999. Aryan and Non-Aryan in South Asia · Bryant, Edwin: The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture. 2001. Oxford University Press.ISBN 0195137779 · Elst, Koenraad Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate. 1999. ISBN 8186471774 [1], [2] · Frawley, David The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India, 1995. New Delhi: Voice of India · Hock, Hans. 1999b, Through a Glass Darkly: Modern "Racial" Interpretations vs. Textual and General Prehistoric Evidence on Arya and Dasa/Dasyu in Vedic Indo-Aryan Society." in Aryan and Non-Aryan in South Asia. · Schetelich, Maria. 1990, "The problem ot the "Dark Skin" (Krsna Tvac) in the Rgveda." Visva Bharati Annals 3:244-249. · Parpola, Asko. 1988. The Coming of the Aryans to Iran and India and the Cultural and Ethnic Identity of the Dasas. · Sethna, K.D. 1992. The Problem of Aryan Origins. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan. · Talageri, Shrikant. 1993. Aryan Invasion and Indian Nationalism. · Trautmann, Thomas R. 1997, Aryans and British India. Berkeley: University of California Press -Biplab http://members.tripod.com/nsrajaram/kalidas.html
*

Posted by: TruthAsSolution Jan 1 2006, 04:37 PM

I read Griffith's translation of RG Veda, edited by Prof Sashtry. It is squarely a book of rituals, any message of spiritualism is hard to find. However it is interesting to read it as the oldest human emotion and actions ever registered. -BP Change your User id according to Forum rules before posting again. Send email to Admin -Admin

Posted by: Ashok Kumar Jan 1 2006, 09:21 PM

Truth as solution, Griffith is the wrong person to look for meanings of vedas. Read Sri Aurobindo's http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0914955195/103-3128896-7717425?v=glance&n=283155 for an analysis in modern terms. user posted image Also his http://www.mountainman.com.au/rghmf_00.html Rigveda sanskrit was already archaic by the time of Panini, and positively ancient by the time of Sayana. Don't assume that Griffth and Maxmueller had a clue. Rigveda has to be read and understood in conjunction with the associated literature, such as the Aranyakas, upanisads, brahmanas and vedanta and mimansa philosophy. And also why has hindu society held rigveda in such an awe for such a long time. Below are couple of excerpts from Sri Aurobindo's "The secret of the veda": http://www.miraura.org/lit/sa/sv/sv1-01.html http://www.miraura.org/lit/sa/sv/sv1-23.html

QUOTE
Part One: The Secret of the Veda Chapter I: The Problem and Its Solution Is there at all or is there still a secret of the Veda? According to current conceptions the heart of that ancient mystery has been plucked out and revealed to the gaze of all, or rather no real secret ever existed. The hymns of the Veda are the sacrificial compositions of a primitive and still barbarous race written around a system of ceremonial and propitiatory rites, addressed to personified Powers of Nature and replete with a confused mass of half-formed myth and crude astronomical allegories yet in the making. Only in the later hymns do we perceive the first appearance of deeper psychological and moral ideas—borrowed, some think, from the hostile Dravidians, the “robbers” and “Veda-haters” freely cursed in the hymns themselves,—and, however acquired, the first seed of the later Vedantic speculations. This modern theory is in accord with the received idea of a rapid human evolution from the quite recent savage; it is supported by an imposing apparatus of critical research and upheld by a number of Sciences, unhappily still young and still largely conjectural in their methods and shifting in their results,—Comparative Philology, Comparative Mythology and the Science of Comparative Religion. It is my object in these chapters to suggest a new view of the ancient problem. I do not propose to use a negative and destructive method directed against the received solutions, but simply to present, positively and constructively, a larger and, in some sort, a complementary hypothesis built upon broader foundations,—a hypothesis which, in addition, may shed light on one or two important problems in the history of ancient thought and cult left very insufficiently solved by the ordinary theories. We have in the Rig Veda,—the true and only Veda in the estimation of European scholars,—a body of sacrificial hymns couched in a very ancient language which presents a number of almost insoluble difficulties. It is full of ancient forms and words which do not appear in later speech and have often to be fixed in some doubtful sense by intelligent conjecture; a mass even of the words that it has in common with classical Sanskrit seem to bear or at least to admit another significance than in the later literary tongue; and a multitude of its vocables, especially the most common, those which are most vital to the sense, are capable of a surprising number of unconnected significances which may give, according to our preference in selection, quite different complexions to whole passages, whole hymns and even to the whole thought of the Veda. In the course of several thousands of years there have been at least three considerable attempts, entirely differing from each other in their methods and results, to fix the sense of these ancient litanies. One of these is prehistoric in time and exists only by fragments in the Brahmanas and Upanishads; but we possess in its entirety the traditional interpretation of the Indian scholar Sayana and we have in our own day the interpretation constructed after an immense labour of comparison and conjecture by modern European scholarship. Both of them present one characteristic in common, the extraordinary incoherence and poverty of sense which their results stamp upon the ancient hymns. The separate lines can be given, whether naturally or by force of conjecture, a good sense or a sense that hangs together; the diction that results, if garish in style, if loaded with otiose and decorative epithets, if developing extraordinarily little of meaning in an amazing mass of gaudy figure and verbiage, can be made to run into intelligible sentences; but when we come to read the hymns as a whole we seem to be in the presence of men who, unlike the early writers of other races, were incapable of coherent and natural expression or of connected thought. Except in the briefer and simpler hymns, the language tends to be either obscure or artificial; the thoughts are either unconnected or have to be forced and beaten by the interpreter into a whole. The scholar in dealing with his text is obliged to substitute for interpretation a process almost of fabrication. We feel that he is not so much revealing the sense as hammering and forging rebellious material into some sort of shape and consistency. Yet these obscure and barbarous compositions have had the most splendid good fortune in all literary history. They have been the reputed source not only of some of the world's richest and profoundest religions, but of some of its subtlest metaphysical philosophies. In the fixed tradition of thousands of years they have been revered as the origin and standard of all that can be held as authoritative and true in Brahmana and Upanishad, in Tantra and Purana, in the doctrines of great philosophical schools and in the teachings of famous saints and sages. The name borne by them was Veda, the knowledge,—the received name for the highest spiritual truth of which the human mind is capable. But if we accept the current interpretations, whether Sayana's or the modern theory, the whole of this sublime and sacred reputation is a colossal fiction. The hymns are, on the contrary, nothing more than the naive superstitious fancies of untaught and materialistic barbarians concerned only with the most external gains and enjoyments and ignorant of all but the most elementary moral notions or religious aspirations. Nor do occasional passages, quite out of harmony with their general spirit, destroy this total impression. The true foundation or starting-point of the later religions and philosophies is the Upanishads, which have then to be conceived as a revolt of philosophical and speculative minds against the ritualistic materialism of the Vedas. But this conception, supported by misleading European parallels, really explains nothing. Such profound and ultimate thoughts, such systems of subtle and elaborate psychology as are found in the substance of the Upanishads, do not spring out of a previous void. The human mind in its progress marches from knowledge to knowledge, or it renews and enlarges previous knowledge that has been obscured and overlaid, or it seizes on old imperfect clues and is led by them to new discoveries. The thought of the Upanishads supposes great origins anterior to itself, and these in the ordinary theories are lacking. The hypothesis, invented to fill the gap, that these ideas were borrowed by barbarous Aryan invaders from the civilised Dravidians, is a conjecture supported only by other conjectures. It is indeed coming to be doubted whether the whole story of an Aryan invasion through the Punjab is not a myth of the philologists. Now, in ancient Europe the schools of intellectual philosophy were preceded by the secret doctrines of the mystics; Orphic and Eleusinian mysteries prepared the rich soil of mentality out of which sprang Pythagoras and Plato. A similar starting-point is at least probable for the later march of thought in India. Much indeed of the forms and symbols of thought which we find in the Upanishads, much of the substance of the Brahmanas supposes a period in India in which thought took the form or the veil of secret teachings such as those of the Greek mysteries. Another hiatus left by the received theories is the gulf that divides the material worship of external Nature-Powers in the Veda from the developed religion of the Greeks and from the psychological and spiritual ideas we find attached to the functions of the Gods in the Upanishads and Puranas. We may accept for the present the theory that the earliest fully intelligent form of human religion is necessarily,—since man on earth begins from the external and proceeds to the internal,—a worship of outward Nature-Powers invested with the consciousness and the personality that he finds in his own being. Agni in the Veda is avowedly Fire; Surya is the Sun, Parjanya the Raincloud, Usha the Dawn; and if the material origin or function of some other Gods is less trenchantly clear, it is easy to render the obscure precise by philological inferences or ingenious speculation. But when we come to the worship of the Greeks not much later in date than the Veda, according to modern ideas of chronology, we find a significant change. The material attributes of the Gods are effaced or have become subordinate to psychological conceptions. The impetuous God of Fire has been converted into a lame God of Labour; Apollo, the Sun, presides over poetical and prophetic inspiration; Athene, who may plausibly be identified as in origin a Dawn-Goddess, has lost all memory of her material functions and is the wise, strong and pure Goddess of Knowledge; and there are other deities also, Gods of War, Love, Beauty, whose material functions have disappeared if they ever existed. It is not enough to say that this change was inevitable with the progress of human civilisation: the process also of the change demands inquiry and elucidation. We see the same revolution effected in the Puranas partly by the substitution of other divine names and figures, but also in part by the same obscure process that we observe in the evolution of Greek mythology. The river Saraswati has become the Muse and Goddess of Learning; Vishnu and Rudra of the Vedas are now the supreme Godhead, members of a divine Triad and expressive separately of conservative and destructive process in the cosmos. In the Isha Upanishad we find an appeal to Surya as a God of revelatory knowledge by whose action we can arrive at the highest truth. This, too, is his function in the sacred Vedic formula of the Gayatri which was for thousands of years repeated by every Brahmin in his daily meditation; and we may note that this formula is a verse from the Rig Veda, from a hymn of the Rishi Vishwamitra. In the same Upanishad, Agni is invoked for purely moral functions as the purifier from sin, the leader of the soul by the good path to the divine Bliss, and he seems to be identified with the power of the will and responsible for human actions. In other Upanishads the Gods are clearly the symbols of sense-functions in man. Soma, the plant which yielded the mystic wine for the Vedic sacrifice, has become not only the God of the moon, but manifests himself as mind in the human being. These evolutions suppose some period, posterior to the early material worship or superior Pantheistic Animism attributed to the Vedas and prior to the developed Puranic mythology, in which the gods became invested with deeper psychological functions, a period which may well have been the Age of the Mysteries. As things stand, a gap is left or else has been created by our exclusive preoccupation with the naturalistic element in the religion of the Vedic Rishis. I suggest that the gulf is of our own creation and does not really exist in the ancient sacred writings. The hypothesis I propose is that the Rig Veda is itself the one considerable document that remains to us from the early period of human thought of which the historic Eleusinian and Orphic mysteries were the failing remnants, when the spiritual and psychological knowledge of the race was concealed, for reasons now difficult to determine, in a veil of concrete and material figures and symbols which protected the sense from the profane and revealed it to the initiated. One of the leading principles of the mystics was the sacredness and secrecy of self-knowledge and the true knowledge of the Gods. This wisdom was, they thought, unfit, perhaps even dangerous to the ordinary human mind or in any case liable to perversion and misuse and loss of virtue if revealed to vulgar and unpurified spirits. Hence they favoured the existence of an outer worship, effective but imperfect, for the profane, an inner discipline for the initiate, and clothed their language in words and images which had, equally, a spiritual sense for the elect, a concrete sense for the mass of ordinary worshippers. The Vedic hymns were conceived and constructed on this principle. Their formulas and ceremonies are, overtly, the details of an outward ritual devised for the Pantheistic Nature-Worship which was then the common religion, covertly the sacred words, the effective symbols of a spiritual experience and knowledge and a psychological discipline of self-culture which were then the highest achievement of the human race. The ritual system recognised by Sayana may, in its externalities, stand; the naturalistic sense discovered by European scholarship may, in its general conceptions, be accepted; but behind them there is always the true and still hidden secret of the Veda,—the secret words, ninya vacamsi, which were spoken for the purified in soul and the awakened in knowledge. To disengage this less obvious but more important sense by fixing the import of Vedic terms, the sense of Vedic symbols and the psychological functions of the Gods is thus a difficult but necessary task, for which these chapters and the translations that accompany them are only a preparation. The hypothesis, if it proves to be valid, will have three advantages. It will elucidate simply and effectively the parts of the Upanishads that remain yet unintelligible or ill-understood as well as much of the origins of the Puranas. It will explain and justify rationally the whole ancient tradition of India; for it will be found that, in sober truth, the Vedanta, Purana, Tantra, the philosophical schools and the great Indian religions do go back in their source to Vedic origins. We can see there in their original seed or in their early or even primitive forms the fundamental conceptions of later Indian thought. Thus a natural starting-point will be provided for a sounder study of Comparative Religion in the Indian field. Instead of wandering amid insecure speculations or having to account for impossible conversions and unexplained transitions we shall have a clue to a natural and progressive development satisfying to the reason. Incidentally, some light may be thrown on the obscurities of early cult and myth in other ancient nations. Finally, the incoherencies of the Vedic texts will at once be explained and disappear. They exist in appearance only, because the real thread of the sense is to be found in an inner meaning. That thread found, the hymns appear as logical and organic wholes and the expression, though alien in type to our modern ways of thinking and speaking, becomes, in its own style, just and precise and sins rather by economy of phrase than by excess, by over-pregnancy rather than by poverty of sense. The Veda ceases to be merely an interesting remnant of barbarism and takes rank among the most important of the world's early Scriptures.
QUOTE
The Secret of the Veda Chapter 23: Summary of Conclusions We have now closely scrutinised the Angiras legend in the Rig Veda from all possible sides and in all its main symbols and are in a position to summarise firmly the conclusions we have drawn from it. As I have already said, the Angiras legend and the Vritra mythus are the two principal parables of the Veda; they occur and recur everywhere; they run through the hymns as two closely connected threads of symbolic imagery, and around them all the rest of the Vedic symbolism is woven. Not that they are its central ideas, but they are two main pillars of this ancient structure. When we determine their sense, we have determined the sense of the whole Rik Sanhita. If Vritra and the waters symbolise the cloud and the rain and the gushing forth of the seven rivers of the Punjab and if the Angirases are the bringers of the physical dawn, then the Veda is a symbolism of natural phenomena personified in the figure of gods and Rishis and maleficent demons. If Vritra and Vala are Dravidian gods and the Panis and Vritras human enemies, then the Veda is a poetical and legendary account of the invasion of Dravidian India by Nature-worshipping barbarians. If on the other hand this is a symbolism of the struggle between spiritual powers of Light and Darkness, Truth and Falsehood, Knowledge and Ignorance, Death and Immortality, then that is the real sense of the whole Veda. We have concluded that the Angiras Rishis are bringers of the Dawn, rescuers of the Sun out of the darkness, but that this Dawn, Sun, Darkness are figures used with a spiritual significance. The central conception of the Veda is the conquest of the Truth out of the darkness of Ignorance and by the conquest of the Truth the conquest also of Immortality. For the Vedic Ritam is a spiritual as well as a psychological conception. It is the true being, the true consciousness, the true delight of existence beyond this earth of body, this mid-region of vital force, this ordinary sky or heaven of mind. We have to cross beyond all these planes in order to arrive at the higher plane of that superconscient Truth which is the own home of the gods and the foundation of Immortality. This is the world of Swar, to which the Angirases have found the path for their posterity. The Angirases are at once the divine seers who assist in the cosmic and human workings of the gods and their earthly representatives, the ancient fathers who first found the wisdom of which the Vedic hymns are a chant and memory and renewal in experience. The seven divine Angirases are sons or powers of Agni, powers of the Seer-Will, the flame of divine Force instinct with divine knowledge which is kindled for the victory. The Bhrigus have found this Flame secret in the growths of the earthly existence, but the Angirases kindle it on the altar of sacrifice and maintain the sacrifice through the periods of the sacrificial year symbolising the periods of the divine labour by which the Sun of Truth is recovered out of the darkness. Those who sacrifice for nine months of this year are Navagwas, seers of the nine cows or nine rays, who institute the search for the herds of the Sun and the march of Indra to battle with the Panis. Those who sacrifice for ten months are the Dashagwas, seers of the ten rays who enter with Indra into the cave of the Panis and recover the lost herds. The sacrifice is the giving by man of what he possesses in his being to the higher or divine nature and its fruit is the farther enrichment of his manhood by the lavish bounty of the gods. The wealth thus gained constitutes a state of spiritual riches, prosperity, felicity which is itself a power for the journey and a force of battle. For the sacrifice is a journey, a progression; the sacrifice itself travels led by Agni up the divine path to the gods and of this journey the ascent of the Angiras fathers to the divine world of Swar is the type. Their journey of the sacrifice is also a battle, for it is opposed by Panis, Vritras and other powers of evil and falsehood, and of this warfare the conflict of Indra and the Angirases with the Panis is a principal episode. The principal features of sacrifice are the kindling of the divine flame, the offering of the ghrta and the Soma wine and the chanting of the sacred word. By the hymn and the offering the gods are increased; they are said to be born, created or manifested in man and by their increase and greatness here they increase the earth and heaven, that is to say, the physical and mental existence to their utmost capacity and, exceeding these, create in their turn the higher worlds or planes. The higher existence is the divine, the infinite of which the shining Cow, the infinite Mother, Aditi, is the symbol; the lower is subject to her dark form Diti. The object of the sacrifice is to win the higher or divine being and possess with it and make subject to its law and truth the lower or human existence. The ghrta of the sacrifice is the yield of the shining Cow; it is the clarity or brightness of the solar light in the human mentality. The Soma is the immortal delight of existence secret in the waters and the plant and pressed out for drinking by gods and men. The word is the inspired speech expressing the thought-illumination of the Truth which rises out of the soul, formed in the heart, shaped by the mind. Agni growing by the ghrta, Indra forceful with the luminous strength and joy of the Soma and increased by the Word, aid the Angirases to recover the herds of the Sun. Brihaspati is the Master of the creative Word. If Agni is the supreme Angiras, the flame from whom the Angirases are born, Brihaspati is the one Angiras with the seven mouths, the seven rays of the illuminative thought and the seven words which express it, of whom these seers are the powers of utterance. It is the complete thought of the Truth, the seven-headed, which wins the fourth or divine world for man by winning for him the complete spiritual wealth, object of the sacrifice. Therefore Agni, Indra, Brihaspati, Soma are all described as winners of the herds of the Sun and destroyers of the Dasyus who conceal and withhold them from man. Saraswati, who is the stream of the Word or inspiration of the Truth, is also a Dasyu-slayer and winner of the shining herds; and they are discovered by Sarama, forerunner of Indra, who is a solar or dawn goddess and seems to symbolise the intuitive power of the Truth. Usha, the Dawn, is at once herself a worker in the great victory and in her full advent its luminous result. Usha is the divine Dawn, for the Sun that arises by her coming is the Sun of the superconscient Truth; the day he brings is the day of the true life in the true knowledge, the night he dispels is the night of the ignorance which yet conceals the dawn in its bosom. Usha herself is the Truth, sunrta, and the mother of Truths. These truths of the divine Dawn are called her cows, her shining herds; while the forces of the Truth that accompany them and occupy the Life are called her horses. Around this symbol of the cows and horses much of the Vedic symbolism turns; for these are the chief elements of the riches sought by man from the gods. The cows of the Dawn have been stolen and concealed by the demons, the lords of darkness in their nether cave of the secret subconscient. They are the illuminations of knowledge, the thoughts of the Truth, gavo matayah, which have to be delivered out of their imprisonment. Their release is the upsurging of the powers of the divine Dawn. It is also the recovery of the Sun that was lying in the darkness; for it is said that the Sun, “that Truth”, was the thing found by Indra and the Angirases in the cave of the Panis. By the rending of that cave the herds of the divine dawn which are the rays of the Sun of Truth ascend the hill of being and the Sun itself ascends to the luminous upper ocean of the divine existence, led over it by the thinkers like a ship over the waters, till it reaches its farther shore. The Panis who conceal the herds, the masters of the nether cavern, are a class of Dasyus who are in the Vedic symbolism set in opposition to the Aryan gods and Aryan seers and workers. The Aryan is he who does the work of sacrifice, finds the sacred word of illumination, desires the Gods and increases them and is increased by them into the largeness of the true existence; he is the warrior of the light and the traveller to the Truth. The Dasyu is the undivine being who does no sacrifice, amasses a wealth he cannot rightly use because he cannot speak the word or mentalise the superconscient Truth, hates the Word, the gods and the sacrifice and gives nothing of himself to the higher existences but robs and withholds his wealth from the Aryan. He is the thief, the enemy, the wolf, the devourer, the divider, the obstructor, the confiner. The Dasyus are powers of darkness and ignorance who oppose the seeker of truth and immortality. The gods are the powers of Light, the children of Infinity, forms and personalities of the one Godhead who by their help and by their growth and human workings in man raise him to the truth and the immortality. Thus the interpretation of the Angiras myth gives us the key to the whole secret of the Veda. For if the cows and horses lost by the Aryans and recovered for them by the gods, the cows and horses of which Indra is the lord and giver and indeed himself the Cow and Horse, are not physical cattle, if these elements of the wealth sought by the sacrifice are symbols of a spiritual riches, so also must be its other elements which are always associated with them, sons, men, gold, treasure, etc. If the Cow of which the ghrta is the yield is not a physical cow but the shining Mother, then the ghrta itself which is found in the waters and is said to be triply secreted by the Panis in the Cow, is no physical offering, nor the honey-wine of Soma either which is also said to exist in the rivers and to rise in a honeyed wave from the ocean and to flow streaming up to the gods. And if these, then also the other offerings of the sacrifice must be symbolic; the outer sacrifice itself can be nothing but the symbol of an inner giving. And if the Angiras Rishis are also in part symbolic or are, like the gods, semi-divine workers and helpers in the sacrifice, so also must be the Bhrigus, Atharvans, Ushana and Kutsa and others who are associated with them in their work. If the Angiras legend and the story of the struggle with the Dasyus is a parable, so also should be the other legendary stories we find in the Rig Veda of the help given by the Gods to the Rishis against the demons; for these also are related in similar terms and constantly classed by the Vedic poets along with the Angiras story as on the same footing. Similarly if these Dasyus who refuse the gift and the sacrifice, and hate the Word and the gods and with whom the Aryans are constantly at war, these Vritras, Panis and others, are not human enemies but powers of darkness, falsehood and evil, then the whole idea of the Aryan wars and kings and nations begins to take upon itself the aspect of spiritual symbol and apologue. Whether they are entirely so or only partly, cannot be decided except by a more detailed examination which is not our present object. Our object is only to see whether there is a prima facie case for the idea with which we started that the Vedic hymns are the symbolic gospel of the ancient Indian mystics and their sense spiritual and psychological. Such a prima facie case we have established; for there is already sufficient ground for seriously approaching the Veda from this standpoint and interpreting it in detail as such a lyric symbolism. Still, to make our case entirely firm it will be well to examine the other companion legend of Vritra and the waters which we have seen to be closely connected with that of the Angirases and the Light. In the first place Indra the Vritra-slayer is along with Agni one of the two chief gods of the Vedic Pantheon and if his character and functions can be properly established, we shall have the general type of the Aryan gods fixed firmly. Secondly, the Maruts, his companions, singers of the sacred chant, are the strongest point of the naturalistic theory of Vedic worship; they are undoubtedly storm-gods and no other of the greater Vedic deities, Agni or the Ashwins or Varuna and Mitra or Twashtri and the goddesses or even Surya the Sun or Usha the Dawn have such a pronounced physical character. If then these storm-gods can be shown to have a psychological character and symbolism, then there can be no farther doubt about the profounder sense of the Vedic religion and ritual. Finally, if Vritra and his associated demons, Shushna, Namuchi and the rest appear when closely scrutinised to be Dasyus in the spiritual sense and if the meaning of the heavenly waters he obstructs be more thoroughly investigated, then the consideration of the stories of the Rishis and the gods and demons as parables can be proceeded with from a sure starting-point and the symbolism of the Vedic worlds brought nearer to a satisfactory interpretation. More we cannot at present attempt; for the Vedic symbolism as worked out in the hymns is too complex in its details, too numerous in its standpoints, presents too many obscurities and difficulties to the interpreter in its shades and side allusions and above all has been too much obscured by ages of oblivion and misunderstanding to be adequately dealt with in a single work. We can only at present seek out the leading clues and lay as securely as may be the right foundations.

Posted by: Kaushal Jan 2 2006, 10:34 AM

Rajiv Malhotra's take on strategy

QUOTE
While there has been much heat generated on this topic, a successful campaign must realize that it is long term and is up against very heavily intellectually armed opponents. Hence there must be a long term study and discussion by serious scholars on our side, just as there has been within the other side for several decades. This is like cricket practice to make the home team stronger. In this spirit I recommend the following 3 books to those wanting to understand the racist/eurocentric origins of the aryan theories in the west. Each of these books is from a credible author and academic publishing house, and not from anyone linked with politics of Hinduism or Indian nationalism - this is important. Yet these books give hard facts to support our case and each is the result of a decade of sweat and toil on the author's part. 1) Maurice Olender, "The Language of Paradise: Race, Religion, and Philosophy in the Nineteenth Century." Harvard University Press. 1992. 2) Thomas R. Trautmann, "Aryabs and British India." University of California Press. 1997. 3) Edwin Bryant, "The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate." Oxford University Press. 2004. It could also be a good strategy to gift this set to future state education boards, as attachments to our position paper, and to quote from these in a proper manner. This would raise the barrier to counterattacks, as it would not be a simple matter to assert guilt-by-association against alleged "Hindu Nationalists." One should argue that this debate has serious contenders on BOTH sides, and hence it is best left out of the classrooms of 11-year old Americans and their naive teachers. Personally I think it is wiser to refute the aryan migration (yes, migration is just as harmful as invasion) theory WITHOUT trying to replace it with an alternative out-of-india theory. That way you dont arm the opponents with an opportunity to attack. What matters is REMOVING the prevailing aryan theory, and in fact explaining it as the result of 19th century European racism and nationalism that culminated in Nazism. For a theory to be refuted it is not required that one must supply an alternative theory - v important point, so lets avoid over-ambition. It is okay to let it at this stage be moved to neutral territory, as something of a mystery in which further archeological research is required because current knowledge is simply inadequate. This is a sound agnostic position for an educator to take. In short, my position is as follows: 1) Aryan theory (invasion or migration) was invented by 19th century racist european intellectuals for political reasons. 2) It was never argued in proper intellectual fashion and was simply assumed, with generation after generation adding more layers of white supremacist suppositions. 3) Archeological data discovered in the 20th century data started to contradict this. 4) Many sound scholars such as the authors of the above listed books have come out to refute this old theory. 5) Many Indians came out to build alternative theories which are India/Hindu centric, and these have been attacked as counter chauvinism. 6) The hard data does not support either kind of chauvinism - the aryan theory must not be taught as some kind of fact, while at the same time no out-of-india alternative should replace it. The gaps between textual evidence and arehcological evidence has simply not been bridged at this stage. This is a very sound and defensible position. regards, rajiv

Posted by: gangajal Jan 3 2006, 02:53 PM

The 19th century Aryan migration theory is dead in the water because of lack of archeological and genetic evidence. That would suggest quite definitively that there was no Aryan migration into India around 1500 bce. That does not mean that there was no Aryan migration into India around 10,000 bce for example. The linguistic evidence seems to be quite strong that there was migration of Aryan speakers into India. Such a migration around 10,000 bce would make the Vedas a product of the Indus-Saraswati civilization. Gangajal

Posted by: Kaushal Jan 3 2006, 04:57 PM

QUOTE(gangajal @ Jan 3 2006, 01:53 PM)
The 19th century Aryan migration theory is dead in the water because of lack of archeological and genetic evidence. That would suggest quite definitively that there was no Aryan migration into India around 1500 bce. That does not mean that there was no Aryan migration into India around 10,000 bce for example. The linguistic evidence seems to be quite strong that there was migration of Aryan speakers into India. Such a migration around 10,000 bce would make the Vedas a product of the Indus-Saraswati civilization. Gangajal
*
Gangajal,there are several points to be made about migrations around10000 bce and earlier. . It is not in dispute that there may been migrations throughout the history of the human species. One theory is that there were migrations (southward and northwards) depending on the onset or recession of the iceages.Assuming, There is one complete cycle of an ice age every 20000 years. so there may been migrations every 10000 years in the appropriate direction. 2.But migrations that took place before recorded history are not relevant(as you have rightly observed) to the argument of where the Vedas were composed (Witzel concedes they were composed in India) or to the argument of where sanskrit developed which Witzel maintains was brought in by nomadic Aryans presumably from his native Austria. Since these migrations putatively took place before recorded history one has to have paleontological evidence to date the migrations 3. I must question whether linguistics in and by itself is adequate to decide the issue of the date of the migrations. They call the subject somewhat presumptively linguistic paleontology but it is based on layers of hypothesis as to the time it takes to transform language as the people migrate through regions. I remain somewhat skeptical of relying solely on linguistics as to the date of the putative migrations or even whether they occurred at all. I need more archaeological or epigraphc or fossil evidence to convince me. Bottom line merely to say there were migrations in or out of India in some distant past before recorded history signifies very little in this context at least to me. Witzel know this too and hence the need to place migrations after sanskrit was developed But the larger issue is why Witzel and his Indological cohorts are so eager to stake their reputation on such a cockamamie theory with so little evidence Methinks thou doth protest too much averred Shakespeare.Ah,but Shakespeare may mean nothing to our austrian linguist professor.

Posted by: Kaushal Jan 4 2006, 01:34 AM

Little is known about indian archaeologsts like Rakhal Das Banerjee,S R Rao and RS Bisht. while rummaging the background of some of these archaeologists I found this interesting site enumerating the achievements of Indian archeologists http://www.geocities.com/arunsinha2000/eclectic/famous_archaeologists.html#request Now for a little quiz. Who were the archaeologists who discovered Mohenjo Daro Dholavira Dwaraka (submerged in the ocean)

Posted by: gangajal Jan 4 2006, 12:55 PM

QUOTE
Gangajal,there are several points to be made about migrations around10000 bce and earlier. . It is not in dispute that there may been migrations throughout the history of the human species. One theory is that there were migrations (southward and northwards) depending on the onset or recession of the iceages.Assuming, There is one complete cycle of an ice age every 20000 years. so there may been migrations every 10000 years in the appropriate direction. 2.But migrations that took place before recorded history are not relevant(as you have rightly observed) to the argument of where the Vedas were composed (Witzel concedes they were composed in India) or to the argument of where sanskrit developed which Witzel maintains was brought in by nomadic Aryans presumably from his native Austria. Since these migrations putatively took place before recorded history one has to have paleontological evidence to date the migrations 3. I must question whether linguistics in and by itself is adequate to decide the issue of the date of the migrations. They call the subject somewhat presumptively linguistic paleontology but it is based on layers of hypothesis as to the time it takes to transform language as the people migrate through regions. I remain somewhat skeptical of relying solely on linguistics as to the date of the putative migrations or even whether they occurred at all. I need more archaeological or epigraphc or fossil evidence to convince me. Bottom line merely to say there were migrations in or out of India in some distant past before recorded history signifies very little in this context at least to me. Witzel know this too and hence the need to place migrations after sanskrit was developed But the larger issue is why Witzel and his Indological cohorts are so eager to stake their reputation on such a cockamamie theory with so little evidence Methinks thou doth protest too much averred Shakespeare.Ah,but Shakespeare may mean nothing to our austrian linguist professor.
Kaushal, The reason why Aryan migration theorists do not want to push the date before 1500 bce is because then they will then have to admit that the Vedas were written by the Indus civilization. They refuse to admit that probably because the Indus civilization script has not been proved to be Vedic Sanskrit. Ramila Thapar, for example, insists in her Indian history that the Indus civilization was not Vedic. I have my theory about why the Indus civilization language is not Sanskrit. I agree with you that linguistic models of migration are highly unreliable. When Witzel agrees that the Vedas have been written in India he puts a date shortwards of 1500 bce so that his aryan migration around 1500 bce still remains intact. It is actually easy to see why Witzel has to maintain that stance. His entire life work will go down the toilet if he doesn't. Gangajal

Posted by: gangajal Jan 4 2006, 12:56 PM

QUOTE(Kaushal @ Jan 4 2006, 02:04 PM)
Little is known about indian archaeologsts like Rakhal Das Banerjee,S R Rao and RS Bisht. while rummaging the background of some of these archaeologists I found this interesting site enumerating the achievements of Indian archeologists http://www.geocities.com/arunsinha2000/eclectic/famous_archaeologists.html#request Now for a little quiz. Who were the archaeologists who discovered Mohenjo Daro Dholavira Dwaraka (submerged in the ocean)
*
Kaushal, I suspect that the names of the archeologists have been given by you!! Gangajal

Posted by: Kaushal Jan 4 2006, 08:58 PM

I found the following on myHard disk Early Indologists – a Study in Motivation By Svami B.V. Giri The First Pioneers of Indology It may be surprising to learn that the first pioneer in indology was the 12th Century Pope, Honorius IV. The Holy Father encouraged the learning of oriental languages in order to preach Christianity amongst the pagans. Soon after this in 1312, the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican decided that- “The Holy Church should have an abundant number of Catholics well versed in the languages, especially in those of the infidels, so as to be able to instruct them in the sacred doctrine.” The result of this was the creation of the chairs of Hebrew, Arabic and Chaldean at the Universities of Bologna, Oxford, Paris and Salamanca. A century later in 1434, the General Council of Basel returned to this theme and decreed that – “All Bishops must sometimes each year send men well-grounded in the divine word to those parts where Jews and other infidels live, to preach and explain the truth of the Catholic faith in such a way that the infidels who hear them may come to recognize their errors. Let them compel them to hear their preaching.” 1 Centuries later in 1870, during the First Vatican Council, Hinduism was condemned in the “five anathemas against pantheism” according to the Jesuit priest John Hardon in the Church-authorized book, The Catholic Catechism. However, interests in indology only took shape when the British came to India. A Short History of the British in India Whilst the 17th century marked the zenith of India’s mediaeval glory, the 18th century was a flagrant display of degradation, misery, and anarchy. The Moghul Empire was at its end, the nobility had become corrupt and oppressive, and intellectual curiosity had given way to superstitious beliefs. The country was in a state of military and political turmoil, and literature, art and culture could hardly flourish in such an atmosphere. Into this scenario came the European traders. It was the Portuguese and the Dutch who were the first Europeans to arrive in India. When the French and the British came on the scene, all parties began vying for commercial power over India’s ports. Through financial aid form their governments, treaties with local rulers and huge armies of mercenaries, the foreign trading companies gradually became more powerful than the deteriorating Moghul empire. The turning point came in 1757 when the British East India Company defeated an Indian army at the Battle of Plassey, and thus gained supremacy. Through treaties and annexation, the Company soon took full control of the subcontinent and ceded it to the British government. At first, the British government remained cautious in forcing any religious change upon the Indians. This policy seemed to be practical in ruling several hundred million Indians without sparking off a rebellion. Or as one tea-dealer Mr.Twinning put it - “As long as we continue to govern India in the mild, tolerant spirit of Christianity, we may govern it with ease; but if ever the fatal day should arrive, when religious innovation shall set her foot in that country, indignation will spread from one end of the Hindustan to the other, and the arms of fifty millions of people will drive us from that portion of the globe, with as much ease as the sand of the desert is scattered by the wind”. Another point of view in support of that policy was by Montgomery. “Christianity had nothing to teach Hinduism, and no missionary ever made a really good Christian convert in India. He was more anxious to save the 30,000 of his country-men in India than to save the souls of all the Hindus by making them Christians at so dreadful a price”. Thus, under the authority of Lord Cornwallis (1786-1805) a mood of laissez-faire dominated the British attitude towards the Indian and his religious practices. The Governor-general in 1793 had decreed to - “…preserve the laws of the Shaster and the Koran, and to protect the natives of India in the free exercise of their religion.” However, one year before this law was put into effect, the author Charles Grant wrote, “The Company manifested a laudable zeal for extending, as far as its means went, the knowledge of the Gospel to the pagan tribes among whom its factories were placed.” In 1808 he described the opening of Christian missionary schools and translations of the Bible into Indian languages as “principal efforts made under the patronage of the British government in India, to impart to the natives a knowledge of Christianity.” Despite this, the British showed little interest in Vedic scriptures. Doubtless this was in part a reflection of the usual British attitude to India during most of the period of the Raj - that India was simply a profitable nuisance. Back home in England the various political parties had different opinions in how India should be managed. The Conservatives, though they accepted that to overthrow Indian tradition would be a difficult task, were interested in improving the Indian way of life, but stressed extreme caution for fear of an uprising. The Liberal party felt the gradual necessity of introducing western standards and values into India. The Rationalists had a more radical approach. Their belief was that reason could abolish human ignorance, and since the West was the champion of reason, the East would profit by its association. It would be accurate to say that to the 18th century Englishmen, religion meant Christianity. Of course, racism played its part also. This attitude of Europeans toward Indians was due to a sense of superiority - a cherished conviction that was shared by every Englishman in India, from the highest to the lowest. Upon his arrival in 1810, the Governor-general Marquis of Hastings wrote: “…the Hindoo appears a being merely limited to mere animal functions, and even in them indifferent...with no higher intellect than a dog...” European Evangelism in India: William Carey Christian evangelists were horrified that the Company could take the idolatry and improprieties of a pagan culture seriously. In their eyes, any kind of support or appreciation for the religion of the ‘pagans’ was tantamount to blasphemy. In 1825 the British scholar John Bentley wrote of his conflict with the scientist John Playfair, who was an admirer of Indian culture - ‘By his [Playfair’s] attempt to uphold the antiquity of Hindu books against absolute facts, he thereby supports all those horrid abuses and impositions found in them, under the pretended sanction of antiquity....Nay, his aim goes still deeper; for by the same means he endeavors to overturn the Mosaic account, and sap the very foundation of our religion: for if we are to believe in the antiquity of Hindu books, as he would wish us, then the Mosaic account is all a fable, or fiction.’ 2 Seeing India as an unlimited field for missionary activity, and insisting that it was part of a Christian government’s duty to promote this, Christian missionaries came to India without any government approval. William Carey (1761-1834) was the pioneer of the modern missionary enterprise in India, and of western (missionary) scholarship in oriental studies. Carey was an English oriental scholar and the founder of the Baptist Missionary Society. From 1801 onward, as Professor of Oriental Languages, he composed numerous philosophical works, consisting of ‘grammars and dictionaries in the Marathi, Sanskrit, Punjabi, Telugu, Bengali and Bhatanta dialects. From the Serampor press, there issued in his life time, over 200,000 Bibles and portions in nearly 40 different languages and dialects, Carey himself undertaking most of the literary work. 3 Carey and his colleagues experimented with what came to be known as Church Sanskrit. He wanted to train a group of ‘Christian Pandits’ who would probe “these mysterious sacred nothings” and expose them as worthless. He was distressed that this “golden casket (of Sanskrit) exquisitely wrought” had remained “filled with nothing but pebbles and trash.” He was determined to fill it with “riches - beyond all price,” that is the doctrine of Christianity. 4 In fact, Carey smuggled himself into India and caused so much trouble that the British government labeled him as a political danger. After confiscating a batch of Bengali pamphlets printed by Carey, the Governor-general Lord Minto described them as – “Scurrilous invective…Without arguments of any kind, they were filled with hell fire and still hotter fire, denounced against a whole race of men merely for believing the religion they were taught by their fathers.” Unfortunately Carey and other preachers of his ilk finally gained permission to continue their campaigns without government approval. Other Preachers Another preacher, William Archer, wrote in his book, India and the Future – “The plain truth concerning the mass of the [Indian] population — and the poorer classes alone — is that they are not civilized people.” Reverend A.H. Bowman wrote that Hinduism was a – “…great philosophy which lives on unchanged whilst other systems are dead, which as yet unsupplanted has its stronghold in Vedanta, the last and the most subtle and powerful foe of Christianity.” In 1790, Dr.Claudius Bucchanan, a missionary attached to the East India Company, arrived in Bengal. Not long after his arrival, the good doctor stated- “Neither truth, nor honesty, honor, gratitude, nor charity, is to be found in the breast of a Hindoo.” Bucchanan traveled to Puri in Orissa and witnessed the annual Ratha- yatra (or as Bucchanan called it, ‘The horrors of Juggernaut’). His description of Jagannatha – ‘The Indian Moloch’, has been recorded by the historian George Gogerly as- “…a frightful visage painted black, with a distended mouth of bloody horror.” Perhaps, by seeing the face of Lord Jagannatha, the British hallucinated and saw a projection of their own international destiny of bloodshed and carnage. In any case, from the time the British observed the ‘terrifying’ sight of the Lord on His gigantic chariot, the word ‘juggernaut’ entered the English language and became synonymous with any great force that crushes everything in its path. Gogerly went on to write – “The whole history of this famous god (Krsna) is one of lust, robbery, deceit and murder…the history of the whole hierarchy of Hindooism is one of shameful iniquity, too vile to be described.” The prominent missionary, Alexander Duff (1806-1878) founded the Scottish Churches College, in Calcutta, which he envisioned as a “headquarters for a great campaign against Hinduism.” Duff sought to convert the Indians by enrolling them in English-run schools and colleges, and placed emphasis on learning Christianity through the English language. Duff wrote - “ While we rejoice that true literature and science are to be substituted in place of what is demonstrably false, we cannot but lament that no provision has been made for substituting the only true religion-Christianity - in place of the false religion which our literature and science will inevitably demolish… Of all the systems of false religion ever fabricated by the perverse ingenuity of fallen man, Hinduism is surely the most stupendous.” Duff received remarkable success in his educational and missionary activities amongst the higher classes in Calcutta. The number of students in the mission schools was four times higher than that in government schools. It is an axiomatic truth that the aim of missionaries like Duff was not so much education than conversion. They were obliged to use the excuse of education in order to meet he needs of the converted population, and more importantly, to train up Indian assistants to help them in their proselytizing. Duff remained unsatisfied with converting Indians belonging to low-castes and orphans – his chosen target was the higher castes, specifically the brahmanas, in order to accelerate the demise of Hinduism. Many Englishmen patronized missionary schools such as Duffs. Charles Trevelyan, an officer with the East India Company asserted in a widely circulated tract- “ The multitudes who flock to our schools ... cannot return under the dominion of the Brahmins. The spell has been forever broken. Hinduism is not a religion that will bear examination... It gives away at once before the light of European sciences.” J.N. Farquhar, a Scottish clergyman, preached in India from 1891 to 1923, during which time he wrote a book called The Crown of Hinduism. In this work he says that although Hinduism may have some good points, ultimately true salvation can only be achieved through Christ, who is the ‘crown of Hinduism’. Reverend William Ward, an English missionary, wrote a four-volume polemic in which he characterized the Hindu faith as “a fabric of superstition” concocted by Brahmins, and as “the most complete system of absolute oppression that perhaps ever existed”. Richard Temple, a high officer, said in an 1883 speech to a London missionary society: “ India presents the greatest of all fields of missionary exertion... India is a country which of all others we are bound to enlighten with external truth...But what is most important to you friends of missions, is this - that there is a large population of aborigines, a people who are outside caste....If they are attached, as they rapidly may be, to Christianity, they will form a nucleus round which British power and influence may gather.” He addressed a mission in New York in bolder terms: “Thus India is like a mighty bastion which is being battered by heavy artillery. We have given blow after blow, and thud after thud, and the effect is not at first very remarkable; but at last with a crash the mighty structure will come toppling down, and it is our hope that someday the heathen religions of India will in like manner succumb.” Indian religion was thus perceived by the British missionaries as an enemy waiting to be conquered by the army of Jesus. It was a doctrine of Satan which provided Christianity with devils to exorcise and which, in their view, was “at best, work of human folly and at worst the outcome of a diabolic inspiration.” 5 In the word of Charles Grant (1746-1823), Chairman of the East India Company: “We cannot avoid recognizing in the people of Hindustan a race of men lamentably degenerate and base...governed by malevolent and licentious passions...and sunk in misery by their vices.” One Professor McKenzie, of Bombay found the ethics of India defective, illogical and anti-social, lacking any philosophical foundation, nullified by abhorrent ideas of asceticism and ritual and altogether inferior to the ‘higher spirituality’ of Europe. He devoted most of his book ‘Hindu Ethics’ to upholding this thesis and came to the conclusion that Vedic philosophical ideas, ‘when logically applied leave no room for ethics’; and that they prevent the development of a strenuous moral life.’ All efforts were made by the missionaries to portray Hinduism as backwards, illogical, debauched and perverse. As one preacher exclaimed, ‘The curse of India is the Hindoo religion. More than two hundred million people believe a monkey mixture of mythology that is strangling the nation.’ ‘He who yearns for God in India soon loses his head as well as his heart.’ The missionaries opposed the government’s efforts to take a neutral stand towards Indian culture and worked with more zeal for the complete conversion of the natives. Thus India became an arena for religious adventure. The First Scholars: Sir William Jones Sir William Jones (1746-1794) was the first Britisher to learn Sanskrit and study the Vedas. He was educated at Oxford University and it was here that he studied law and also began his studies in oriental languages, of which he is said to have mastered sixteen. After being appointed as judge of the Supreme Court, Jones went to Calcutta in 1783. He founded the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal and translated a number of Sanskrit texts into English. Jones was not prone to criticize other religions, especially the Vedic religion, which he respected and adored. He wrote – “I am in love with Gopia, charmed with Crishen (Krishna), an enthusiastic admirer of Raama and a devout adorer of Brihma (Brahma), Bishen (Vishnu), Mahisher (Maheshwara); not to mention that Judishteir, Arjen, Corno (Yudhishtira, Arjuna, Karna) and the other warriors of the M’hab’harat appear greater in my eyes than Agamemnon, Ajax and Achilles apperaed when I first read the Iliad” 6 However, Jones was a devout Christian and could not free himself of the restraints of Biblical chronology. His theories of dating Indian history, specifically Candragupta Maurya’s reign up to the invasions of India by Alexander were certainly dictated to him through religious bias. He also described the Srimad Bhagavatam as “a motley story” and claimed that it had it’s roots in the Christian Gospels, which had been brought to India and, ‘repeated to the Hindus, who ingrafted them on the old fable of Ce’sava, (Kesava)’. Of course, this theory has been debunked since records of Krsna worship predate Christ by centuries. (See Heliodorus Column) In 1840 Jones was appointed Chief Justice in the British settlement of Fort William. Here, in 1846, he translated into English the famous play ‘Sakuntala’ by Kalidasa and ‘The Code of Manu’ in 1851, the year of his death. After him, his younger associate, Sir Henry Thomas Colebrooke, continued in his stead and wrote many articles on Hinduism. The eminent British historian James Mill (father of the philosopher John Stuart Mill) who had published his voluminous History of British India in 1818 heavily criticized Jones. Although Mill spoke no Indian languages, had never studied Sanskrit, and had never been to India, his damning indictment of Indian culture and religion had become a standard work for all Britishers who would serve in India. Mill vehemently believed that India had never had a glorious past and treated this as an historical fantasy. To him, Indian religion meant, ‘The worship of the emblems of generative organs’ and ascribing to God, ‘…an immense train of obscene acts.’ Suffice to say that he disagreed violently with Jones for his ‘Hypothesis of a high state of civilization.’ Mill’s History of British India was greatly influenced by the famous French missionary Abbe Dubois’s book Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies. This work, which still enjoys a considerable amount of popularity to this day, contains one chapter on Hindu temples, wherein the Abbe writes: “Hindu imagination is such that it cannot be excited except by what is monstrous and extravagant.” H.H. Wilson Horace Hayman Wilson (1786-1860) has been described as ‘the greatest Sanskrit scholar of his time’. He received his education in London and traveled to India in the East India Companies medical service. He became the secretary of the Asiatic Society of Bengal from 1811 to 1833 and published a Sanskrit to English dictionary. He became Boden professor of Sanskrit at Oxford in 1833 and the director of the Royal Asiatic Society in 1837. He translated the Visnu Purana, Rg Veda and wrote books such as Lectures on the Religious and Philosophical Systems of the Hindus. He edited a number of translations of eastern texts and helped Mill compile his History of India, although later Wilson criticized Mill’s historiography, stating – “Mill’s view of Hindu religion is full of very serious defects, arising from inveterate prejudices and imperfect knowledge. Every text, every circumstance, that makes against the Hindu character, is most assiduously cited, and everything in its favor as carefully kept out of sight, whilst a total neglect is displayed of the history of Hindu belief.”7 Wilson seemed somewhat of an enigma; on one hand he proposed that Britain should restrain herself from forcing Christianity upon the Indians and forcing them to reject their old traditions. Yet in the same breath he exclaimed: “From the survey which has been submitted to you, you will perceive that the practical religion of the Hindus is by no means a concentrated and compact system, but a heterogeneous compound made up of various and not infrequently incompatible ingredients, and that to a few ancient fragments it has made large and unauthorized additions, most of which are of an exceedingly mischievous and disgraceful nature. It is, however, of little avail yet to attempt to undeceive the multitude; their superstition is based upon ignorance, and until the foundation is taken away, the superstructure, however crazy and rotten, will hold together.” Wilson’s view was that Christianity should replace the Vedic culture, and he believed that full knowledge of Indian traditions would help effect that conversion. Aware that the Indians would be reluctant to give up their culture and religion, Wilson made the following remark: “The whole tendency of brahminical education is to enforce dependence upon authority – in the first instance upon the guru, the next upon the books. A learned brahmana trusts solely to his learning; he never ventures upon independent thought; he appeals to memory; he quotes texts without measure and in unquestioning trust. It will be difficult to persuade him that the Vedas are human and very ordinary writings, that the puranas are modern and unauthentic, or even that the tantras are not entitled to respect. As long as he opposes authority to reason, and stifles the workings of conviction by the dicta of a reputed sage, little impression can be made upon his understanding. Certain it is, therefore, that he will have recourse to his authorities, and it is therefore important to show that his authorities are worthless.” Wilson felt hopeful that by inspired, diligent effort the “specious” system of Vedic thought would be “shown to be fallacious and false by the Ithuriel spear of Christian truth. He also was ready to award a prize of two hundred pounds “…for the best refutation of the Hindu religious system.” Wilson also wrote a detailed method for exploiting the native Vedic psychology by use of a bogus guru-disciple relationship. Recently Wilson has been accused of invalid scholarship. Natalie P.R. Sirkin has presented documented evidence, which shows that Wilson was a plagiarist. Most of his most important works were collected manuscripts of deceased an author that he published under his own names, as well as works done without research. Thomas Babbington Macaulay Thomas Babbington Macaulay (1800-59) is best known for introducing English education in India. Though not a missionary himself, he believed that Christianity held the key to the problem of curing India’s ignorance. Although he confessed to have no knowledge of Sanskrit and Arabic, he did not hesitate to belittle the religious works of the East. In 1838 there was some debate on India’s Supreme Ruling Council, chaired by Lord Bentinck. 8 As to the value of teaching Sanskrit and India’s classical literatures, as well as regional languages, in schools to be established by the British for the education of the Indian people, A few members of the Council were mildly in favor of it, but the elegantly expressed, fully ethnocentric and Philistine view of Macaulay prevailed. In his Education Minute, Macaulay wrote that he couldn’t find one Orientalist. “…who could deny that a single shelf of good European library is worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia…Are we to teach false history, false astronomy, false medicine because we find them in company with false religion? The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature is, indeed, fully admitted by those members of the Committee who support the Oriental plan of education…The superiority of the Europeans becomes absolutely immeasurable.” He went on to make the outrageous assertion that – “…all the historical information which has been collected from all the books written in the Sanscrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgements used in preparatory schools in England.” He then made the following creatively expressed, though uneducated assertion as his central statement of belief – “The question now before us is simply whether, when it is in our power to teach the (English) language, we shall teach language in which…there are no books on any subject which deserve to be compared to our own…whether, when we can patronize sound philosophy and true history, we shall countenance at the public expense medical doctrines which would disgrace an English farrier, astronomy which would move laughter in girls at an English boarding school, history abounding in kings thirty feet high and reigns thirty-thousand years long, and geography made up of seas of treacle and rivers of butter… I would at once stop the printing of Arabic and Sanscrit books, I would abolish the Madrassa and the Sanscrit (sic) college at Calcutta.” In a letter to his father in 1836, Macaulay exclaimed – “...It is my belief that if our plans of education are followed up, there will not be a single idolator among the respectable classes in Bengal thirty years hence. And this will be effected without any efforts to proselytize, without the smallest interference with religious liberty, by natural operation of knowledge and reflection. I heartily rejoice in the project.” In other words, Lord Macaulay believed that by knowledge and reflection, the Hindus would turn their backs upon the religion of their forefathers and take up Christianity. In order to do this, he planned to use the strength of the educated Indians against them by using their scholarship to uproot their own traditions, or in his own words - “ Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinion, in morals, in intellect.” He firmly believed that, “No Hindu who has received an English education ever remains sincerely attached to his religion.” To further this end Macaulay wanted a competent scholar who could interpret the Vedic scriptures in such a manner that the newly educated Indian youth would see how barbaric their native superstitions actually were. Macaulay finally found such a scholar in Fredrich Max Mueller. Fredrich Max Mueller Fredrich Max Mueller (1823-1900) was born in Dessau and educated in Leipzig, where he learned Sanskrit and translated the Hitopadesa of Pandita Visnu Sarma before coming to England in 1846. Since he was penniless, he was cared for by Baron von Bunsen, the Prussian ambassador to England who basked in the childishly pleasant thought of converting the whole world to Christianity. It was in London that Max Mueller met Macaulay who was still on the look out for his ‘right man’. Mueller was first commissioned by the East India Company to translate the Rg Veda into English. The company agreed to pay the young Mueller 4 Shillings for each page that was ready to print. He later moved to Oxford where he translated a number of books on Eastern religion. His magnum opus was his series The Sacred Books of the East, a fifty volume work which he began editing in 1875. It goes without saying that by the end of his career, Mueller had amassed a comfortable sum of money. It is ironic that the man who has Bhavans named after him all over India and is treated with so much veneration there, probably did the most damage to uproot Vedic culture. At the time of his death he was venerated by none other than Lokamanya Tilak as ‘Veda-maharishi Moksha-mula Bhatta of Go-tirtha’ (Oxford). Although Mueller is on record as extoling India’s ancient wisdom, his letters (printed in two volumes) tell an entirely different story. Generally personal letters give a true picture of the writer’s inner mind. We present herein some of Mueller’s many statements in which his true view on Indian culture is glaringly obvious - “History seems to teach that the whole human race required a gradual education before, in the fullness of time, it could be admitted to the truths of Christianity. All the fallacies of human reason had to be exhausted, before the light of a high truth could meet with ready acceptance. The ancient religions of the world were but the milk of nature, which was in due time to be succeeded by the bread of life.... ‘The religion of Buddha has spread far beyond the limits of the Aryan world, and to our limited vision, it may seem to have retarded the advent of Christianity among a large portion of the human race. But in the sight of Him with whom a thousand years are but as one day, that religion, like the ancient religions of the world, may have but served to prepare the way of Christ, by helping through its very errors to strengthen and to deepen the ineradicable yearning of the human heart after the truth of God.” “Large number of Vedic hymns are childish in the extreme; tedious, low, commonplace.” “Nay, they (the Vedas) contain, by the side of simple, natural, childish thoughts, many ideas which to us sound modern, or secondary and tertiary.” “...this edition of mine and the translation of the Vedas, will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India and on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It (the Rg Veda) is the root of their religion and to show them what the root is, I am sure, the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last three thousand years” 9 “Hinduism was dying or dead because it belonged to a stratum of thought which was long buried beneath the foot of modern man. He continued: “ The worship of Shiva, Vishnu, and other popular deities was of the same and in many cases of a more degraded and savage character than the worship of Jupiter, Apollo or Minerva. ‘A religion’, he said ‘ may linger on for a long time, it may be accepted my large masses of the people, because it is there, and there is nothing better. But when a religion has ceased to produce defenders of the faith, prophets, champions, martyrs, it has ceased to live, in the true sense of the word; and in that sense the old orthodox Brahmanism has ceased to live for more than a thousand years.” (Speech at the Christians Missions in Westminster Abbey in 1873) 10 In 1876, while writing to a friend, Mueller said that he would not like to go to India as a missionary since that would make him dependent upon the government. His preference was this - “I would like to live for ten years quite quietly and learn the language, try to make friends, and then see if I was fit to take part in this work, by means of which the old mischief of Indian priestcraft could be overthrown and the way opened for the entrance of simple Christian teaching…India is much riper for Christianity than Rome or Greece were at the time of Saint Paul.” “The rotten tree for some time had artificial supports ...but if the English man comes to see that the tree must fall...he will mind no sacrifice either of blood or of land...I would like to lay down my life, or at least lend my hand to bring about this struggle” 11 “I do not claim for the ancient Indian literature any more that I should willingly concede to the fables and traditions and songs of savage nations. I simply say that in the Veda we have a nearer approach to a beginning, and an intelligent beginning, than in the wild invocations of the Hottentotes and Bushmen, “ 12 “This edition of mine and the translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a great extent... the fate of India, and on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It is the root of their religion, and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last 3000 years.” 13 When Duke of Argyll was appointed Secretary of State for India in December 1868, Max Mueller wrote to him- “India has been conquered once, but India must be conquered again and that second conquest should be a conquest by education…the ancient religion of India is doomed, and if Christianity does not step in, whose fault will it be?” 14 In another letter, Mueller wrote to his son: ‘Would you say that any one sacred book is superior to all others in the world? ....I say the New Testament, after that, I should place the Koran, which in its moral teachings, is hardly more than a later edition of the New Testament. Then would follow according to my opinion the Old Testament, the Southern Buddhist Tripitaka, the Tao- te-king of Lao-tze, the Kings of Confucius, the Veda and the Avesta.’ 15 In an audacious letter to N.K. Majumdar, Mueller wrote – ‘Tell me some of your chief difficulties that prevent you and your countrymen from openly following Christ, and when I write to you I shall do my best to explain how I and many who agree with me have met them and solved them...From my point of view, India, at least the best part of it, is already converted to Christianity. You want no persuasion to become a follower of Christ. Then make up your mind to work for yourself. Unite your flock - to hold them together and prevent them from straying. The bridge has been built for you by those who came before you. STEP BOLDLY FORWARD, it will break under you, and you will find many friends to welcome you on the other shore and among them none more delighted that you old friend and fellow labourer F. Max-Muller.’ 16 Mueller harshly criticised the view of the German scholar, Dr. Spiegel, who claimed that the Biblical theory of the creation of the world is borrowed from the ancient religion of the Persians or Iranians. Stung by this statement Max Mueller writes: ‘A writer like Dr. Spiegel should know that he can expect no money; nay, he should himself wish for no mercy, but invite the heaviest artillery against the floating battery which he has launched in the troubled waters of Biblical criticism.’ Dr. Spiegel was not the only target of Mueller’s bigotry. In 1926 the French scholar Louis Jacolliot, Chief Judge in Chandranagar, wrote a book called ‘La Bible dans l’Inde’. Within that book, Jacolliot theorised that all the main philosophies of the western world originated from India, which he glorified thus – ‘Land of ancient India! Cradle of Humanity. hail! Hail revered motherland whom centuries of brutal invasions have not yet buried under the dust of oblivion. Hail, Fatherland of faith, of love, of poetry and of science, may we hail a revival of thy past in our Western future.’ Mueller said while reviewing Jacolliot’s book that, ‘The author seems to have been taken in by the Brahmins of India.’ Mueller may also be credited with the popularization of the Aryan racial theory, Writing for the Anthropological Review in 1870, Mueller classified the human race into seven categories on an ascending scale - with the Aborigines on the lowest rung and the “Aryan” type supreme. However, he recanted later on when his professional reputation as a Sanskrit scholar was in peril. “I have declared again and again that if I say Aryas, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair, nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language...to me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar.” 17 Although Mueller cannot be placed in the same category as inexperienced Indologists such as Christian Lassen and Albrecht Weber whose Aryan race conceptions were chiefly fueled by their ardent German nationalism, Mueller’s motivations were just as diabolical. Mueller had been paid to misinterpret the Vedic literatures in order to make the Indians look, at best silly, and at worst, bestial. However, not everyone was taken in by the academic prowess of the man who was known as ‘Moksamula Bhatta’. Swami Dayananda Saraswati, the founder of the Arya Samaja, was so disgusted with the level of Mueller’s knowledge of Sanskrit that he likened him to a “toddler learning to walk”. He wrote: “Prof. Max Mueller has been able to scribble out something by the help of the so called ‘tikas’ or paraphrases of the Vedas current in India.” 19 Another revealing incident of Mueller’s glaring ignorance was when a brahmana came from India to meet the famous Sanskrit scholar. When he came face to face with Mueller and spoke to him in chaste Sanskrit, Mueller admitted that he couldn’t understand what the gentleman was saying! No wonder Schopenhauer acerbically said, “I cannot resist a certain suspicion that our Sanskrit scholars do not understand their texts any better than the higher class of school boys their Greek and Latin.” Sir Monier Monier-Williams and the Boden Chair Sir Monier Monier-Williams (1819-1899) was born in Bombay, attending the East India Company’s college and later teaching there. After the death of H.H. Wilson, Monier-Williams became Boden Professor of Sanskrit in Oxford University where he delivered an address wherein he stated - ‘I must draw attention to the fact that I am only the second occupant of the Boden Chair, and that its Founder, Colonel Boden, stated most explicitly in his will (dated August 15, 1811 A.D.) that the special object of his munificent bequest was to promote the translation of Scriptures into Sanskrit; so as to enable his countrymen to proceed in the conversion of the natives of India to the Christian religion.’ ‘Brahmanism, therefore, must die out. In point of fact, false ideas on the most ordinary scientific subjects are so mixed up with its doctrines that the commonest education - the simplest lesson in geography - without the aid of Christianity must inevitably in the end sap its foundations.’ ‘When the walls of the mighty fortress of Brahmanism are encircled, undermined, and finally stormed by the solders of the cross, the victory of Christianity must be signal and complete.’ In 1870 Monier-Williams wrote a book based on a lecture called ‘The Study of Sanskrit in Relation to Missionary work in India’ which was obviously written in order to promote Christianity and discredit the Vedic scriptures. He also wrote another work in 1894 called ‘Hinduism which was published and distributed by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. He is known mostly for his ‘Sanskrit-English Dictionary’ and for spending twenty-five years to founding an institution in Oxford disseminating information on Indian religion, philosophy and culture. In is interesting to note that Monier-Williams disagreed with the ‘evolution to Christianity’ theory of Max Mueller. Refering to this he wrote – ‘There can be no doubt of a greater mistake than to force these non- Christian bibles into conformity with some scientific theory of development and then point to Christian’s Holy Bible as the crowning product of religious evolution. So far from this, these non-Christian bibles are all developments in the wrong direction. They all begin with some flashes of true light and end in utter darkness.’ ‘It seems to me that our missionaries are already sufficiently convinced of the neccessity of studying these works, and of making themselves conversant with the false creeds they have to fight against. How could an army of invaders have any chance of success in an enemy’s country without a knowledge of the position and strength of its fortresses, and without knowing how to turn the batteries they may capture against the for?’ 20 German Indologists: In 1875, August Wilhelm von Schlegal (brother of the philosopher Friedrich Schlegel) became the first professor of Sanskrit in the Bonn University of Germany. Previously, in 1865 he had written a work entitled ‘Upon the languages and Wisdom of the Hindus’. Both the Schlegal brothers had a great love for Sanskrit. Another Sanskritist Hern Wilhelm von Humboldt became the collaborator of August Schlegel whose edition of the Bhagavad-gita directed his attention to its study. In 1884 he wrote to a friend saying: ‘It is perhaps the deepest and loftiest thing the world has to show’. At that time Arthur Schopenhauer (1845-1917), the great German philosopher, read the Latin translation of the Upanisads which were translated by a French writer Anquetil du Perron from the Persian translation of Prince Dara Shikoh named as ‘Sirre-Akbar’(The Great Secret). He was so impressed by their philosophy that he called them ‘The production of the highest human wisdom’, and considered them to contain superhuman conceptions. The Upanisads was a great source of inspiration to Schopenhauer, and writing about them he said: ‘It is the most satisfying and elevating reading (with the exception of the original text) which is possible in the world;’ it has been the solace of my life and will be the solace of my death.’ It is well-known that the book ‘Oupnekhat’ (Upanisad) always lay open on his table and he invariably studied it before sleeping.at night. He called the opening up of Sanskrit literature ‘the greatest gift of our century’, and predicted that the philosophy and knowledge of the Upanisads would becomes the cherished faith of the West. Moriz Winternitz Unfortunately, not all scholars appreciated the timeless wisdom of the Vedas and Upanisads. Some scholars were so convinced of the superiority of Christianity and western philosophy that they had no qualms in shamelessly expressing their feelings publicly. In 1925 The Professor of Indian Studies at the German University of Prague, Moriz Winternitz (1863-1937), denounced Schopenhaur for his admiration of the Upanisads with the following words - ‘Yet I believe, it is a wild exaggeration when Schopenhauer says that the teaching of the Upanishads represents ‘the fruit of the highest human knowledge and wisdom’ and contains ‘almost superhuman conceptions the originators of which can hardly be regarded as mere mortals...’ On the subject of the Vedas, Winternitz had this to say - ‘It is true, the authors of these hymns rise but extremely seldom to the exalted flights and deep fervour of, say, religious poetry of the Hebrews.’ Rudolph Roth A fellow student of Mueller’s was the German indologist, Rudolph Roth. Both Roth and Mueller studied together under the tutelage of Eugene Burnouf, the eminent French Sanskrit Professor. Roth wrote a thesis on the Vedic literatures called, Zur Literatur und Geschichte des Veda, and in 1909 he published his edition of Yaksa’s Nirukta dictionary. However, Roth’s works were peppered with German ultra- nationalism and he asserted that by means of the German science of philology, Vedic mantras could be interpreted much better than with the help of Nirukta.Roth wrote many other things in this haughty vein. One such disdainful statement he made was: ‘A qualified European is better off to arrive at the true meaning of the Rg Veda than a brahmana’s interpretation.’ Of course, for European, one should read ‘German’. Richard Garbe Another German Sanskritist was Richard Garbe (1857-1927), who held the post of Professor of Sanskrit at the University of Tubingen. Garbe travelled to India in 1885 in order to get acquainted with the culture and wisdom that he admired so much. His visit however was a harrowing and disappointing experience. Although he was not a British citizen, Garbe quickly found himself sympathizing with his fellow Europeans. While he diligently pursued his main objective in India, which was to study with the panditas of Varanasi, his attitude became increasingly one of colonial contempt rather than the respect of a scholarly supplicant. Garbe edited many Sanskrit works. Besides these, in 1914 he wrote a work meant for missionaries, entitled ‘Indien und das Christentum’. His religious bias is quite evident in the book. Weber, Boehtlingk, Kuhn and Goldstucker The famous German indologist Albrecht Weber (1825-1901) was a notorious racist whose German nationalistic tendencies were thinly veiled as works on Indian philosophy and culture. When Humbolt lauded praise upon the Bhagavad-gita, Weber became disgusted. His immediate response was to speculate that the Mahabharata and Gita were influenced by Christian theology - ‘The peculiar colouring of the Krishna sect, which pervades the whole book, is noteworthy: Christian legendry matter and other Western influences are unmistakably present...’ Two Sanskrit scholars, Franz Lorinser and E. Washburn Hopkin, were quick to support Weber’s postulation. However, their theory lacked any hard evidence and was considered so ludicrous that most scholars in European universities rejected it, despite their Christian leanings. Nevertheless, the propagation of this eroneous hypothesis played its mischief and was mainly responsible for the hesitation of the Western scholars to assign to the Mahabharata a date, earlier than that of the Christian era. In Chapter 4 of his book Krishnacharita, the famous Bengali writer, Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyaya, spoke about Weber as follows – ‘The celebrated Weber was no doubt a scholar but I am inclined to think that it was an unfortunate moment for India when he began the study of Sanskrit. The descendants of the German savages of yesterday could not reconcile themselves to the ancient glory of India. It was therefore, their earnest effort to prove that the civilization of India was comparatively of recent origin. They could not persuade themselves to believe that the Mahabharata was composed centuries before Christ was born’. Weber and his collegue Otto Boehtlingk prepared the famous Sanskrit dictionary called the ‘Sanskrit Worterbuch’. Prof. Ernst Kuhn was also one of their assistants. Being mainly based on speculative and incorrect principles of philology, the work was unreliable and misleading. The dictionary was subject to severe criticism by Theodore Goldstucker (1821-1872), who was professor of Sanskrit at the University College in London. Weber was so disturbed by Goldstucker’s criticism that he resorted to abusing the Professor with the coarsest words possible. He added that the views of Goldstucker on his Worterbuch showed ‘a perfect derangement of his mental faculties’, since he was not willing to dismiss the authority of the Vedic scholars so easily. Replying to their undignified attacks, Goldstucker exposed the ‘scholarship’ of the likes of Roth, Boehtlingk, Weber and Kuhn and wrote: ‘It will, of course, be my duty to show, at the earliest opportunity, that Dr. Boehtlingk is incapable of understanding even easy rules of Panini, much less those of Katyayana and still less is he capable of making use of them in the understanding of Classical texts. The errors in his department of the Dictionary are so numerous... that it will fill every serious Sanskritist with dismay, when he calculates the mischievous influence which they must exercise on the study of Sanskrit philology’. He further remarked: ‘....that questions which ought to have been decided with the very utmost circumspection and which could not be decided without very laborious research have been trifled with in the Worterbuch in the most unwarranted manner…When I see that the most distinguished and most learned Hindu scholars and divines - the most valuable and sometimes the only source of all our knowledge of ancient India - are scorned in theory, mutilated in print, and, as a consequence, set aside in the interpretation of Vaidik texts; ...when a clique of Sanskritists of this description vapours about giving us the sense of the Veda as it existed at the commencement of Hindu antiquity; ...when I consider that those whose words apparently derive weight and influence from the professional position they hold...then I hold that it would be a want of courage and a dereliction of duty, if I did not make a stand against these Saturnalia of Sanskrit Philology.’ Refering to Prof. Kuhn, Goldstucker was positively venomous – ‘(Professor Kuhn) was ‘an individual whose sole connection with Sanskrit studies consisted in handing Sanskrit books to those who could read them, a literary naught, wholly unknown, but assuming the airs of a quantity, because it had figures before it that prompted it on, a personage who, according to his own friends, was perfectly ignorant of Sanskrit’. However, we should not make the mistake that Herr Goldstucker was championing the cause of the Vedic literatures. Goldstucker’s skirmish with his fellow indologists was purely on an academic basis. Goldstucker was of the opinion that the people of India were burdened by Vedic religion which had simply brought them world-wide ‘contempt and ridicule’. He thus proposed to re-educate the Indians with Western values. Goldstucker wrote – ‘The means for combating that enemy is as simple as it is irresitable: a proper instruction of the growing generation of its ancient literature.’ 21 In his book, ‘Inspired Writings of Hinduism’ Goldstucker attacked the validity of the Vedas, stating that his aim was to inspire the new generation of Indians that their religious superstitions were backwards. This could only be achieved by scholastically destroying their sastras. The only recourse for the new generation would be to adopt European values in order to improve their character. Conclusion Nowadays modern indologists are not the same as their crusading predecessors of the 19th Century, nor do college Sanskrit departments award monetary prizes for ‘the best refutation of the Hindu religious system’. Yet many of the speculative theories of Mueller and his contempories are still treated as absolute facts. Naturally, these pioneers of Indology are held in high regard because they were the first forerunners in that field of study. In todays academic circles, scholars of Indology have no interest in imposing their personal religious views upon others in order to convert them to Christianity (modern academics prefer to take a secular stance), nor do they wish to politically and racially subjugate the ‘Hindoos’. Their approval of the conclusions of their predecessors is mostly out of academic habit. Previously, early indologists openly expressed their biased opinions that the Vedic scriptures were fraudulent and nonsensical. We have quoted many examples of such statements, however we will present one more from Prof. Monier-Williams – ‘Yes, after a lifelong study of the religious books of the Hindus, I feel compelled to publicly express my opinion of them. They begin with much promise amid scintillations of truth and light and occasional sublime thoughts from the source of all truth and light , but end in sad corruptions and lamentable impurities.’ 22 Today scholars are not so blatent and arrogant in their dismissal of the Vedic texts, though they express the same conclusions in a more moderate language, often giving the impression that they are favorably disposed towards Vedic culture. In a much more subtle way, modern indologists have inherited the pioneers’ bias, and although todays bias is ‘empirical’ rather than ‘imperialist’ or ‘evangelical’, it amounts to the same thing. Some of the one-sided prejudices that they have inherited can be summed up as follows: (A) Due to religious prejudice, early indologists were reluctant to give the Vedas a higher antiquity than the earliest portion of the Old Testament and place them beyond 2500 B.C. In fact, the dating that they did give to the Vedas was totally speculative and unfounded. (B) Due to a poor fund of knowledge, early indologists relegated all the Vedic texts and the personalities found in them to the realm of mythology. Furthermore, these texts were written by some very late anonymous persons who attributed their works to ‘mythical’ sages. © Early indologists were responsible for creating the outlandish and groundless theory of the Aryan Invasion, according to which the very existence of the Solar and Lunar Dynasties of kings are totally denied. Such a assumption was solely based upon racial, religious and political motivations. Ironically, this theory is taught in every school throughout the Subcontinent to this day! (D) Early indologists were responsible for the corrupt translations of Vedic works, and misrepresentation of the Vedic culture. (E) Early indologists were responsible for rejecting the idea that Sanskrit was the mother of at least the Indo-European languages; as at first very ably propounded by Franz Bopp, and often mentioned by ancient Indian authors. It is extremely lamentable that some modern-day Indian Sanskrit scholars continue to glorify such European indologists as unbiased students of Sanskrit literature, whose sole aim was to aquire knowledge for its own sake. The above facts in this essay show very clearly the true motivations of these so-called pioneers of indological studies. However, what is even more lamentable is that the dream of Macaulay has come true—his vision of creating a caste of ‘Brown Sahibs’ has become a reality. Nowadays, whilst the western world turns it’s face towards Indian philosophy for the answers to life’s complexities, the greatest adversaries of Vedic culture are the Indians themselves— the ‘secular’ politicians, the journalists, the educationalists, in fact the whole Westernised cream of India. And what is even more paradoxical, is that most of them are supposedly Hindus. Upon gaining independence, such people denied India its true identity by retaining the British education and judicial system, without trying to adapt it to the unique Indian mentality and psychology. The result of this is a youth which apes the West. Some may argue that in order for India to progress materially, it is important for her to accept western education and ethics. In the last ten years in India, violence, rape, theft and other social problems have increased to a massive extent. This is only due to the atheistic western-oriented education that India has forced upon its’ youth. In fact, in every sphere of material activity, India tries to imitate the west with farcical or disasterous results. In the realm of entertainment, India produces more films than any country in the world, yet the content of those movies is producing a nation of imbeciles, since the substance of these films incites lust and violence. That is because they are based upon western movies. India has also been introduced to cable-TV so it can see how the rest of the world behaves. Since the British left India, Indian dress code has also changed considerably. Indian men wear western trousers and shirts. If they wear something traditional, they are thought of as ‘old-fashioned.’ Nowadays in major cities in India, it is not uncommon to see young women wearing T-shirts and jeans rather than the sari. Such a drastic change in lifestyle reflects the Indian psyche today. In essence, the youth of India today are taught to be ashamed of being Indian.They are ashamed of their religion and the ethics given by their forefathers. They have been made to believe that embracing westernization is the only way they can progress in life. In this way, the British are still masters of India and the proselytizing Christian indologists have won the day. Until India wakes up to her mistake and strives to rediscover her spiritual heritage, she will continue to produce ‘Brown sahibs’ and will remain under the yoke of the ghosts of Macaulay and the British educational system. Bibiliography The Aryans and Ancient Indian History by Subhash Kak The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India by David Frawley Gods, Sages and Kings by David Frawley The Demise of the Aryan Invasion/Race Theory by Prof. Dinesh Agrawal Western Indologists: A Study in Motives by Purohit Bhagavan Dutt World Views: Vedic Vs Western by Sadaputa Dasa Readings in Vedic Literature by Satsvarupa dasa Goswami Motives Of 19th Century Western Scholars by Dr. Shreerang Godbole Antiquity and Continuity of Indian History by Prasad Gokhale Vaisnava India by Svami B.G. Narasingha Maharaja The Seventh Goswami by Rupa Vilasa Dasa _____________________ 1 Ram Swarup’s Introduction to the Reprint of ‘Muhammad and the Rise of Islam’ by Dr. D.S. Margoliouth; Voice of India, 1985, pp. v-vi 2 John Bentley - ‘Historical View of the Hindu Astronomy’ (1825) 3 Encyclopedia Britannica, 1950, Vol. 4, p. 860 4 Richard Fox Young – ‘Resistant Hinduism’, Vienna, 1981, p. 34 5 V. D. Mahajan - ‘Ancient India’ p.1 6-S.N.Mukharji – ‘Sir William Jones: A Study in Eighteenth Century British Attitudes to India’ 7 - A similar critisism came from Max Mueller in his book ‘India - What it can teach us?’ “The book which I consider to be most mischievous, nay which I hold responsible for some of the greatest misfortunes that have happened to India, is Mill’s ‘History of British India’...Mill, in his estimate of the Hindu character, is chiefly guided by Dubois, a French missionary and by Orme and Bucahnan, Tennant and Ward, all of them neither very competent nor unprejudiced judges. Mill, however, picks out all that is most unfavorable from their works, and omits the qualifications which even these writers felt bound to give in their wholesale condemnation of the Hindus” (pp. 39-40). 8 - It was Lord Bentinck who seriously considered the possibility of dismantling the Taj Mahal and selling the marble to meet the shortage of money in the Company’s treasury. He was prevented because “the test auction of materials from the Agra palace proved unsatisfactory.” 9-‘Life and letters of Max Mueller’, 1902, p. 328 10 –‘Hinduism: a Religion to Live By’ - Nirad C. Chaudhari p. 116-117 11 – ‘Life and letters of Max Mueller ‘Vol. I, pp. 190-92 12 –‘The Hindu world, an encyclopedic survey of Hinduism’ - By George Benjamin Walker, New York: Praeger, 1968. 2v.) 13 –‘The Life and Letters of the Rt. Hon. Fredrich Max Mueller’, Longmans, London, 1902, Volume I, p. 328 14-‘Missionaries in India: Continuities, Changes, Dilemmas’ - By Arun Shourie p. 139 15- ‘Life and letters of Max Mueller’ Vol. II, Ch. XXXII., page 339 16- ‘Life and letters of Max Mueller’ Vol. II., Ch. XXXIV., pages 415- 416 17 -Max Mueller – ‘Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas’, 1888, pg 120 19 - ‘Satyartha Prakash’, Third Edition, p. 278 20 –Monier Monier-Williams –‘Religious Thought and Life in India’ p.10 21 -Theodore Goldstucker, ‘Inspired Writings of Hinduism’ p.115 22 –Monier Monier-Williams -‘Religious Thought’ –pp.34-35 References to the above article came from personal archives (word docs),downloaded from some url; don't know if there is a publication/book somewhere (suspect may be one of the several Vaishnava publications). Search for URL will be attempted. Notes on author: Swami B.V. Giri can be traced to VRINDA Vrindavan Institute for Vaisnava Culture and Studies Instituto superior de Estudios Vedicos Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA. Bramacary Ashram Address: Rivadavia 4650. Departamento 2 Deities Name: Sri Pancatattva Math in charge: Swami B.V. Giri

Posted by: Ashok Kumar Jan 5 2006, 04:09 AM

Kaushal, That was pretty exhaustive. It shows another aspect of the hurdles hinduism has had to come through. When I think about it, in a neutral way, I am thoroughly amazed at the resilence shown by hinduism. Hinduism got almost wiped out by Buddhism within India, but bounced back. Survived the long period of muslim invasions and rules. And then British rule, which not only ruled the land, but tried to beat hinduism intellectually too. Something like this hadn't been attempted since Buddhism's heyday. But all through these multifarious assaults, hinduism pulled through, just on reassuring words of a minute number of contemporary sages, that invariably appealed back to the ancient vedic wisdom. To counter the highly intellectual Buddhists, hinduism produced Sri Adi Shankaracharya. During the muslim inolerant rule, the sants of bhakti-movement held the fort. The assault was not intellectual, and response was also not intellectual. Devotion played the leading role during that period. British rule saw the reemergence of intellectual assaults on hinduism. And reading the self-congratulatory and smug opinions of the worthies mentioned in the above article, it is clear that they saw subjugation of hinduism as a simple task and an inevitability. But again hinduism produced small number of contemporary sages and mahatmas such as Sri Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, Swami Dayananda, Ramana Maharshi and Mahatma Gandhi, and negated all those pompous colonial estimates. That also makes one pause and reflect on the import of Sri Krishna's words "sambhavaami yuge-yuge..." Given all that hinduism has been through, and given that today it is nowhere as vulnerable as it was during many times in the past, including colonial times, I am amazed at the pomposity and myopia of people like Witzel. Just as we today laugh at the wrong and stupid colonial ideas about hinduism, not too far away in the future Witzels and Wendys will be laughed off by one and all too. Mightier forces have tried in the past and failed. They are mere chaff. Since independence bright young Indians have been gravitating primarily towards engineering, medicine, science etc, due to economic constraints. Barring many notable exceptions, it is safe to say that India's brightest have not been involved in the non-technical or non-scientific branches of studies. Even these have managed to challenge the 'schlarship' peddled by Witzels and Wendys. Do Witzels & Wendy's realize what would be done to their theories and reputation when brightest among the hindus start taking up non-technical/non-scientific fields of study? That day may not be far off. As an example, IT industry has managed to generate jobs for people who are not technically inclined but possess language skills. Graphic artists are finding new avenues through digital art, as evidenced by many animation studios and recently by the success of the movie Hanuman. The explosion of TV channels has increased manifold the jobs available in fields such as journalism and graphic production. Internet boom has also created new avenues for creative and critical writers. In short a boom in non-technical jobs is in the making in India. When India can provide good livelihood for all sorts of human endeavours, then the current slant towards technical/scientific jobs will diminish. I can just imagine the explosion in research that Indians will take up on their own past and their religions. And with the brightest minds India can produce in the field, I can bet that little minds and hearts that are strutting about as scholars and experts on India and hinduism will be relegated to the history's dustbin. The pity is that the little minds and hearts are too puny to see the coming deluge. They overestimate the superficial successes of Marxist-historians and recent defeat of BJP in the elections. They think that they are on a verge of imminent victory. Farmer's and Witzel's childish vehemence and bravado betrays such notions. But they don't know what is churning in India. Our generation's job is primarily to hold the fort, make advances where possible and improve the awareness. In another generation the tide will turn decisively. The real Aryas are coming to drive away the Aryan-Invaders!

Posted by: gangajal Jan 11 2006, 03:59 PM

Today's Telegraph India has an interesting article: ******************************************************************************** *************************************** Aryan impact myth crumbles - Studies show most Indians are descendants of early humans G.S. MUDUR New Delhi, Jan. 11: Two new genetic studies have disputed long-held beliefs that pastoral central Asian people brought agriculture to India and contributed heavily to the genetic make-up of modern Indian populations. The central Asian people who migrated to India included the Aryans who began arriving around 3,500 years ago. The studies by scientists in Calcutta with colleagues in other countries might force historians to revise current ideas about the impacts of migrations from central Asia beginning about 8,000 years ago on India. A study by scientists at the Central Forensic Science Laboratory in Calcutta has revealed that most present-day Indians are the descendants of early humans who began to arrive in India about 60,000 years ago. It suggests that modern Indians do not owe much genetic makeup to central Asians who arrived much later. The findings do lend support to the migration of people from central Asia into India. “Although we did find genetic signatures from central Asian populations in Indian communities, there are not enough (signatures) to prove large-scale mixture with local populations,” research team leader Vijendra Kashyap told The Telegraph. The scientists, who analysed the Y-chromosomes of 936 men from 77 castes and tribes across India, published their findings in the journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, on Monday. The conventional view has been that pastoral central Asians, also called Indo-Europeans, brought agriculture into India, although some researchers have challenged this in the past. “The perennial concept of people, language and agriculture arriving in India together through the northwest corridor does not hold up to close scrutiny,” Kashyap and his colleagues at the University of Oxford and the Estonian Biocentre said in their research paper. The analysis of certain sections of the human genome — such as the Y-chromosome in men or the mitochondrial DNA in women — can help scientists determine the “genetic distance” between races and piece together ancient human migratory patterns. Recent studies by international research teams have shown that the earliest modern humans arrived in India from Africa, trudging along the Indian Ocean coast about 60,000 years ago on their way further into southeast Asia. “Our findings suggest most modern Indians have genetic affinities to the early settlers and subsequent migrants and not to central Asians or Aryans, as they’re called,” a research scholar at the CFSL said. The CFSL study also failed to find specific genetic signatures associated with the world’s earliest farmers in any of the 936 men in India. These signatures have been earlier found in central Asia, North Africa and Europe. An independent genetic study by Partha Mazumder at the Indian Statistical Institute in Calcutta with colleagues at Stanford University and elsewhere has found that the majority of genetic signatures among men in India are older than 10,000 years. The study of 1,100 men from 36 ethnic groups in India, 8 in Pakistan and 18 from the southeast Asian region has indicated that many of the genetic signatures have arisen in India and predate the arrival of the Indo-Europeans and their expansion in India. “The genetic contribution from central Asia has not been as large as generally believed,” Mazumder said. His study has also indicated that the genetic input of people who might have brought agriculture into India from West Asia has been limited. The oldest known site of agricultural activity so far in the subcontinent is Mehrgarh in Pakistan where there is evidence of cultivation of barley and wheat in 7000 BC. But some scientists believe that agriculture emerged spontaneously in India and wasn’t brought here. A few years ago, archaeologists had a few years ago unearthed the remains of an ancient settlement near Udaipur in Rajasthan that they say points to the independent evolution of cultivation in India.

Posted by: Sushmita Jan 11 2006, 11:06 PM

This is a serious post about something that bothers me greatly. I wish to draw other members' attention to this. (Indeed, I'd like to draw every geneticist's and scientist's attention to it too.) I'm referring to Post #141 by member Acharya in this thread who posted Rajaram's article which contained a quote of Cavalli-Sforza (population geneticist) and colleagues from their 2004 paper:

QUOTE
Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have receivedlimited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene.
The paper in question is at http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/CordauxCurBiol2004.pdf. And the paragraph containing the above statement states the following (all subsequent excerpts in this post will be taken from this paper too):
QUOTE
Recently, a qualitative comparison of presence versus absence of Y chromosome haplogroups in just two tribal and six caste groups led to the conclusion that both Indian caste and tribal Y chromosomes largely derive from the same Pleistocene genetic heritage, with only limited recent gene flow from external sources. This conclusion implies an in situ origin of paternal lineages of caste groups [5], which is at odds with nongenetic evidence [2–4].
(p1, top of right-hand column of paper by Sforza et al) In other words, Cavalli-Sforza et al were summarising the conclusions of the Kivisild et al 2004 paper http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2003_v72_p313-332.pdf which had analysed 2 Indian tribal groups. (NOTE: This post is not about Rajaram's misunderstanding of Cavalli-Sforza et al's statement, but about their research paper.) The conclusions of the paper by Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues is actually rather different and quite the opposite. Read the Summary of the Sforza paper (p1, left-hand column), which is indicated by the title "Independent Origins of Indian Caste and Tribal Paternal Lineages". Sforza et al state that they have taken a larger sample from far more tribal and caste groups (Summary section of p1, left column) than has been done by any others previously. I can agree to some extent about the conclusion inferred from the data insofar as the paper's title is concerned. That is not what bothers me. However, as will become apparent just by reading the first page and some of the second page (I will excerpt some relevant parts below, but suggest you all skim p1 and p2 yourselves) they have made some serious assumptions which affected their overall conclusions. Consider their initial question, it is all wrong, infused throughout with assumptions:
QUOTE
The origins of the nearly one billion people inhabiting the Indian subcontinent and following the customs Hindu caste system [1, 2] are controversial: are they largely derived from Indian local populations (i.e. tribal groups) or from recent immigrants to India? Archaeological and linguistic evidence support the latter hypothesis [2–4], whereas recent genetic data seem to favor the former hypothesis [5].
(Summary section, p1, left-hand column) Also, note how the "non-genetic evidence" they refer to is from papers of 1994, 1975 and 1991 respectively. No one cares to study recent research (archaeology for instance) or get uptodate. Since when has archaeology supported only the AIT position, if at all that? J. Schaffer and D. Lichtenstein from their research ("Migration, Philology and South Asian Archaeology") have concluded there was no AIT attested in archaeological data. And so this affected their conclusion:
QUOTE
We conclude that paternal lineages of Indian caste groups are primarily descended from Indo-European speakers who migrated from central Asia ~ 3,500 years ago. Conversely, paternal lineages of tribal groups are predominantly derived from the original Indian gene pool. We also provide evidence for bidirectional male gene flow between caste and tribal groups. In comparison, caste and tribal groups are homogeneous with respect to mitochondrial DNAvariation [5, 6], which may reflect the sociocultural characteristics of the Indian caste society.
(Summary section, p1, left-hand column) So these are their assumptions: (1) They assume an Aryan Invasion/Migration/whatever from Central Asia ("Eurasia"). (2) They assume that (1) happened in 1500 BCE, as indicated in the excerpts above (3) They assume all tribes were the indigenous inhabitants of India. (4) They assume caste populations came from the (invading) Indo-European populations of (1). This is again re-stated - not once but twice (p.1, at the end of the 1st column, and then in its 2nd column):
QUOTE
Although they constitute only ~ 8% of the total Indian population, tribal groups are generally considered to be the aboriginal inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent, present in the region before the arrival of Indo-European speakers[2].
And:
QUOTE
To determine if Indian caste paternal lineages are derived from local ancestors (i.e., tribal groups) or from other Eurasian source(s), we obtained new Y chromosome data from 155 individuals from nine tribal groups and one caste group and compared these to published data [5, 9, 10].
So Indo-European speakers is from the get-go assumed to be "not local" (but are instead supposedly of "Eurasian source")! Yet they admit that it's only a "general consideration" that tribals are indigenous but not caste groups! I.e. they admit it's an assumption as it has not finally been determined even in a paper they reference, else it wouldn't be "generally considered" so but known to be a ascertained fact. (6) Tribal groups from North-India were excluded from the study because they speak "Indo-European" languages and hence don't count (i.e. North Indian tribes can skew the researchers' data away from what they want to conclude):
QUOTE
The studied caste groups originate from all over India, whereas the tribal groups were sampled only from southern India. Tribal groups from elsewhere were not included as most of them inhabit the Indo-European-speaking sphere and hence may not reflect hypothesis the pre-Indo-European genetic composition of India.
(7) They assume farming was introduced into the Indian subcontinent by these Indo-Europeans, hence they conclude it's "nonIndian":
QUOTE
Haplogroup L-M20 is found predominantly in India and Pakistan (15%) and has tentatively been associated with the expansion of farming, thus implying a nonIndian origin [15].
(p.2, left-column, near the end) Now they silently conclude: "therefore Indians with L-M20 must be nonIndian, because we've associated it with farming which is nonIndian". Marxists, Muslims and Missionaries will doubtless rejoice. Except in Muslim-LM20-Pakistan, which is not as affected by Missionaries and not bothered by Marxism. And now, look at their other conclusion (p.2, bottom left-column to top of right-column):
QUOTE
In sum, although largely the same haplogroups are found in tribal and caste groups, they exhibit signifi-cantly different distributions in that the most frequent haplogroups in tribal groups are significantly rarer in caste groups and vice versa. Moreover, haplogroups that are likely to be of indigenous origin are in higher frequency in tribal groups, whereas haplogroups that are likely to be of nonindigenous origin are higher in frequency in caste groups.
They admit that these are assumptions, except that the likelihood of it can be debated based on others' research. (Note: all emphasis in these excerpts are my own) Is it only me or are their assumptions DISTURBING? And that on the part of scientists too. It has utterly affected their conclusions, however accurate the data they obtained may be. Can I request some discussion on this topic? As far as I'm concerned, I see a particularly nasty slant the way this exercise in genetics research and its paper have gone. Are they funded by Marxists or western evangelical NGOs, who think people don't know real science? I can see them increase the promotion of "tribals are not Hindus". Real scientists allow the data to speak for itself, instead of imposing their pre-conceived conclusions onto it. That way, the data may allow for new models and the disposal of old ones. Here, the 'scientists' let themselves be carried by their AIT model instead of the data. I have a question: did the DNA data they obtained of 'caste groups' scream out "3500 BCE from Eurasia"? How did it date itself to that? The answer probably is (as indicated in the 'research' paper itself): they've ASSUMED the 3500 BCE. And why Eurasia, (other than their bending-over-backwards to set PIE out of South Asia)? Because, Biblegod forbid Indo-European languages had come from India, along with the obvious genes! As an illustration, I provide a counter-theory, also with assumptions that I can back up with references too (I am not supporting any theory yet, this is merely an example I just invented): What if only some tribes were indigenous to India, along with those who speak Dravidian and Indo-European (who later spread out to the rest of "Eurasia" from their original homelands in South and West Asia)? What if the other tribes came into India from Sundaland, Kumari Kandam or SE-Asia in more recent times? In which case, how does the data gathered for this research paper in any way refute the scenario I've just proposed?

Posted by: rudra Jan 11 2006, 11:43 PM

[[[[Is it only me or are their assumptions DISTURBING? And that on the part of scientists too. It has utterly affected their conclusions, however accurate the data they obtained may be. Can I request some discussion on this topic?]]]] This has been a long established (albeit obfuscated) tactic used by the AIT/AIM (and more generally the Euro-centric scholarship(?)) faction since forever. Consider this scenario: 1) Max Muller cooks up the RV composition date to be between 1500 - 1100 BCE. 2) 50 years later, scholar X comes by, takes Max's word as gospel and creates an elaborate framework and scholarship hinged on this "myth". 3) 100 years later, everyone has forgotten that Max Muller had some "biblical" reasons behind his dating the RV. 4) The AIT becomes a "taken for granted" and everyone bases their scholarship around this first assumption. This is a self-feeding/self-defecating closed system -- (to be very crass, they eat their own $h!t) -- as a result thereof, everything that comes out of this system has the trademark stamp of it's constituent material. There can never be any changes or modifications to this system -- because it is closed. Only way out is to discard this altogether and start afresh, with a more realistic and open design. Regards, Rudra

Posted by: Sushmita Jan 12 2006, 01:21 AM

Thanks Rudra, but your answer does not satisfy me. I don't mean to imply that your answer was at fault. I only meant to state that the problems of Sforza's research (made evident in his paper), are in no way following the scientific methods used in genetics research of other geographical locations. In fact, even Toomas Kivisild et al did not work under any assumption when looking into the genetics of South and West Asia, though it meant he had to show up the errors in an earlier paper he worked on with Bamshad. If Kivislid and his colleagues do not work with preconceived notions, then Sforza et al's commitment to assumptions seems suspiciously telling. The same data that they have obtained can truly be used in a different construction of history (consider my example proposal in the last post). How did Sforza infer the genetic components of Indian "caste groups" distinguishing them from the tribals to be 3500 years old? Where in the distinguishing genetics of Indian tribal groups does it state that they were indigenous to India (or at least more indigenous than caste groups)? Is there an indigenousness gene? Do non-tribal groups have only small amounts of it? I can understand if human ancestors travelling out of India (after having come from Africa) settled in Europe for tens of thousands of years, accumulated mutations or other variations not present in the Indian gene pool and then returned to India in 1500 BCE and introduced uniquely European genetic components. However, this paper did not in any way look into European genetics and compare the gene pools of South Asia and Europe. (As was done in earlier works by Kivisild et al as well as Oppenheimer, not even referenced here by Sforza, let alone discussed). This research looked uniquely at Indian tribal and caste groups, ignoring the earlier papers by Kivisild et al (all but their 2004 work that Sforza mentioned) and Oppenheimer's recent contribution. In fact, Sforza's paper has referenced Bamshad, Kivisild et al's earlier 2001 paper (see reference [7]), which Kivisild and others have specifically shown to be unreliable in their later work. Look at the references. It is preposterous. In no other field would anyone allow research papers to be submitted with such a lack of science. I'm surprised it has started showing up in genetics! Is it unique to Indology to ignore recent developments in the related fields and study only those papers that support one's "hypothesis" (preconceived notion would be better). Is it unique to it to draw conclusions based on assumptions instead of letting the data show you what pieces of the historical picture it can? Surely the editors at the journal(s) to which this paper of Sforza has been submitted would have read through it and noted the assumptions that the paper in no way verified, not with current research anyway? I am amazed, in a most negative sense. Thanks again for answering.

Posted by: Sushmita Jan 12 2006, 03:21 PM

Rudra,

QUOTE
This has been a long established (albeit obfuscated) tactic used by the AIT/AIM (and more generally the Euro-centric scholarship(?)) faction since forever.
I missed this the first time, or didn't realise it's import then. I see it fitting into the picture now. It matches how in the DNA thread member Dhu explained a similar position of current research with respect to the invasion of Neolithic farmers from the Middle-East into Europe. Needless to say, there are some in "research" who are unwilling to accept such a scenario. The same is the case here. The solution was there all along in your reply. Perhaps we can take comfort from the fact that such scholarship is not only trying to negate evidence of an early significant genetic contribution by the Indian subcontinent, but also by the Middle East. I stil find it very distressing that the sciences should be suffering from such an utter lack of ... science.

Posted by: Kaushal Jan 17 2006, 12:22 AM

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/india/indiasbook.html#The%20Vedic%20Age First let me congratulate you on a magnificent job of compiling a vast amount of information. However I do detect a bias in the following Apropos your comment that and I quote ‘There is now some significant opposition among some writers to the idea that there was ever an Aryan [i.e. Indo-European] movement into India. This opposition seems to derive, at least in part, from nationalist desires to claim "we were always here". The linguistic arguments for some common group which moved into both India, Iran, and Europe remain compelling.’ The arguments for and against the Aryan origins of the Vedic people are now compiled in a book by Edwin Bryant. Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History By Edwin Bryant and Laurie Patton Please read the concluding chapter (as well as the rest of the book).I can assure there is nothing in the Indian Historical record that’s supports such a Aryan Migration into India. It might surprise you to know that the word Arya is never mentioned in the Vedas as a Noun but always as an adjective (e.g. aryaputr – a noble son or a noble youth). Even the linguistic arguments are not compelling as you suggest. The arguments against the AIT are manifold and can be summarized in the following questions asreferred to by KlausKlostermeier A recent major work offers 'seventeen arguments: why the Aryan invasion never happened'.6 It may be worthwhile summarising and analysing them briefly: 1.The Aryan invasion model is largely based on linguistic conjectures which are unjustified (and wrong). Languages develop much more slowly than assumed by nineteenth century scholars. According to Renfrew speakers of Indo-European languages may have lived in Anatolia as early as 7000 BCE 2.The supposed large-scale migrations of Aryan people in the second millennium BCE first into Western Asia and then into northern India (by 1500 BCE) cannot be maintained in view of the fact that the Hittites were in Anatolia already by 2200 BCE and the Kassites and Mitanni had kings and dynasties by 1600 BCE 3.There is no memory of an invasion or of large-scale migration in the records of Ancient India-neither in the Vedas, Buddhist or Jain writings, nor in Tamil literature. The fauna and flora, the geography and the climate described in the Rigveda are that of Northern India. 4.There is a striking cultural continuity between the archaeological artefacts of the Indus-Saraswati civilisation and subsequent Indian society and culture: a continuity of religious ideas, arts, crafts, architecture, system of weights and measures. 5.The archaeological finds of Mehrgarh (copper, cattle, barley) reveal a culture similar to that of the Vedic Indians. Contrary to former interpretations, the Rigveda shows not a nomadic but an urban culture (purusa as derived from pur vasa = town-dweller). 6.The Aryan invasion theory was based on the assumption that a nomadic people in possession of horses and chariots defeated an urban civilisation that did not know horses, and that horses are depicted only from the middle of the second millennium onwards. Meanwhile archaeological evidence for horses has been found in Harappan and pre-Harappan sites; drawings of horses have been found in paleolithic caves in India; drawings of riders on horses dated c. 4300 BCE have been found in Ukraina. Horsedrawn war chariots are not typical for nomadic breeders but for urban civilisations. 7.The racial diversity found in skeletons in the cities of the Indus civilisation is the same as in India today; there is no evidence of the coming of a new race. 8.The Rigveda describes a river system in North India that is pre-1900 BCE in the case of the Saraswati river, and pre-2600 BCE in the case of the Drishadvati river. Vedic literature shows a population shift from the Saraswati (Rigveda) to the Ganges (Brahmanas and Puranas), also evidenced by archaeological finds. 9.The astronomical references in the Rigveda are based on a Pleiades-Krittika (Taurean) calendar of c. 2500 BCE when Vedic astronomy and mathematics were well-developed sciences (again, not a feature of a nomadic people). 10.The Indus cities were not destroyed by invaders but deserted by their inhabitants because of desertification of the area. Strabo (Geography XV.1.19) reports that Aristobulos had seen thousands of villages and towns deserted because the Indus had changed its course. 11.The battles described in the Rigveda were not fought between invaders and natives but between people belonging to the same culture. (just as most of the battles in Europe were fought between adjacent kingdoms till the 20th century 12.Excavations in Dwaraka have lead to the discovery of a site larger than Mohenjodaro, dated c. 1500 BCE with architectural structures, use of iron, a script halfway between Harappan and Brahmi. Dwarka has been associated with Krishna and the end of the Vedic period. 13.A continuity in the morphology of scripts: Harappan, Brahmi, Devanagari. 14.Vedic ayas, formerly translated as 'iron,' probably meant copper or bronze. Iron was found in India before 1500 BCE in Kashmir and Dwaraka. 15.The Puranic dynastic lists with over 120 kings in one Vedic dynasty alone, fit well into the 'new chronology'. They date back to the third millennium BCE Greek accounts tell of Indian royal lists going back to the seventh millennium BCE. 16.The Rigveda itself shows an advanced and sophisticated culture, the product of a long development, 'a civilisation that could not have been delivered to India on horseback' (p.160). 17.Painted Gray Ware culture in the western Gangetic plains, dated ca 1100 BCE has been found connected to (earlier) Black and Red Ware etc.” Please consider changing the wording of your sentence to at least an agnostic posture,

Posted by: rudra Jan 19 2006, 10:21 AM

Greetings Sushmita, [[[Perhaps we can take comfort from the fact that such scholarship is not only trying to negate evidence of an early significant genetic contribution by the Indian subcontinent, but also by the Middle East. I stil find it very distressing that the sciences should be suffering from such an utter lack of ... science.]]] The general tendency (as I have observed in my limited experience) of us human beings is to oppose any new idea and change. These "scholars" have their own agenda in reinforcing the myth of AIT/AIM -- purely because their careers and belief-systems are hinged on them. A scientific approach would be to keep an open mind and make educated decisions about the veracity (or lack of) anything after honestly and impartially reviewing each side of the argument. In our Indian traditions of debate, we have a specific term to refer to our opponent's stand -- we call it "Purva Paksha" and it is our duty as the debator to understand completely (and without an uncertainty) what the other side has to say. After that, the other side has to agree that what we've understand (as being purva paksha) is indeed in line with what they have to say. Only then can a debate happen. In this debate (lopsided as it is) -- we (the non-AIT/AIM side) have had the fortune (or misfortune bemoaning the years lost on the nonsense) of really learning this Purva Paksha (because of the education system and curriculum as AIT/AIM/Eurocentric view of Indic history is the popular academic view). Only after this complete purva paksha have we embarked on the Uttar Paksha (or our arguments). Can we say the same for the other side? I think not -- because they brush our arguments aside by labeling them as "Hinduvta fanaticism or something similar...". Leave aside science, this isn't even Courteous socio-intellectual behavior one expects Academicians and scholars to demonstrate!

Posted by: Sushmita Jan 23 2006, 01:03 AM

QUOTE
In our Indian traditions of debate, we have a specific term to refer to our opponent's stand -- we call it "Purva Paksha" and it is our duty as the debator to understand completely (and without an uncertainty) what the other side has to say. After that, the other side has to agree that what we've understand (as being purva paksha) is indeed in line with what they have to say. Only then can a debate happen.
Fascinating, and very sensible.
QUOTE
These "scholars" have their own agenda in reinforcing the myth of AIT/AIM -- purely because their careers and belief-systems are hinged on them.
I've started to think that it's more than just a case of their being fond of their theories and careers. They seem to be driven by a lot more than that.

Posted by: dhu Jan 30 2006, 09:06 AM

QUOTE
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002GL016822.shtml GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 8, 1425, doi:10.1029/2002GL016822, 2003 Climate change at the 4.2 ka BP termination of the Indus valley civilization and Holocene south Asian monsoon variability M. Staubwasser, F. Sirocko, P. M. Grootes, M. Segl Planktonic oxygen isotope ratios off the Indus delta reveal climate changes with a multi-centennial pacing during the last 6 ka, with the most prominent change recorded at 4.2 ka BP. Opposing isotopic trends across the northern Arabian Sea surface at that time indicate a reduction in Indus river discharge and suggest that later cycles also reflect variations in total annual rainfall over south Asia. The 4.2 ka event is coherent with the termination of urban Harappan civilization in the Indus valley. Thus, drought may have initiated southeastward habitat tracking within the Harappan cultural domain. The late Holocene drought cycles following the 4.2 ka BP event vary between 200 and 800 years and are coherent with the evolution of cosmogenic 14C production rates. This suggests that solar variability is one fundamental cause behind Holocene rainfall changes over south Asia.
So these germanics know definitively that the harappan drought initiated "southeastward tracking", and not northwestward. At this time, Hittites, Mittani, and Kassites show up in the the mideast and even make treaties among themselves.

Posted by: dhu Feb 1 2006, 10:22 PM

QUOTE
[URL=http://newstodaynet.com/01feb/ss1.htm]]How marine archaeologists found Dwaraka[/URL V GANGADHARAN Chennai, Feb 1: The submergence into the sea of the city of Dwaraka, vividly picturised in the great epic of Mahabaratha, is indeed true! A chance discovery made by a team of scientists, in the Gulf of Cambay region, establishes that the Mahabaratha story is not a myth. The rich city with fertile landscape and great rivers had indeed submerged into the seas several thousand years ago. But before we get to the present, a bit of history is quite in order. There is a vivid description in the Mausalaparvan of the Mahabaratha about the submergence of Dwaraka. The people of Dwaraka including Arjuna seemed to have witnessed strange things before its submergence in the sea. 'The event was preceded by the unabated rumbling noise of the earth throughout the day and night, birds screamed continuously, and heavy winds swept the land. The sea, which has been beating against the shores, suddenly broke the boundary that was imposed on it by nature. Huge tide with great height surrounded Dwaraka. The sea rushed into the city submerging beautiful buildings. The sea covered up everything and in a matter of few moments, there was no trace of the beautiful city.' It was something of an ancient tsunami. And now the scientists at NIOT (National Institute of Ocean Technology, of the Department of Ocean Development) have established this. While working for British gas in the Gulf of Cambay region, a few years ago, the scientists of the NIOT, were stunned to see images of objects and things, completely alien to the marine domain. Immediately a team swung into action and samples were collected and sent for analysis and dating (it is usually done to scientifically establish the antiquity of the excavated objects). Samples collected include artefacts, wood pieces, pottery materials, hearth pieces, animal bones. They ere sent to Manipur University, Oxford University, London, Institute of Earth Sciences, Hanover, Germany for analysis and dating. The results were astonishing. It was found beyond doubt that the samples belonged to a period varying from 7800 to 3000 years (BP) Before Present ! The even more flooring discovery happened soon. NIOT, which carried outside scan and sub-bottom surveys in the year 2002-03, established beyond doubt the presence of two large palaeochannels (river channels which existed once and later submerged under the sea) in the Gulf of Cambay. Alluvium samples were collected from different locations in the areas of the palaeochannels by the gravity core and grab method. Badrinarayanan, Marine Archaeologist and formerly coordinator for the project, says 'the most astonishing thing was that all of the crew-members, including the ship master who was a catholic, had dreams full of strange visions, on the night of discovery. We felt we had stumbled upon something great and unusual.' The study of the samples under microscope revealed the occurrence of fragile and highly sensitive Ostracods (tiny marine and fresh water crustaceans with a shrimp-like body enclosed in a bivalve shell) overlain by regular marine fauna. These results strongly indicated that the freshwater deposition which took place in this area was very much a part of the onshore land region and later submerged to the depths varying from 20 to 40 meters. The alluvium (fresh water sand) samples sent to the Earth Science Department, Manipur University for OSL (optically stimulated luminescence) dating gave the OSL determinant of 3000 years (BP) Before Present ! Prof.Gartia (The Journal of Indian Ocean Archaeology, No.2 of 2005, Pg.144) after conducting extensive investigations concluded that Gujarat region had experienced at least three large killer earthquakes about 1500, 3000 and 5000 years BP respectively. Geomorphological evidences also show beyond doubt that the North-Western part of the Indian landmass was seismically active during the last 10,000 years. These killer quakes are likely to have caused the shifting of the rivers and sea level fluctuation including the sinking of the legendary city of Dwaraka, capital of the Lord-King Krishna. The discovery about the availability of fresh water from the now submerged major rivers along with other marine-archaeological evidences, corroborates the Mahabaratha reference that Dwaraka, the ancient city of Sri Krishna, lies under the great ocean !

Posted by: k.ram Feb 5 2006, 09:35 AM

http://www.sabha.info/research/aif.html

Posted by: ben_ami Feb 8 2006, 08:07 AM

LMAO@ http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ANCINDIA/ANCINDIA.HTM

Posted by: ben_ami Feb 8 2006, 10:44 AM

LMFAO@ http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/india.html check out the authority with which he spews his canards.

Posted by: ben_ami Feb 13 2006, 07:59 PM

another gem of a site - http://indoeuro.bizland.com/project/chron/chronn.html#9

Posted by: ramana Feb 17 2006, 09:41 AM

Posted in BR and now locked.

QUOTE
kgoan BRFite -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not sure if this has been posted before, and I realise this may not warrant a new thread (or even whether this forum shouldn't have such a topic), but the importance of this news is, IMO, so central to India that I reckon it should be left here for a while for folks to see. Quote: India Acquired Language, Not Genes, From West, Study Says Jan 10 2006 Most modern Indians descended from South Asians, not invading Central Asian steppe dwellers, a new genetic study reports. The Indian subcontinent may have acquired agricultural techniques and languages-but it absorbed few genes-from the west, said Vijendra Kashyap, director of India's National Institute of Biologicals in Noida. The finding disputes a long-held theory that a large invasion of central Asians, traveling through a northwest Indian corridor, shaped the language, culture, and gene pool of many modern Indians within the past 10,000 years. That theory is bolstered by the presence of Indo-European languages in India, the archaeological record, and historic sources such as the Rig Veda, an early Indian religious text. Some previous genetic studies have also supported the concept. But Kashyap's findings, published in the current issue of the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, stand at odds with those results. The full article is at the National Geographic site: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0110_060110_india_genes.html Back to top kgoan If this gets established, wait to see how hard the rear guard fights before the obvious *other* penny drops: i.e. If no AIT, how did those so-called Central Asian languages come to India? Wait for the theories on how "missionaries" came and taught us to speak. And wait for the Pakee claims that said missionaries were all Tall-Fair-And-Tight-Assed just like Pakees. Hee, hee. The Euro/West are going to fight like cats and dogs to insist that it's "Indo-European" languages and not just Indian languages. Western "scholars" are gonna fight tooth and nail against the idea that *they* were taught language by darkies!

Posted by: PPS Feb 17 2006, 02:11 PM

Wow, I cant believe this non sense. First there was a large scale invasion, oops there is no archaeological or genetic or any other eveidence. Or maybe, the internet must have existed 10000 years ago and indians took language classes online!! It should be quite obvious to anyone who has met indians or visited India that most of us are very capable of speaking and understanding multiple languages. Two of the worlds oldest languages (Sanskrit and Dravidian languages) are indigenous to India, but yet, if we didnt get their genes, they must have taught us how to speak. And the last time I looked at the world map, Northern India and Southern India are a lot closer, and easier to travel to and fro, from each other than North India is to Europe or Central Asia. And yet, the idiot Kashyap says: "The fact the Indo-European speakers are predominantly found in northern parts of the subcontinent may be because they were in direct contact with the Indo-European migrants, where they could have a stronger influence on the native populations to adopt their language and other cultural entities," Kashyap said. Why, why why are people still trying to fit their data to a stupid NAZI theory!! Change your Handle User Id according to "Forum rules" before posting again. If you don't know how to do it, send an email -Admin

Posted by: Sunder Feb 17 2006, 02:29 PM

QUOTE
Why, why why are people still trying to fit their data to a stupid NAZI theory!!
Why? It is for the simple reason that you will bend over backwards to disprove it, or you will give in and accept it. That's why. For an accuser, the investment is very low. He will say, "Your mother is a thief". We will go all out of our way, and spend many months or years trying to disprove it. When it is finally CONCLUSIVELY disprpved that the mother is innocent, all he has to do is say, "In that case your father must be a thief." and just walks away. We have no choice but to defend the second allegation too. When we successfully do that, there will be a third unsubstantiated allegation and so on. Thus, the best way to counter this would be to pin them down on their already existing most viscious blunder. Academics who can err so foolishly on one aspect of the theory can be challenged on other aspects as well. It is like using the logic, I speak english. I come from India, thus English comes from India. This is what they are trying to do to us. It is our choice whether we counter back with the same force or lie down and take it.

Posted by: vishwas Feb 17 2006, 02:29 PM

Ben Ami: Your question: why was not a single vedic literature written in aggulutinative language but always in inflective sanskrit?? Can you explain this question in more detail? It was my opinion earlier that Sanskrit (at least as I read the works) is an agglutinative language. I am not sure I understand the thrust of the question.

Posted by: Rash Feb 17 2006, 03:49 PM

Little known and little published is the fact that the Rigveda was composed by ten gifted families of thinkers, writers and poets and their descendants. The most dominant rishis are the Angiras. They describe themselves matter-of-factly as brown, dark or black. And a prominent figure in the Rigveda is described as brown. These authentic descriptions in the most primary of all sources are consistent with the tropical and subtropical latitudes in which India lies. Vedic rishis are our own - born and bred in our own homeland. Let me elaborate on the significance of this. Even if you make the wild assumption that there were a whole lot of foreigners in the region and DNA confirms it, the Rig was not written by them but by rishis born and bred in the region. Without what is recorded in the Rig itself, DNA can lead you to wrong conclusions. No amount of DNA evidence is going to lead you to the conclusion that the Rig was written by ten families and their descendants matching the physical descriptions the rishis themselves recorded. Of all the extensive body of evidence I have seen against the AIT, there is nothing more powerful than what I have highlighted here. What is any new DNA evidence going to prove? The whole controversy is about who wrote the Rig. The Rig itself tells us that. And when? Again the Rig itself gives us the answer. It dates itself by recording astronomical observations. History is not just about events but also about chronology. You must keep a sense of time about what happened when. The Rig goes back to 4000 BCE. In fact it records the world's first civil war or the Battle of the Ten Kings. Two groups were driven out of the country. Druhyus who according to some became the Druids in Europe. Anus were expelled into what is now Iran. With the undesirable tribes permanently exiled, the Aryans were now free and went on to develop the Vedic civilization in the Punjab. It suggests to me that we should do the same to muslims and xians, and establish a Hindu Rashtra. My descriptions of the rishis are not assertions but what has been translated by scholars from the Rig itself. Punjabi population is very uneven. There has been admixture between invaders and the local population beginning with Alexander's raid. His army had soldiers from Europe, Eurasia, Centra Asia and other places. That is the first foreign incursion of which we have a definite record. But it took place some 1500 years after the end of the Vedic age in 1900 BCE brought about by the drying up of the mighty Sarasvati river. Punjab has been the frontline state in resisting invaders many of whom married and settled locally. The Punjabis in Vedic times were brown, dark or black and the vast majority fit that description even today. The others are products of admixture. Look at the PM. He's dark. Look at the The External Affairs Minister who just resigned. He is black. We have a different situation in Kashmir. Most Kashmiris migrated there from all over the Islamic world during Muslim rule. They do not belong there. That's why we should forcibly eject these freeloading and worthless bastards. If you want to say Muslim invasions began in the 8th century, just compare that with the end of the Vedic age around 1900 BCE - about 2700 years earlier. When you talk about history you must maintain a strong sense of time. Light hair, skin and eyes are not native to the tropics. They are products of admixture from invasions that took place 1500 years or more after the Vedic age ended. Northwestern and north India of Vedic times has nothing to do with these "much later" invasions.

Posted by: Bharatvarsh Feb 17 2006, 05:28 PM

"It suggests to me that we should do the same to muslims and xians, and establish a Hindu Rashtra." That ain't happening and after my experience with different Hindus I know most wouldn't support it (unless ofcourse the country goes into a civil war) so we need more realistic methods plus these Muslims and Xtians are also citizens of India, so it aint happening anytime soon and Hindus need to come up with better methods to tackle the threats facing us today.

Posted by: Shaurya Feb 18 2006, 01:31 PM

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Feb 17 2006, 08:28 PM)
"It suggests to me that we should do the same to muslims and xians, and establish a Hindu Rashtra." That ain't happening and after my experience with different Hindus I know most wouldn't support it (unless ofcourse the country goes into a civil war) so we need more realistic methods plus these Muslims and Xtians are also citizens of India, so it aint happening anytime soon and Hindus need to come up with better methods to tackle the threats facing us today.
*
It also begs the question, what is a Hindu Rashtra? What will be its constitution? What will be its governance model?

Posted by: Bharatvarsh Feb 18 2006, 02:15 PM

"It also begs the question, what is a Hindu Rashtra? What will be its constitution? What will be its governance model?" I have been thinking about that myself, anyway there was a book by Abhas Chatterjee titled "The Concept of Hindu Nation" published by VOI, in Hindi it is called "Hindu Rashtriya ki Avadharna" and they are available at: http://www.geocities.com/voi_publishers/Books.htm I havent read it but I will order it soon, VOI books are generally very good and make people think so I guess this book will give a basic outline of Hindu Rashtra.

Posted by: Shaurya Feb 18 2006, 10:41 PM

I have read that book...Has all of two pages to the concept of a Hindu state...nothing significant. Rest of the book is all about being a Hindu "Nation" as the title says. It is a standard ware that is present in most VOI books. I personally thought this was one of the weaker books of VOI. I have not read anywhere any serious proposal to what a Hindu State would look like. Koenrad Elst and others essentially come to the conclusion that there is no such thing. But, can there be....I have some speculations but nothing conrete? Anyone there care to share their views on this matter.

Posted by: k.ram Feb 19 2006, 07:10 AM

QUOTE(Shaurya @ Feb 19 2006, 11:11 AM)
I have read that book...Has all of two pages to the concept of a Hindu state...nothing significant. Rest of the book is all about being a Hindu "Nation" as the title says. It is a standard ware that is present in most VOI books. I personally thought this was one of the weaker books of VOI. I have not read anywhere any serious proposal to what a Hindu State would look like. Koenrad Elst and others essentially come to the conclusion that there is no such thing. But, can there be....I have some speculations but nothing conrete? Anyone there care to share their views on this matter.
*
Shaurya, please do the needful: start another thread and see if the discussion leads to something concrete (atleast a frame work to further discuss this topic). smile.gif

Posted by: Shaurya Feb 19 2006, 02:31 PM

QUOTE(k.ram @ Feb 19 2006, 10:10 AM)
Shaurya, please do the needful: start another thread and see if the discussion leads to something concrete (atleast a frame work to further discuss this topic). smile.gif
*
Done. http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1174

Posted by: dhu Feb 21 2006, 04:06 PM

Scientist slams philology in Stanford Daily article The Stanford Daily, Friday, February 17 2006, Page 4 Oppose creationism By J.Sreedhar An issue has been quietly brewing in California regarding the contents of school textbooks. In the past few months, there have been repeated clashes between scientists and creationists in Sacramento's corridors of power, which are likely to spill over into the mainstream. In particular, creationists have managed to influence decisions made by California's State Board of Education. It is well known that proponents of biblical creationism object to scientific ideas like evolution and regularly clamor for equal treatment of their beliefs in school textbooks. In the scientific method, one makes observations and comes up with a hypothesis that makes accurate predictions. The results obtained by the scientific method are repeatable and the hypotheses themselves are potentially falsifiable by new evidence. On the other hand, pseudo-scientific theories make assumptions that can neither be proved nor disproved but are taken as truth. They do not follow the rules of logic, discard scientific evidence and are based on faith. A field that qualifies as a pseudo-science and is based on creationism is philology which was developed in the 19th century. By cloaking its arguments in academic language and claiming to reconstruct human history by analyzing the roots of words in various languages, it passes off biblical descriptions as historical events. One of the pioneers of philology, Max Müller, was a self-admitted believer in the historical foundation of the description given in Genesis and asserted that "we still speak the language of the first ancestors of our race." He went so far as to write to Charles Darwin that evolution is false because the languages of animals do not resemble those of humans. Although today's scientists do not consider philology to be a legitimate science, believers in the literal interpretation of the Bible insist on using philology to promote their views. One such view, which has been repeatedly discredited by science, but is still being pushed for inclusion in California's textbooks without mentioning its biblical aspects, is a theory known as the Aryan Migration Theory. According to this theory, descendents of the biblical character Japheth invaded India after the deluge and populated it. Inclusion of this theory in school textbooks would indirectly give sanction to creationism and open the doors for future frontal assaults on science. A recent paper co-authored by Peter Underhill in our Genetics Department analyzed genetic evidence and concluded that there is no such thing as Aryan migration into India. This is consistent with evidence from other fields such as carbon dating, fossil studies, archaeology, geophysics, linguistics, metallurgy, and satellite imaging. However, in a letter to the California State Board of Education, Vinay Lal – a humanities professor at UCLA and believer in philology – dismisses such scientific conclusions as "palpable falsehoods" and "alleged evidence of some unknown geneticist." He avers that science has no role to play in overturning "the long established view on this matter." It is incumbent upon us at Stanford to stand up for science and oppose creationism. We should do our part to help California public schools improve their ranking which is almost the lowest in the country. J.Sreedhar is a research scholar at Stanford University. He can be reached at jsreedhar@gmail.com.

Posted by: Kaushal Mar 16 2006, 02:42 AM

http://indicethos.org/AIT.htm This was in reply to a column which has appeared in this thread as well as in Hinduism today

Posted by: dhu Mar 31 2006, 10:44 AM

Lost Indian explorers apparently made their way to Germany. Same must have also been the case with the maritime SSVC superpower. I would not be surprised if Indian sea Gypsies led to the IE colonization of the european cul-de-sac.

QUOTE
The author of the Periplus of the Erytlhraean Sea saw Hindu merchants settled down in the desert island of Socotra off the coast of Africa. Tacitus refers to "some Indians who sailing from India for the purpose of commerce had been driven by storm into Germany."
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/cha.htm Naval Warfare in ancient India By Prithwis Chandra Chakravarti The Indian Historical Quarterly Vol.4, No.4 1930.12, pp.645-664

Posted by: ben_ami Mar 31 2006, 11:48 AM

whats ssvc?

Posted by: dhu Mar 31 2006, 04:03 PM

Sarasvati Sindhu Valley Culture

Posted by: ben_ami Mar 31 2006, 09:40 PM

ok ty, and i want to ask u....... since the ait is all wrong, how come indians had no recollection of the swaraswati valley civilization?? its no where mentioned in the vedas, purans or even the epics. also how come we havent a clue about the indus valley script if thats indeed the predecessor of the sanskrit script and language?? is it true then that we had 2 different languages, like the irish, with the language for religious purposes (sanskrit) only used orally??

Posted by: ben_ami Mar 31 2006, 09:47 PM

QUOTE(vishwas @ Feb 18 2006, 02:59 AM)
Ben Ami: Your question: why was not a single vedic literature written in aggulutinative language but always in inflective sanskrit?? Can you explain this question in more detail? It was my opinion earlier that Sanskrit (at least as I read the works) is an agglutinative language. I am not sure I understand the thrust of the question.
*
yes thats what my question was - how come every single piece of vedic literature, from the vedas, to puranas to epics to mantras to the sutras of maths, to the shastras, to the treatises on astronomy, astrology, ayurveda, yoga etc - how come everything thts hindu (hindu = the arya people living on this side of sindhu) is written in sanskrit?? and no sanskrit is NOT an aggulutinative language. in fact its possibly the most inflective of all languages.

Posted by: dhu Mar 31 2006, 10:10 PM

QUOTE
how come indians had no recollection of the swaraswati valley civilization?? its no where mentioned in the vedas, purans or even the epics.
Balarama is described as making a pilgrimage along the course of the Saraswati from Dwarka (in Gujurat) to Mathura in the Salya Parva of the Mahabharata. see http://www.sulekha.com/blogs/blogdisplay.aspx?contributor=B.S.V.%20Prasad&archdtmmyr=2003-7-01&archfreq=Monthly by B.S.V. Prasad

Posted by: Viren Apr 3 2006, 02:55 AM

http://www.india-forum.com/articles/107/1/The-Debate-over-the-Origin-of-the-Vedics By Kaushal V Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/nq59l

Posted by: Kaushal Apr 5 2006, 11:38 PM

Re. the proper date of the Great Bharata War, we should settle on a date thatis most consistemt with other known happenings during that period. I would say that date near the start of the kaliyuga (3139 BCE) aqppears to be the most significant. Itis not just the MBharata war but the entire itihaas prior to 0 BCE must be looked at with a critical eye. see the section on chronology at my website http://www.indicethos.org/History/Chronology.htm

Posted by: dhu Apr 6 2006, 12:27 AM

Chandragupta Maurya in 1500 BC!!!!!!! Just for comparision, Ramses II ruled during the 19th Egyptian Dynasty (1279-1212 BC). It certainly does make sense that Indian dynasties would go back that far as well. Arguing otherwise (ie indologists) is like tryig to place saraswati in central Asia.

Posted by: Kaushal Apr 9 2006, 11:10 AM

Megasthenes never makes mention of the spread of Buddhism (which was much more active at the time of Chandragupta I than was the case at the time of CGII)) and he does not make mention of chanakya either .that would also make sense if he was referring to Chandragupta II of the Gupta dynasty

Posted by: dhu Apr 11 2006, 11:43 AM

Sethna places the Guptas before the Kushanas. From Pradip Bhattacharya's article:

QUOTE
Kushana Dynasty imitated features of the Guptas on their coins instead of the other way about as historians argue: http://www.boloji.com/history/033.htm
This indeed makes sense as we get a gradual expansion of Buddhism in the northwest from the Mauryas to the Guptas to the Kushanas. The current sequence of 1) Mauryas to 2) kushanas to 3) Guptas to 4) Adi Shankara (who miraculously eradicated the resurgent Buddhists) certainly does not make sense. There are cataclysmic changes in the patron status of Buddhism from Dynasty to Dynasty and it is certainly not representative of how the Indian culture actually patronised different schools over time. The entire Indian history has been vandalised by the euros who have a venereal urge to post date indian civilization after the puerile greek upstart in 500 BC. Just compare the standard Indian history to the histories of China and Egypt. For the albinos and their hanger-ons, the Buddha just cannot be anterior to Socrates (who was simply an unknown in the ancient world)!! Sorry to put it so bluntly.......

Posted by: Anand K Apr 12 2006, 12:09 PM

Asoka of the Mauryas, the Devanampiyadassi whose inscriptions were first discovered in Maski (in Raichur) had made this Major Rock Edict XIII where he mentions his contemporaries in the Hellenic world with whom he exchanged diplomatic missions. They are Antiyoka, Turamaya, Antikini, Maka and Alikasudara who have been IDed Antiochus II Theos of Syria, Ptolemy II Philadelpus of Egypt, Antigonus Gonatus of Macedon, Magas of Cyrene and Alexander of Epirus. The same type of Major Rock edicts(14+2 in no), Major Pillar Edicts(7 in no), Minor Rock Edicts, Minor Pillar Inscriptions and the Minor Cave inscriptions of Barabar and Nagarjuni plus Buddhist Puranas from Sri Lanka like Mahavamsya and Dwipavamsya have corroborated the literary evidence that Mauryan Empire began in 321 BC and ended in 184 BC with the Sadaat like execution of Brihadradha Maurya by his C-in-C Pushyamitra Sunga.... a geneology further corrobborated by the Hindu Puranas itself. The Kushana's timeline: The Eastern Han Empire's (206 BC to 220 AD) written records speak about Emperor Ho-Ti's famed general Ban Chao subjugating Sinkiang and Kujala Kadipshes's forces there in AD 90..... and the lands soon retaken by his son Kanishka. The timeline following the Kanva-Andhra fight for the remnants of the Sunga empire, the rise of the Satavahanas from about 100 BC and the northern parts falling to the Sakas or the Yueh Chis (forerunners of the kanishka by some accounts) all point to the convetionally established timeline. If we place the Mauryas in 1500 BC and Guptas in 300 BC, it means the timelines of late Ancient and Early medieval india would have to be shifted up by whole centuries. A huge black hole will be punched in latter Ancient and Early medieval history and timeline and there will be a lot of loose ends!. Eg, if the Guptas were in 350 BC, Harshavardhan has to be placed in like 100 AD.... 'coz the Gaud and Maukharis and the Vardhamans are inheritors of the Gupta legacy, Sassanka of the Gaud himself led a Hindu reconquista (but failed) against Harsha. Now if Harsha is placed in that time period, the Chalukyas of Vatapi and Pallavas and 1st Pandya also have to come in this period. This again leads to an huge inconsistency as Arjuna, the successor to Harsha has been recorded as a prisoner in the Tang Empire's (618-907 AD) court, courtesy of the powerful Tibetan King Tsongsten Gampo. Then, can one explain the Western kshatrapas and more importantly, the Satavahanas in a period even earlier to Kushanas........ as Satavahanas later broke up into smaller empire and was the "patriach" of Kadambas, Vakatakas, Rashtrakutas in the Western Deccan and Ishkvahus in the East. The problem is compounded by the fact that that the Rashtrakutas are placed at 730-973 AD by the Arab traveller Suleyman who was present in Amoghavarsha's court. This was also corroborated by Al Masudi...... Moreover, Rashtrakutas were contemporaries of the Pala dynasty and there are whole corpuses on the tripartite struggle for North india between Palas, Rashtrakutas and Rajaputra Pratiharas. Including a whole folio dedicated to it by nationalist historians like Majumdar, Reddy and Sarkar. Moreover, placing Shankaracharya in 509 BC will screw up the entire kerala era system, i.e Kollam Era, which was founded by the King Udaya Marthandan in 825 AD..... as he chose Shankaracharya's death and parallel Hindu renaissance as beginning of a new epoch. See how the inconsistencies cascades till we are left with utter darkness? (Harsha's time has been established beyond doubt, right? So in that case.... what happened with the 6-7 centuries between the Guptas and Harsha era kingdoms? ) Get my point? The chronology posted above in the indicethos has to explain atleast a very good deal of all these things (some error is allowed in History)......... taking into account these multifaceted issues and present corroborative evidence. If it doesn't it can only be discounted as pseudo-history...... Anyone got better takes on this? Ramana, Kaushal, HH?

Posted by: Kaushal Apr 13 2006, 01:04 AM

QUOTE
Asoka of the Mauryas, the Devanampiyadassi whose inscriptions were first discovered in Maski (in Raichur) had made this Major Rock Edict XIII where he mentions his contemporaries in the Hellenic world with whom he exchanged diplomatic missions. They are Antiyoka, Turamaya, Antikini, Maka and Alikasudara who have been IDed Antiochus II Theos of Syria, Ptolemy II Philadelpus of Egypt, Antigonus Gonatus of Macedon, Magas of Cyrene and Alexander of Epirus.
That is an assumption.Nowhere does he talk of the Hellenic world.That is an assumption that the brits foisted on us and bamboozled us with opinions masquerading as facts In fact the Hellenic world was not the one indians were most acquainted with .It was the Ionian world of Asia Minor (all the great mathematicians of Greece came from Asia Minor (or more persianized form of greece) but the reality is that there was no hellenic world to speak of during Asoka maurya's time. you have to discard the entire scaffolding erected by the brits and start afresh

Posted by: Anand K Apr 13 2006, 02:26 AM

QUOTE
Everywhere[2] within Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi's domain, and among the people beyond the borders, the Cholas, the Pandyas, the Satiyaputras, the Keralaputras, as far as Tamraparni and where the Greek king Antiochos rules, and among the kings who are neighbors of Antiochos,[3] everywhere has Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, made provision for two types of medical treatment: medical treatment for humans and medical treatment for animals.
From the Major Rock Edict No II in Kalsi(?).
QUOTE
Now it is conquest by Dhamma that Beloved-of-the-Gods considers to be the best conquest. And it (conquest by Dhamma) has been won here, on the borders, even six hundred yojanas away, where the Greek king Antiochos rules, beyond there where the four kings named Ptolemy, Antigonos, Magas and Alexander rule, likewise in the south among the Cholas, the Pandyas, and as far as Tamraparni.
This is from Major Rock Edict No XIII in Manshera (NWFP) Translations can be found online at http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/asoka.html#14rock ------------------------------------------ The Hellens were long gone by the time of Philip of Macedon, sometime in the 14th-10th century BC the Mycenaean Age of Illiad and Odyssey came to an end at the hands of the Dorians.... followed by the 800 year dark ages,followed by Ancient Greece and finally Hellenistic Age beginning with Alexander's death. It was Philip of the (now Slavic) lands of Macedon and Southern Scythia who united the Greek tribes which had exhausted themselves fighting each other BTW... Ionia always had a strong classical Greek heritage, though it was far away from the heartland of Greece.... something the the Germanic Danzig corridor in Poland and the Russian Kalinigard Obalast in the Baltic. There were major waves of migrations to Ionia after the Greek supremacy following defeat of the Troy..... as Ionia were far away from the never ending city wars of Greece. Ionia was under Greek rule until Cyrus defeated Croseus in 540 AD..... and the lands changed hands a couple of times after that. The Ionian revolt against Persia was a major event which led to the invasion of Greece. These battles went on till a peace treat was signed wherein the Asian Greek lands will come under Persian rule. Things changed again only after the Battle of Granicus.

Posted by: Kaushal Apr 13 2006, 09:13 AM

Anand,,,,,the word Greek is a translation an assumption maeby the English. Infact the entire translation reeks of 20th century bias.the word that used is Yona raja (notnecessarily synonymous with Yavana (to be later associated withIonians by the Brits) see for instance KD Sethna''s work reviewed http://www.indicethos.org/History/Sethna1.html

QUOTE
Sethna marshals evidence from the Puranas and archaeology to argue that the Sandrocottus of Megasthenes could not have been the Mauryan king, but was the founder of the Gupta Dynasty. I had pointed out to him after he had completed the first part of the work that unless the Asokan epigraphs could be tackled convincingly, his new chronology would break down. Sethna proceeded to do this also over 300 pages of a closely argued thesis pushing Asoka back to 950 B.C. and allocating to the Gupta Empire the period 315 B.C. - A.D. 320 . Sethna's 606 page tome, with a 15 page bibliography and a 23 page index, is an outstanding instance of ratiocination proceeding inexorably from a chronological absurdity fastened upon unerringly by the clear ray of his perception. Pulakesin IPs Aihole inscription of 634 A.D. shows Indian chronology in vogue fixing 3102 B.C. as the date of the start of the Kaliyuga, while also referring to the Saka Era of 78 A.D. According to modern historians, this is the time of the Gupta Empire, when this system of chronology was made up by the Puranic writers. Now, according to the Puranas the Guptas come around the last quarter of the 4th century B.C. If the modern dating of the Guptas is accepted, it means that the Puranics, face to face with the Gupta kings, placed them in antiquity six hundred years in the past! It is peculiar that so obvious an absurdity should have escaped our own historians. Can we help concluding that we are still unable to rid our minds of the overpowering influence of the dismissal by western scholars of our own ancient records: The Puranas? They believe in the historicity of Homer and excavate Troy, but will not allow that same probability to the Puranas simply because they speak of a civilized antiquity in a colonized country when the western man was living in caves, and that is unacceptable from a subject race. On the grounds of the reductio ad absurdum of the Puranics placing their contemporary monarchs six centuries in the past, Sethna proposes that the Guptas referred to in the Puranas are the descendants of that Chandragupta whom Megasthenes refers to as Sandrocottus, contemporaneous with Alexander. Consequently, the Mauryan Chandragupta and his grandson Asoka needs must recede considerably farther into die past. The rest of the book is a thrilling venture as Sethna daringly steers his slender craft through uncharted seas crossing one insuperable barrier-reef after another to reach a destination in whose existence he firmly believes. The most important of these is the supposed linking of the Greeks with Asoka. Sethna's penetrating insight reveals that the Asokan "yona raja" Amtiyoka of Rock Edict XIII cannot refer to a Greek king and that the dating of this edict proposed by Bhandarkar is quite mistaken even on the basis of the current chronology. Next the Asokan inscription in Greek and Aramaic at Kandahar is analyzed and the conclusion arrived at that the two inscriptions are not contemporaneous; that the Greek comes much after the Aramaic and, indeed, explicates it: That the "Yavanani" script referred to by Panini is this Aramaic script going back to the pre-9th century B.C. period. The Kandahar II and Laghlman Aramaic inscriptions are then taken up and proven to be much before the 3rd century B.C. as theorized at present. Finally, examining the evidence for the reigns of the Sungas, Kanvas and Satvahanas, Sethna arrives at 950 B.C. as the date of Asoka's accession. The next challenge is harmonizing this with the wide-spread variety in traditions regarding Buddhist chronology (Ceylonese, Chinese, Tibetan, Arab, Puranic and the Milinda-panha and Rajatamngini). Sethna infallibly locates a sure guiding light to steer clear of this welter of confusion: Buddha's death has to be determined in terms of Asoka's accession and not the other way about. Thus, with the latter being fixed in 950 B.C., the nirvana is 218 years before that in 1168 B.C. and the death of Mahavira would be in 1165 B.C. The argument of Ceylon being referred to in Asoka's inscriptions is demolished by Sethna who points out that this identification flouts all the literary and epigraphic data. "Tarnbapamni" and "Tambapamniya" are references to the far south in India. Coming to the Asokan monuments, he shows that the affinities are with Mesopotamia not with Achaemenid art, and that they carry on in the tradition of the realistic treatment of the Indus seals, the assembly hall of Mohenjodaro and the high polish of Harappan jewellery. From the other end of the spectrum, Megasthenes is analyzed to reveal that the references point to the Bhagavata Vaishnavite cult practiced by the Gupta Dynasty, certainly not to what is known of the Mauryas. As in his work on the Aryan Origins, Sethna corrects major historical errors here too. One is regarding Fa-Hien who is widely accepted as having visited India during the reign of Chandragupta II. Sethna bluntly points out how generations of historians have simply assumed Fleet's chronology despite the pilgrim's records mentioning no king at all and the social conditions not tallying with whatever is known of the Gupta regime. Another such major twisting of chronology which has been unquestioningly accepted by modern historians is exposed when Sethna examines Al-beruni's travelogue to show that Fleet misrepresented the Arab visitor's categorical description of the Gupta Era as celebrating die end of a dynasty that had come to be hated and not the beginning of the dynasty! A third misconception is that the earliest Roman dinarius (whence the Gupta dinam is dated) in India is of the last quarter of the first century B.C. Sethna shows that the earliest denarii go back to 268 B.C. and it is around 264 B.C. that Ptolemy II sent an emissary from Egypt to India. Therefore, the reference to dinam in the Gadhwa Stone inscription of the Gupta Era 88 can certainly be in 277 B.C. A fourth error corrected is that of identifying the Malawa Era of the Mandasor Inscription with the Vikrama Era. Sethna shows that all epigraphic evidence points to the identity of the Malawa Era with the Krita Era, and that the Vikrama Era has been gratuitously brought in just because it is convenient for the modern chronology of the Guptas. He shows that the Kumaragupta referred to here cannot chronologically be the Gupta monarch even following Fleet's calculations. By bringing in the other Mandasor inscription of Dattabhatta which refers to Chandragupta's son Govindagupta as alive in the Malawa year 535, Sethna shows that dating it by the Vikrama Era of 57 B.C. creates an impossible situation. He fixes the beginning of the Malawa Era at 711 B.C. This leads to two fascinating discoveries when linked with other Mandasor inscriptions: that the Malawa ruler Yasodharman (Malawa 589, i.e. 122 B.C.) might be the source of the legend of Vikramaditya; and that Mihirakula whom he defeated was a Saka and not, as supposed by historians without adequate evidence, a Huna. Sethna exposes yet another Fleetian conjecture regarding Skandagupta battling the Hunas by contacting the epigraphist D.C. Sircar10 and getting the astonishing admission that there is no such reference in the Junagarh inscription! Some of the more remarkable findings in this work which need mention are: Devanampiyatissa of Ceylon dealt not with Asoka but with Samudragupta; the Kushana Dynasty imitated features of the Guptas on their coins instead of the other way about as historians argue: Al-beruni testifies to two Saka Eras, one of 57 B.C. probably commemorating Yasodharman's victory, and the other of 78 A.D. by Salivahana who was possibly of the Satavahana Dynasty; the Mehrauli Iron Pillar inscription is by Sandrocottus-Chandragupta-I whose term for the invading Greeks is shown to be "Vahlika" (outsiders from Bactria) which fills in the puzzling gap in Indian records of mention of the incursions by Alexander and Seleucus. It is the founder of the Guptas and not of the Mauryan Dynasty who stands firmly identified as Megasthenes's Sandrocottus.
In order to carry on this debate you have to separate out fact from opinion.the entire history we were taught is riddled with eurocentric bias andd is based on untenable assumptions masquerading as facts. see my essay http://www.indicethos.org/The%20South%20Asia%20File.html

Posted by: dhu Apr 13 2006, 12:33 PM

Independent Mycenean power is just an illusion. Most likely, they were peripheral extensions-remnants of the Hittites who were previously dominant in the metropolis of Asia Minor. For example, we can see Hittite Lion gates to mirror the hyped one at mycenae. The Ionian settlements are definitely the older ones. The greeks entered through asia minor into the island mediterranean, not from up north in the balkans. Greek language itself is a dialect of Kurdo-Armenian-Iranian, and certainly not a distinct entity, as the euros deem. We know categorically that Mittanis and Kassites migrated to the Near East at the end of the SSVC as evidenced by their culture, use of the peacock motif, etc. Hittites were part of this same trajectory, as well as the Iranians. I would think that the dates of the various Indian dynasties are crunched to fit in with the AIT based presumption that Indian history started from scratch in 800 BC after the so-called "Vedic night" or "Vedic black ages". Note here:

QUOTE
http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/deccan/satavahanas.htm The Puranas mention the Satavahanas and describe the rule in much detail. The dates in the Puranic sources, describing the rule of thirty kings over a period of 450 years, are however dispute of many a historians.

Posted by: abdul_bin_mao Apr 13 2006, 01:54 PM

Yamir, I think Allah said: "Inshallah, there shall be Houris and Shaheeds!" and there were Houris and Shaheeds. And then there were little shaheeds. And then Allah made goats, so the shaheeds and houris could have milk and keep their hedges trimmed, and also have sheesh kabab. But the shaheeds drank Rooh Afza, and ******** with the goats, and then there were Pakistanis. Very simple and short theory onlee. guitar.gif guitar.gif

Posted by: aruni Apr 19 2006, 08:01 AM

http://www.telegraphindia.com//1060418/asp/nation/story_6113029.asp

QUOTE
New Delhi, April 17: A new study suggests the Ganga plain has been a grassland with human activity for 15,000 years, and was not an uninhabited zone of dense forests where humans didn't venture until 3,500 years ago, as generally believed. The study by scientists in Lucknow with collaborators in Germany and the US is the first to reconstruct variations in monsoon and vegetation in the Ganga plain in prehistoric times and connect the climatic changes to human activity. The scientists from the Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeobotany and Lucknow University analysed pollen and chemical signatures in mud dug up from a two-metre-deep hole in the dry lake bed of Sanai Tal, between Rae Bareli and Lalganj in eastern Uttar Pradesh. Ancient pollen yields information about vegetation, while changes in the monsoon are reflected in the signatures of chemical elements buried in lake sediments. "Our findings suggest that people lived in the Sanai lake region 15,000 years ago," said Mohan Singh Chauhan, a scientist at Birbal Sahni Institute. Shikha Sharma, a scientist with the University of Wyoming in the US, was the lead investigator of the study published in the latest issue of the journal Current Science. "This is bound to change ideas about human settlements in the Ganga plain," said Indra Bir Singh, a geologist with Lucknow University who collaborated in the study. "It has been assumed that the Ganga plain was covered by dense forests that prevented people from settling there until about 3,500 years ago, by which time they had developed tools to clear forests and move in," Singh said. But the Sanai lake bed tells a different story: of a seesawing monsoon affecting vegetation and human activity. The pollen analysis shows that the Ganga plain was a savannah grassland with a few pockets of forests. The scientists also found "cultural pollen" — pollen from plants that grow at sites of human habitation. "Cultural pollen is indirect evidence for human presence and we found it throughout the 15,000-year history of Sanai Tal," Chauhan said. The lake itself formed about 12,500 years ago, during a period when the monsoon gained in strength. But the region experienced a 1,000-year spell of dry weather between 11,500 years and 10,500 years ago. During the period, there was a clear decline in the growth of trees around the Sanai Tal, the scientists said. The levels of cultural pollen — in other words, human activity in the region — also dramatically declined during this dry spell. The studies show the largest expansion of the lake occurred between 10,000 years and 5,800 years ago, a period corresponding to heavier monsoons. Early during this period, Chauhan said, the region witnessed the beginnings of agriculture. Excavations at some 9,000-year-old sites in Pratapgarh district, about 100 km east of Sanai Tal, had earlier shown evidence of farming. From 5,000 years ago to the present, the levels of cultural pollen — including pollen from cultivated plants — increases significantly. During this period, the Ganga plain is believed to have witnessed a largescale influx of people.

Posted by: rajesh_g Apr 20 2006, 01:19 AM

Can guroos pls comment on this ? http://www.tulane.edu/~howard/LangIdeo/Koerner/Koerner.html

Posted by: dhu Apr 20 2006, 06:59 AM

QUOTE
Excavations at some 9,000-year-old sites in Pratapgarh district, about 100 km east of Sanai Tal, had earlier shown evidence of farming.
I am from this region. Pratapgarh (Bela) is on the Sai Nadi which is considered very holy. It could possibly be a related to Saraswati or Sarayu. There is the famous Bela Devi Mandir on its banks.

Posted by: aruni Apr 30 2006, 04:53 AM

http://www.indiawest.com/view.php?subaction=showfull&id=1144951750&archive=1146156364&start_from=&ucat=9&

QUOTE
Why Is Hindu Pride Tied Up With Origin of Aryans? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Editor, Much has been written recently, in letters and articles in India-West, regarding the origin of the Aryans. The purpose of my letter is to try to clarify several issues, albeit as I know them. I am no scholar in the field of history to claim any specialized knowledge. Thus, I would strongly welcome comments to my viewpoints. It appears from most letters and articles that it is a settled issue that the Aryans are indigenous to India - they did not come from outside. Anyone not ascribing to this view is to them either ill-informed or an "India hater" a la Michael Witzel. My readings, however, clearly indicate that far from being resolved, most dependable scholarly evidence seems to be otherwise. Admittedly, the issue is complex, as so well described by Romila Thapar in her "Aryan Question Revisited." Her discussion on the issue in her recent book, "Early India," is also very instructive, particularly her discussion about the river Saraswati. Then there is the wonderful book by J.P. Mallory, "In Search of Indo-Europeans," published in 1989. Further, there is the undeniable similarity between Avestan and Vedic Sanskrit. Contrast that with the number of Indo-European words increasing with time in Tamil. The oldest Tamil literature indicates only about one percent Sanskrit words, rising to 18 to 25 percent at present (per the Encyclopedia Britannica). I have often seen in your letters and articles that there is no genetic evidence of an Aryan invasion/migration. I have even seen allusions to articles (most notably by N.S. Rajaram) claiming conclusive evidence of "no migration" based on genetics. In very sharp contrast, I came upon the article, "Ethnic India: A Genomic View, With Special Reference to Peopling and Structure," published in 2003. The article discusses the results of a massive project headed by the internationally renowned population geneticist, Partha P. Mazumdar of the famous Indian Statistical Institute in Kolkata. The 11 co-authors include specialists in anthropology, molecular biology, and crystallography in addition to human genetics. I give the link here: Some of the important conclusions include: (i) Distribution of mtDNA lineages indicates a small group of females. (ii) Austro-Asiatic-speaking tribals may be the earliest inhabitants of India. (iii) The northeastern corridor may have served as a major passage of entry into India. (iv) Dravidian speakers, now confined to Southern India, may have earlier been widespread throughout India. (v) Central Asian populations have contributed to the genetic profiles of upper castes, more in the north than in the south. Surely, particularly the last two conclusions, are clear indicators that Aryan migration cannot be ruled out. Also, interestingly, the conclusions conform fairly well with Romila Thapar's latest book on ancient Indian history. Somehow, I have yet to see any allusions to this very impressive piece of work in anything published in your paper. Finally, I totally fail to appreciate how Hindu pride is so tied up to the "origin of Aryans" question. Hinduism is a great religion to live by, as noted by Nirad C. Chaudhuri in his "Hinduism." Whether its tenets were conceived by people coming from outside or even originally conceived outside India should be of no significance. The U.S. and Australia are no less as countries because almost all their achievements are due to people descended from outside their shores. Partha Sircar Concord, Calif.

Posted by: ben_ami May 1 2006, 02:08 AM

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060430/asp/frontpage/story_6164487.asp Indus cities dried up with monsoon - Study links fall of civilisation with changes in rain pattern G.S. MUDUR New Delhi, April 29: It wasn’t raiders from the north but a weakened monsoon that spelled doom for the Indus valley civilisation, suggests a study published this week. Geologist Anil Gupta at the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, and fellow Indian and American scientists have analysed monsoon behaviour over thousands of years through geological studies and connected it to archaeological findings. They say that changes in the Indian monsoon over the past 10,000 years may explain the spread of agriculture in the subcontinent as well as the rise and fall of the civilisation that produced Harrappa. “We see a clear connection between changes in the monsoon, the growth of agriculture and the movement of people across the subcontinent,” said Gupta, the lead author of the study published in the journal Current Science. “The correlation between the history of the monsoon and archaeology is striking.” Archaeologists have suspected for decades that an intensified monsoon might have helped the Indus civilisation grow, while a weakening monsoon might have led to its decline. However, in the past, some experts had also suggested invasions by central Asian hordes or a massive earthquake may have snuffed the life out of the Indus cities. Three years ago, Gupta and his colleagues used the signatures of tiny marine organisms in sediments from the Arabian Sea to determine the history of the monsoon over the past 10,000 years. These organisms thrive when rainfall is good but their population dwindles during dry periods. “The marine records suggest that 10,000 years ago, the monsoon over the subcontinent was much stronger than it is today,” Gupta said. Independent studies have shown that 10,000 years ago, the Ganga and Brahmaputra carried double the amount of sediment they do today, Gupta said. This, too, indicates a stronger monsoon. The earliest settlement in the subcontinent with evidence of agriculture and domestication at Mehrgarh — now in Pakistan — is about 9,000 years old. This coincides with the peak intensification of the monsoon, the study said. Archaeological studies have shown that the Mehrgarh settlers grew wheat and barley and domesticated cattle, sheep and goats. The increased rainfall and the spread of agriculture along the Indus valley over a few centuries would have given rise to the Indus civilisation, the researchers said. The Arabian Sea sediments and other geological studies show that the monsoon began to weaken about 5,000 years ago. The dry spell, lasting several hundred years, might have led people to abandon the Indus cities and move eastward into the Gangetic plain, which has been an area of higher rainfall than the northwestern part of the subcontinent. “It’s not high temperatures, but lack of water that drove the people eastward and southward,” Gupta said. About 1,700 years ago, the monsoon began to improve again, leading to increased farm produce for several centuries and contributing to the relative prosperity in India during the medieval ages, from AD 700 to 1200. After a weak phase between AD 1400 and 1800, the monsoon has again strengthened over the past 200 years, leading to increasing productivity. Scientists, however, believe that global warming might now be influencing the monsoon. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- so that settles it (assuming the study is correct). the swaraswati dried up due to reduced monsoons and thus the indus valley civilization wound up. the peoiple moved into mainland india to the gangetic plain. meanwhile sundaland blew up and people moved up north into the peninsula. 5 of the 13 odd dravidian "nadus" fall in india. marathis though they stay in maharashtra, which is one of the "punch-dravirs", are actually from ayodhya and thereabouts (in fact i want to start a thread about the origin of marathis). the tribals occupied and still occupy a tract of land stretching from tripura to around indore in madhya pradesh. sometimes they were pushed down south by migrating SS (sindhu swaraswati) aryans, like in orissa (where the south is tribal and the north oriya).

Posted by: dhu May 2 2006, 10:18 PM

QUOTE(ben_ami @ May 1 2006, 02:38 PM)
the swaraswati dried up due to reduced monsoons and thus the indus valley civilization wound up. the peoiple moved into mainland india to the gangetic plain.
*
they moved into the mideast and the northern reaches as well

Posted by: ben_ami May 2 2006, 11:37 PM

thats right. the ones who moved into the mideast must be the hitties, mittanis etc isnt it? by northern reaches, do you mean the russian steppes?? i have a request to make from some of the top experts here. can someone please supply a comprehensive CHRONOLOGICAL account of what really happened. ie. just when the the SSVC start and when did it wind up? AND when was the Rig Veda written (this one in know. question is was it written IN the SSVC cities) AND just when did the parasu move west with their version of the Ved to form zorastrianism? AND when did the westward exodus from india of the alans, dru-vids and the rest take place. ETC because all we ever come to know is the cooked up dates and chronology of the fictitious AIT. i am looking for a concrete and correct chronology with what exactly happened and when exactly did the out-of-india migration take place.

Posted by: Viren May 8 2006, 07:30 AM

From a yahoogroup:

QUOTE
Ideology and Race in India's Early History Padma Manian San Jose City College Probably without realizing it, World History textbooks often take sides in an ideologically charged controversy over the role of race in India's early history. Their account of the so-called Aryan invasions may reflect nineteenth-century Eurocentric scholarship that privileged lighter skinned peoples over darker skinned ones. Alternatively, it may show a na¥ve endorsement of recent books by Indians and Westerners that owe as much to ideology as to evidence. Certainly the facts don't speak as clearly as most textbooks confidently represent them. 1 I have taught World History at colleges in the United States for many years. When it came to the early history of India, I once taught that "Aryans" invaded India in 1500 B.C.E., conquered the "Dravidians" and then became predominant. This is what I had learned in elementary school, high school and college courses in India. This is still what is taught in most textbooks. About ten years ago, I became aware of challenges to the idea of the Aryan invasion and decided to look more critically at what World History textbooks were saying about this topic. My study was published in the History Teacher.2 More than half of the textbooks I examined stated that the ancient Harappan civilization was "burned, destroyed and left in rubble by invading Aryan-speaking tribes." These Aryans were "virile people, fond of war, drinking, chariot racing and gambling" and were also "tall, blue-eyed and fair-skinned." The defeated natives were "short, black, nose-less." The victorious Aryans had a "strong sense of racial superiority" and "strove to prevent mixture with their despised subjects". Accordingly they evolved the caste system with the lighter skinned Aryans at the top. 2 In fact, archaeologists have been aware for several decades that Aryan invasions had nothing to do with the demise of the Harappan civilization.3 In contrast, most of the textbooks relied on out-dated sources and presented erroneous material. 3 Although there is consensus among well-informed students of Indian history that Aryan invasions had nothing to do with the demise of the Harappan civilization, there is a contentious debate underway both in India as well as in the rest of the world regarding whether there was an invasion of Aryans into India around 1500 B.C.E (that is, after the end of the Harappan civilization). The Indians who favor the invasion theory are largely of a progressive or leftist political persuasion. They believe that the iniquities of the caste system are a result of the Aryan invasion. For such Indians, questioning the invasion theory would undermine the work of redressing the injustices of the caste system. It would be akin to Holocaust denial. On the other hand, many Indians who doubt the invasion theory view it as a matter of national pride that their civilization is rooted in the ancient past on Indian soil and is not a result of barbarian invaders a mere 3500 years ago. Each side believes that ideological commitment blinds the other side from seeing the true facts. Western supporters of the invasion theory are accused of intellectual inertia. They are also diagnosed as suffering from "the Liberal White Man's Burden" — the guilt that some Western scholars and journalists feel for the sins of their fathers in perpetrating racism and imperialism in modern times. This predisposes them to believe in the idea that their Aryan ancestors committed similar crimes 3500 years ago. It is argued that the desire of Western liberals to atone for these sins inclines them to support uncritically Indian leftist views on the Aryan invasion. As for Western scholars who question the Aryan invasion theory, they are accused of being sympathetic to the Indian right wing and, if they have no affiliation with academic institutions, of lacking the credentials to justify commenting on history. This debate can be followed on the Internet and is interesting in its own right. 4 Recent advances in molecular genetics have opened a promising approach to settle these questions, although the evidence at this stage remains inconclusive. Bamshad et al. studied the DNA of people from the Andhra region of Southern India and compared them to Africans, Europeans and East Asians.4 The mitochondrial DNA (transmitted matrilineally) of all castes was more similar to that of East Asians than of Africans or Europeans. The DNA of the Y-chromosome (transmitted patrilineally) of all castes was however more similar to that of Europeans than of East Asians or Africans. Moreover the higher castes were more similar to Europeans than were the lower castes. The authors conclude that "Indians are of proto-Asian origin with West Eurasian admixture" due to the Aryan invasion. The majority of the Aryan invaders were men who transmitted their European Y-chromosome to their sons born from the native women and placed themselves at the top of the caste hierarchy. But the maternal lineage remains largely "proto-Asian." The analogy, not explicitly stated in the paper, corresponds to Latin American countries where the conquistadors mated with native women to produce a largely mestizo population, with those at the high end of the social scale having the highest proportion of European ancestry. However, there are inconsistencies in the data. In Table 3,5 the lower castes are closer to Asians than to Europeans and the higher castes are closer to the Europeans than to Asians but not very much so. But in Table 46 all castes are much closer to Europeans than to Asians. Then in Table 5,7 the lower castes are again closer to Asians. In Table 4, the upper castes have a "genetic distance" of 0.265 from West Europeans and 0.073 from East Europeans. This would imply that East Europeans are closer to upper caste Indians than they are to West Europeans! The one set of data that does not use a calculation of "genetic distance" and which is therefore more reliable is Table 2.8 This table shows that the upper castes have 61% Asian maternal lineages, 23.7% West Eurasian lineages and 15.3% other. However, the 23.7% West Eurasian number includes 16.9% from the U2i lineage that the paper itself says is India-specific, and moreover is 50,000 years old.9 Therefore in calculating the fraction of West Eurasian lineages that Aryan women brought into India with the 1500 B.C.E. invasion, the U2i component should be subtracted. Only 6.8% of maternal lineages of the upper castes could have come with the invasion. The invasion looks very conquistador-like indeed! 5 Another recent paper has looked at the genetics of the Indian population: Kivisild et al.10 The authors state that "Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have received limited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene."11 They looked at some markers on the Y-chromosome that are widespread among Greeks and other Europeans and found that of the 325 Indian chromosomes of diverse caste and geographical background, none had these markers. From statistical considerations, this implied that the European contribution to male lineages in India is less than 3%. Kivisild et al. also suggest "early southern Asian Pleistocene coastal settlers from Africa would have provided the inocula for the subsequent differentiation of the distinctive eastern and western Eurasian gene pools." Other researchers, such as Macaulay et al., take this suggestion further.12 They claim to have found evidence that there was only a single dispersal of modern humans from Africa and that this dispersal was through India. According to this account, several generations of the ancestors of all non-African people would have lived in India. The ancestors of Western Eurasians (including Europeans) would have spent several thousand years in India until the climate improved to allow them to migrate North and West out of India about 45000 years ago. 6 Let us go back now to how the commonly accepted date of 1500 B.C.E. for the Aryan Invasion of India was proposed. It is not based on any archaeological evidence, but instead was based on Friedrich Max Mueller's linguistic work in the nineteenth century explaining the similarity of the Indo-European languages. In his view, the speakers of the Indo-European languages are descended from Japheth, one of the sons of Noah, the speakers of Hebrew from Shem and Africans and Indian Dravidians from Ham, the least favored of Noah's sons (Ham and his line were accursed because of Ham's disrespect of Noah). Since the Flood can be dated from the genealogies of the Bible to be around 2500 B.C.E. and the Vedas were ancient scripture at the time of the Buddha (around 500 B.C.E.), the Aryans (said Max Mueller) likely invaded India and defeated the Dravidian descendants of Ham around 1500 B.C.E. Around the same time, the Israeli descendants of Shem were defeating another of Ham's descendants, the Canaanites. Max Mueller dated the composition of the earliest of the Vedas to around 1200 B.C.E., allowing the Aryans a few centuries to get settled in India. 7 Those who challenge the Aryan invasion theory, however, believe the Vedas to be much older than 1200 B.C.E. A key piece of evidence is that the Sarasvati is the most important river in the Rig Veda but is at present a small stream that gets lost in the desert. Proponents for an ancient date for the composition of the Vedas argue that since the river dried up in about 1900 B.C.E., the Vedas must have been composed before then. 8 I expect that the question of whether there was an Aryan invasion and whether it occurred around 1500 B.C. E. will be resolved soon by a combination of genetic studies and by geologists dating the ancient courses of dried-up rivers in the Indian desert. In the meantime, teachers of history and textbooks would do well to present both sides of the debate instead of ignoring the existence of the debate. Biographical Note: Padma Manian received her B.A. from Madras University, India and her Ph.D. in History from Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. She taught World History for five years at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse. She now teaches U.S. History and Women's History at San Jose City College, California. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes 1 The author would like to thank Professor David Fahey of Miami University, Ohio for his valuable suggestions in improving this manuscript. 2 Padma Manian, "Harappans and Aryans: Old and New Perspectives of Ancient Indian History," The History Teacher 32:1 (November 1998), 17-32. 3 See, for example, Mark Kenoyer's essay at: www.harappa.com/indus/indus3.html (1996). 4 Bamshad et al., "Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations," Genome Research 11 (2001), 994-1004. Also available at: www.genome.org/cgi/doi/10.1101/gr.173301. 5 Bamshad, 998. 6 Bamshad, 999. 7 Bamshad, 1000. 8 Bamshad, 996. 9 Bamshad, 1000. 10 Kivisild et al., "The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal and Caste Populations," Amerian Journal of Human Genetics 72 (2003), 313-332. Also available at http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2003_v72_p313-332.pdf. 11 The Holocene refers to a period beginning approximately 11,000 years ago. 12 Macaulay et al., "Single Rapid Costal Settlement of Asia Revealed by Analysis of Complete Mitochondrial Genomes," Science 308 (2005), 1034-1036. Also available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5724/1034?ijkey=QWTbNGl4UEtZk&keytype=ref&siteid=sci. http://worldhistoryconnected.press.uiuc.edu/3.2/manian.html

Posted by: Kaushal May 8 2006, 08:17 AM

QUOTE
Why Is Hindu Pride Tied Up With Origin of Aryans?
This is the wrong question to ask.The real question is why is European pride tied up to the origin of the(mythical,as in nonexistent) Aryans My answer is part of the paper on http://kosal.us/Mathematics/MathPartII.html
QUOTE
The original preoccupation of the European (to some extent true to this day) was to find the roots of his/her own language, which till the advent of Sanskrit was assumed to have been derived from Hebrew. The notion of a Hebraic origin was hardly very popular in Europe steeped as it was in anti Semitism. Therefore, when Sanskrit was first discovered, the notion that there was a race of noble Aryans who were their putative ancestors was then greeted with a great deal of enthusiasm once they had disposed of the prior suspicion that they were descended from the teeming millions of India. The corollary to this proposition was that the denizens of the Indian subcontinent could not possibly have an antiquity greater than that of Greece or that of Pericles and the Shakespearean vision of the golden age of the Hellenic civilization. It was the conflict with his strict belief in the Creation theory postulated in the bible that led Sir William to lop of 1200 years from the Puranic history of India and to further postulate that the contemporary of Megasthenes , the Greek historian who visited India around 300 BCE was Chandragupta Maurya and not the Chandragupta of the Imperial Gupta dynasty. We have already alluded to the postulate adhered to by almost all Indologists in the western world, that the Saraswati Sindhu civilization had little to do with the Vedic civilization in http://kosal.us/Mathematics/MathPartI.htm of this series and we have described in great detail the efforts by the Colonial Power to undermine the Civilizational unity of India in http://kosal.us/The%20South%20Asia%20File.html We wish to emphasize once again that the net result of all these efforts was to change the complexion of the debate. What was once a search for the roots of their own languages has now been transformed into, in their words, an obsession on the part of the Hindu right wing to prove that the Aryans were indigenous to India. This is undoubtedly a very astute strategy on their part since it takes the limelight of their own obsession to find a Urheimat for their group of languages and the fact that from the inception the postulates of dating Indic history have been political rather than academic in nature. The entire dating of the revisionist Indic history by the British and the Europeans has been a political enterprise right from the start. So, now when the argument is made that political considerations are driving the Hindu right wing in their opposition to theories such as the AIT, regardless of the truth of such an allegation, it ignores the glaring fact that it has always been so. It is sad that a section of the Indic populace has internalized this revisionist view of Indic History propounded primarily by Europeans and it is important to remember that AIT is crucial to validate their racial view of civilizations and people and their sense of self esteem. They had to reconcile what was obviously a vast dependence on the contributions of the Semitic speaking people primarily along the Mediterranean Sea. In AIT they saw their opportunity to portray themselves as the progenitors of a vast Eurasian civilization without aligning themselves too closely to the brown skinned people of India. The conclusion is inescapable that while validating the AIT is not crucial to the pride of the Indic other than that it robbed him of his own authentic history, the debunking of AIT would have a devastating effect on the European weltanschauung of the roots of his own civilization. Indics in general for understandable reasons tend to be Indocentric and look to their own psyche to comprehend the nature of this paradigm. We, the Indics, would be much better served if we sought to understand the motivations and psyche of the European, at least in this instance or in other words to understand why there is such a constant emphasis on Eurocentrism in the European psyche. We will now discuss the anomalies in the assumptions made by European writers of Indic history and the evidence supporting our contention and see how devastating they were to a proper understanding and appreciation of Indic history and to a proper understanding of the Indic contribution to the sciences of antiquity.

Posted by: Husky May 13 2006, 04:38 PM

The following is in relation to post 261 in the http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1091&st=240, but it fits far better in here. (I did not want to further sidetrack that thread) //-------------------------------------------------------------------------// I forgot to add a few things yesterday: (1) About the Irish Gaelic word Aire Just because the word is spelled close enough to Iranian Airya and means 'freeman' doesn't mean we should jump to conclusions. For instance, the Irish lead singer of the New Age Irish band Clannad has the following name: Maire Brennan. It's written Maire, but pronounced Moya! Likewise, her sister's name is written Eithne Ni. It's pronounced Enya. Fortunately, those who market Enya's music, have ensured that she becomes famous under the phonetic spelling (Enya is not the way it is traditionally spelled when written in English). Irish, Welsh and possibly Scottish Gaelic are deceptively spelled when it comes to writing their words in English. What's written is often not at all what is pronounced. And so far, I have found very little consistency in the spelling rules. What is written Maire and pronounced Moya might not indicate how the written word Aire is pronounced at all! (Enya - Eithne Ni and Maire - Moya, already shows that the final 'ya' sound of Gaelic is not written consistently using the Roman alphabet). We in effect don't know how similar or not the Irish Gaelic word Aire is to Arya in reality. (The meaning of freeman is not similar to Arya's meaning either.) We have more chance of pondering the similarities between Arya and any German equivalent. Taking the translation of it as 'noble', the word for that in German is adel (probably Aethel in Old German). The starting 'a'/'ae' is pronounced as the 'a' in English 'have'. Not like either 'a' or 'aa' in Sanskrit/Hindi/any N or S Indian language. Other than this German word, I can think of no other words similar in meaning to Arya at present. Which Indo-European language has a word like Arya? This leads me to the Slavic languages. Do they have any matching word (not recently introduced with the AIT), both in meaning and close enough in pronunciation? (2) The Uralic language family, of which the two branches are Finno-Ugric and Samoyed, does have an occurrence of a word that is thought to be related to Arya. Orya, which means slave. This is also mentioned at http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch34.htm

QUOTE
The Uralic term orya, “slave”, from either Iranian airya or Sanskrit Arya, may indicate that their position was not as dignified as that of the Mitannic horse trainers.
I suppose those who like to speculate might gladly want to link this to the Aire of the Irish meaning freeman (opposite of slave). And if, by some miraculous consistency in Gaelic pronunciation rules that I never came across before, Aire is pronounced Oya (like Maire is sounded as Moya) then maybe we can relate it back to the Uralic Orya (slave) and thence to Indian and Iranian Arya (noble, good, righteous). That is a lot of iffs and mere speculation. No doubt some in the west would want to take it up, but it says precious little that any so-called Aryans were enslaved by the Finns/other Uralic speakers in the Asian landmass, and only finally became free when they settled in Ireland. Nevertheless they might see it as AIT, Q.E.D. If they wanted to, they could do it. They have already made remarkable unsupported leaps of logic before in their linguistic round-table speculations, working with even less 'evidence'. Personally if that ever happens, I'll look forward to the Indologists renaming the AIT and the fictive Aryans to the OIT and the Oyans. Or, better: Oryans. The Oryan Invasion Theory: the invasion of the Slaves. However, I suspect this would not be quite desirable for the western indologists.

Posted by: acharya May 14 2006, 09:28 AM

http://www.indhistory.com/aryan.html Aryans Who Were the Aryans? The Aryans were semi-nomadic Nordic Whites, perhaps located originally on the steppes of southern Russia and Central Asia, who spoke the parent language of the various Indo-European languages. Latin, Greek, Hittite, Sanskrit, French, German, Latvian, English, Spanish, Russian etc. are all Indo-European languages; Indo-European, or more properly Proto-Indo-European (PIE), is the lost ancestral language from which those languages ultimately derive. The "Proto" indicates that the grammar and vocabulary of this long extinct language, probably spoken up until 3000 BC, are a hypothetical reconstruction by modern philologists. Just as Romance languages like Italian and Spanish derive from Latin, so Latin derives from PIE. Indo-European philology traditionally used "Aryan" both to denote a people, understood racially or ethnically, and the language group itself ("Aryan speech"), irrespective of the race or ethnicity of the people speaking its various branches. In the wake of National Socialist Germany's defeat, the term fell out of general scholarly use in both senses, and "Indo-European" (IE) became the preferred designation of the language group, "Indo-Europeans" of both the people who occupied the original Aryan homeland and their descendants, who gradually spread out across Europe, much of the Indian sub-continent, and parts of the Near East. Racial nationalists are not, of course, obliged to adopt the timid PC-lexicon of contemporary scholarship, but we should be aware of imprecision of "Aryan" as a racial or ethnic classification. Arya, meaning "noble," appears in various Indo-European languages. Its plural form (Aryas="nobles") was probably the name the Aryans used to describe themselves prior to their dispersal, and it may survive in Eire (Ireland) and certainly survives in Iran (Airyanam vaejo="realm of the Aryans"). The discovery of thousands of such cognate words in widely separated languages, along with similar grammatical structures, led philologists to conclude, early in the nineteenth century, that most European languages had evolved from a common proto-language spoken millennia ago by a distinct people who gradually left their original homeland in a series of migrations, carrying their language with them. Traditionally Greek, Latin and Sanskrit were considered the closest languages to PIE, and much of the reconstructed Aryan proto-language is based on them. Modern Lithuanian, however, is the most archaic living language, closer to the original Aryan speech than any other. There is even an IE language, Tocharian, attested in Chinese Turkestan, which indicates that Aryans must have made an appearance in the Far East, a long-standing piece of linguistic evidence which has been recently confirmed by the discovery of the physical remains of a blond-haired people in China. One Model of Indo-European ("Aryan") Migration Perhaps the most famous proof for the prehistoric existence of PIE is the word for king: rex in Latin, raja in Sanskrit, ri in Old Irish, along with a host of other cognates. All are obviously variants of a common word for king. Since none of the peoples speaking these various languages were in physical contact with one another during the historical period -- i.e. at a time for which written records exist -- comparative philologists inferred that their respective languages must have evolved from a single proto-language, which is the only way of explaining the presence of the same word for "king" among such widely dispersed peoples. The Romans clearly didn't borrow rex from the Irish or the Indo-Aryans; each had instead inherited their own word for "king" from a common ancestral language. Philologists can also, moreover, safely conclude that the Aryans must have had kings prior to emigrating from their original homeland in southern Russia. In fact a fairly detailed body of evidence about prehistoric Aryan political organization, marriage practices, and religious beliefs can be reconstructed on the basis of the survival of common vocabulary in the various extant Indo-European languages: They worshiped a sky-god, they traced descent through the male line, they raised cattle, they drank meed, they used horse-drawn chariots (which they probably invented) as weapons of war, etc. Even the red, white and blue/green that appears in so many modern flags may have an Aryan pedigree. It is likely a survival from the Aryan tripartite social division of their communities into priests (white), warriors (red), and herders and cultivators (blue/green). Aryans, or more specifically Indo-Aryans, make their first notable appearance in history around 2000-1500 BC as invaders of Northern India. The Sanskrit Rig Veda, a collection of religious texts still revered by modern Hindus, records (often enigmatically) their gradual subjugation of the dark-skinned inhabitants, the Dasyus: e.g. "Indra [=Norse Thor, Celtic Taranis] has torn open the fortresses of the Dasyus, which in their wombs hid the black people. He created land and water for Manu [=Aryan man]"; "lower than all besides, hast thou, O Indra, cast down the Dasyus, abject tribes of Dasas"; "after slaying the Dasyus, let Indra with his white friends win land, let him win the sun and water"; "Indra subdued the Dasyu color and drove it into hiding." With all-outstripping chariot-wheel, O Indra, Thou, far-famed, hast overthrown the twice ten kings ... Thou goest from fight to fight, intrepidly Destroying castle after castle here with strength. (RV 1.53) The Aryans were remarkably expansionist, and almost everywhere they went they conquered and subjugated the indigenous peoples, imposing their languages and (to varying degrees) their religious beliefs on the natives, and receiving in turn contributions from the peoples whom they conquered. biggrin.gif Aryan invasions -- or more accurately, a long sequence of different invasions by speakers of Indo-European languages -- swept across Old Europe beginning as early as the fourth millennium BC, and over time the conquerors and the conquered melded into specific peoples with distinctive languages. clap.gif Most of the contemporary inhabitants of Europe, along with their respective early national cultures, are the result of interaction between successive waves of Aryan invaders and culture of the particular White people that they conquered and with whom they later intermarried, and as a result almost all modern European languages are members of the Western branch of the IE family tree. The birth of a European culture, however, predates the arrival of the Indo-Europeans: The cave art of Lascaux, which some have identified as the first flowering of Western man's creative genius, was the work of Old Europeans, as were Stonehenge in the North and the Minoan Palace culture of Crete in the South. A pan-European religious symbolism had already evolved, much of which was later incorporated into IE mythologies, including various regional adaptations of the ubiquitous Old European reverence for the Mother Goddess. Many of the principal figures in Greek mythology predate the arrival of Aryans, and during the course of ancient history Old European religious beliefs and practices continually reasserted themselves. [Image: Minoan snake goddess, from the Palace of Minos, circa 1600 BC] Europe is European because the conquerors and the conquered were members the same White race, different branches on the same family tree; India is a morass of poverty because the bulk of the conquered, with whom the Indo-Aryans eventually intermarried, were non-White Veddoids. The lesson is obvious. Even today high-caste Hindus can still be identified by their Caucasian features and light skin, and the poorest and most backward parts of India are generally the darkest. biggrin.gif As an aside, recent genetic studies have indicated that the Basques of Aquitaine and the Pyrenees are probably the purest form of Old Europeans as they existed prior to the arrival of Indo-European invaders. They evidently emerged from the invasions of Europe unconquered, and they remained sufficiently isolated to retain their own unique, non-IE language. user posted image

Posted by: dhu Jun 6 2006, 10:02 PM

Apparently the indian art of acupuncture made its way to europe at the time of indic expansion... There is, however, no evidence for IE presence in interior europe at 3000 BC. Probably, we are looking at a technology influx that was followed by a later wave of indic migrants from the oxus civilizations which had materialized on "sterile soil" ... These "oxus"-centered civilizations were, in all probability, indic colonies... the role of indic acupuncture technologies in the domestication of animals needs to be further explored....

QUOTE
http://www.alternative-doctor.com/home_page_articles/SLacupuncture.htmIn 1991 Oetzi the "Ice Man" was discovered mummified in the Tyrolean Alps. His frozen corpse has dated from 5,200 years ago. ..... ...X-rays of the ice man's body revealed evidence of arthritis in the hip joints, knees, ankles and lumbar spine. Nine of the mummy's 15 tattoos are located on the urinary bladder meridian, a meridian commonly associated with treating back pain. In fact, one of the mummy's two cross-shaped tattoos is located near the left ankle on point UB60, which is considered by several texts a "master point for back pain."3-5 "The fact that not randomly selected points, but rather corresponding groups of points were marked by tattoos, seems especially intriguing," the researchers noted. "From an acupuncturist's viewpoint, the combination of points selected represents a meaningful therapeutic regimen." [References: 1. Dorfer L, et al. A medical report from the stone age? Lancet Sep 18, 1999;354:1023-5. 2. Glausiusz J. The ice man healeth. Discover February 2000..... ...Sri Lanka almost certainly originated acupuncture. Small pointed bones and needles of flint, quartz, chert and other hard substances have been found among cave artefacts, going back over 30,000 years. Swiss archeologists Sarasin and Sarasin report these being used for acupuncture, as well as the obvious tattooing and stitching ("Steinzeit auf Zeylan", 1908). Moreover, ancient Sri Lankan manuscripts depict acupuncture points mapped on the human body. Acupuncture was also used on animals. The probable reason that the Indian (Sri Lankan) elephant was successfully tamed is that acupuncture points were worked out that calmed the beasts and enabled them to be communicated with and trained. These are shown quite clearly in the accompanying illustrations, which considerably pre-date (500 years older) the now less important Yellow Emperor's Book..... ....The African elephant, of course, has never been trained. Remember that Hannibal crossed the Alps on Asian elephants, from along the spice route. "Nobody knows the acupuncture points needed to train an African elephant," points out Professor Jayasuriya......
user posted image user posted image

Posted by: ben_ami Jun 11 2006, 03:34 PM

europeans came to europe from africa afterall !! http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter5/text5.htm check out the curly "pepper-corn" hair of the Venus of Willendorf, found in austria, dating from 25000 years ago. so many thousand years in the cold climate, turned their complexion white and their hair straight and blonde.

Posted by: acharya Jun 11 2006, 09:14 PM

user posted image Fig 1. A tree showing the phylogenetic position of the complete mtDNA sequences of Andaman and Nicobar islanders. O, G, and N represent Onges, Great Andamanese. and Nicobarese lineages. respectively; kya = thousands of years ago. Coalescent times of haplogroups M, N and R were obtained from Mishmar et al. (10); a A mutation rate of 1.26 x 10-8 was used for other haplogroups estimated from the present data (7. 10).

Posted by: dhu Jun 12 2006, 06:56 AM

According to the above, N has one branch which is seen in papuans. In his Appendix 1, Oppenheimer also gives data for one pre-nasreen line in west malaysia. R (Rohani) is the indian specific (most prolific) branching of N whose descendants include U (europa) and JT. Probably, we can make a strong claim for N formation in greater South asia, as opposed to the gulf. The papuan descendent of Rohani is haplo P, acc to oppenheimer. Entire history of the world needs to be re-written. for example, the word koti is sanskrit for ten million and is obviously of kentum extraction. koti went transformation into sata and was itself given a more generic meaning of 'innumerable'.. Witzel moron has been under crusade to banish every initial k sanskritic word to the austric domain. as in kosala, kumara, kikata, etc.

QUOTE
http://vedabase.net/k/koti abda-koṭi — millions of years; SB 1.11.9 kirīṭa-koṭi — millions of helmets; SB 3.2.21 koṭi — ten million; SB 3.11.40 koṭi — of millions; SB 5.17.4 pañcāśat-koṭi — 500,000,000 yojanas; SB 5.20.38 sapāda-koṭi-dvayam — two and a quarter crores (22,500,000); SB 5.21.10 nava-koṭi-yojana — of 90,000,000 yojanas; SB 5.21.19 koṭi — of millions; SB 6.2.7 aṇḍa-koṭi-koṭibhiḥ — millions of such universes; SB 6.16.37 rājanya-saṃjña-asura-koṭi-yūtha-paiḥ — with millions of demons and their followers in the roles of politicians and kings; SB 10.3.21 catuḥ-mukuṭa-koṭi-bhiḥ — with the tips of his four crowns; SB 10.13.62 koṭi — millions; SB 10.66.39 koṭi — ten million; CC Adi 1.37 koṭi — ten million; CC Adi 1.39 koṭī — millions; CC Adi 1.85-86 koṭi-koṭīṣu — in millions and millions; CC Adi 2.14 koṭī — tens of millions; CC Adi 2.15 koṭī — tens of millions; CC Adi 2.15 koṭi — ten million; CC Adi 3.79 koṭi-guṇa — ten million times greater; CC Adi 4.126 koṭi-guṇa — ten million times more; CC Adi 4.133 koṭi — ten million; CC Adi 4.151 koṭi-guṇa — ten million times; CC Adi 4.186 koṭi-guṇa — ten million times more; CC Adi 4.187 koṭi-kāma — ten million Cupids; CC Adi 4.242-243 koṭi-indu — like millions upon millions of moons; CC Adi 4.247 koṭi — ten millions; CC Adi 5.97 koṭi — ten millions; CC Adi 5.119 koṭi-candra — millions upon millions of moons; CC Adi 5.188 koṭi-brahmāṇḍa — millions of universes; CC Adi 6.11 koṭi aṃśa — millions of parts and parcels; CC Adi 6.13 koṭi śakti — millions and millions of energies; CC Adi 6.13 koṭi avatāra — millions upon millions of incarnations; CC Adi 6.13 koṭi-brahmāṇḍera kartā — the creator of millions and millions of universes; CC Adi 6.21 koṭī-brahma-sukha — ten million times the transcendental bliss of becoming one with the Absolute; CC Adi 6.44 koṭi namaskāra — offering obeisances ten million times; CC Adi 6.116 koṭi-samudra agādha — as unfathomable as the millions of seas and oceans; CC Adi 6.117 koṭi koṭi — innumerable; CC Adi 7.16 koṭi koṭi — innumerable; CC Adi 7.16 koṭi — millions; CC Adi 7.60 koṭi — countless; CC Adi 7.170 koṭi — millions; CC Adi 8.40 koṭi koṭi — hundreds and thousands; CC Adi 10.160 koṭi koṭi — hundreds and thousands; CC Adi 10.160 koṭi — millions; CC Adi 12.76 koṭi koṭi — hundreds and thousands; CC Adi 15.21 koṭi koṭi — hundreds and thousands; CC Adi 15.21 koṭi-janma — for ten million births; CC Adi 17.51 koṭi janma — for ten million births; CC Adi 17.52 koṭi — ten million; CC Adi 17.96 koṭi — unlimited; CC Madhya 1.26 koṭi koṭi — hundreds of thousands; CC Madhya 1.152 koṭi koṭi — hundreds of thousands; CC Madhya 1.152 koṭi-sańkhya loka — an unlimited number of people; CC Madhya 1.164 koṭi koṭi — innumerable; CC Madhya 1.167 koṭi koṭi — innumerable; CC Madhya 1.167 koṭī koṭī — millions and millions; CC Madhya 1.196 koṭī koṭī — millions and millions; CC Madhya 1.196 lakṣa-koṭi — hundreds and thousands; CC Madhya 1.224 koṭī koṭī — many thousands of men; CC Madhya 1.272 koṭī koṭī — many thousands of men; CC Madhya 1.272 koṭi-candra — like the light of millions of moons; CC Madhya 2.34 koṭi — millions; CC Madhya 3.146 janma-koṭi — of millions of births; CC Madhya 8.70 śata-koṭi — hundreds of thousands; CC Madhya 8.109 śata-koṭi — hundreds of thousands; CC Madhya 8.116 koṭi — ten million times; CC Madhya 8.208 koṭi — ten million times; CC Madhya 8.210 koṭi-sukha — ten million times more happiness; CC Madhya 8.213 koṭī — ten million; CC Madhya 8.311 koṭi-samudra — as millions of oceans; CC Madhya 9.125 koṭi — millions of times; CC Madhya 10.140 koṭi-sūrya-sama — equal to the shining of millions of suns; CC Madhya 11.95 koṭi-bhakta — of millions of devotees; CC Madhya 12.214 koṭi bhoga — millions of dishes; CC Madhya 13.196 koṭi-guṇa — millions of times more; CC Madhya 14.179 koṭi-guṇitam — millions upon millions times more; CC Madhya 14.181 koṭi-phale — millions of fruits; CC Madhya 15.172 koṭi — millions; CC Madhya 15.172 koṭi — of millions; CC Madhya 15.179 koṭi-sevā — millions of times the service; CC Madhya 16.132 lakṣa-koṭi loka — many hundreds of thousands of people; CC Madhya 16.208 lakṣa koṭi — hundreds of thousands; CC Madhya 16.265-266 lakṣa-koṭi — many thousands and millions; CC Madhya 17.73 koṭi-granthe — in millions of books; CC Madhya 17.231 koṭi-janmera — of many millions of births; CC Madhya 18.205 koṭi-karma-niṣṭha-madhye — among millions of such performers of fruitive activities according to Vedic principles; CC Madhya 19.147 koṭi-jñāni-madhye — out of many millions of such wise men; CC Madhya 19.148 koṭi-mukta-madhye — out of many millions of such liberated persons; CC Madhya 19.148 koṭi-koṭiṣu — in millions and millions; CC Madhya 20.160 ananta-koṭi brahmāṇḍa — millions and trillions of brahmāṇḍas, or universes; CC Madhya 20.284 koṭī — ten million; CC Madhya 21.4 koṭi — ten millions; CC Madhya 21.20 kirīṭa-koṭi — by millions of helmets; CC Madhya 21.33 koṭi — ten million; CC Madhya 21.67 lakṣa koṭi-vadana — possessing a hundred thousand and ten million faces; CC Madhya 21.68 koṭi — ten million; CC Madhya 21.68 pañcāśat koṭi yojana — four billion miles; CC Madhya 21.84 śata-koṭi — one billion yojanas; CC Madhya 21.85 lakṣa-koṭi — one trillion yojanas; CC Madhya 21.85 niyuta-koṭi — ten trillion; CC Madhya 21.85 koṭi-koṭi — one hundred trillion; CC Madhya 21.85 koṭi-koṭi — one hundred trillion; CC Madhya 21.85 lakṣa-koṭi — thousands and millions; CC Madhya 21.133 koṭi āńkhi — millions of eyes; CC Madhya 21.134 koṭi-brahmāṇḍa — consisting of innumerable universes; CC Madhya 23.79-81 lakṣa koṭi — hundreds of thousands; CC Madhya 25.174 koṭi-granthe — in millions of books; CC Madhya 25.263 koṭī — ten million; CC Antya 3.27 koṭi-samudra haite — more than millions of seas; CC Antya 3.47 koṭi-nāma-grahaṇa — chanting ten million names; CC Antya 3.124 koṭi-janme — after millions upon millions of births; CC Antya 3.194 koṭi-brāhmaṇa-bhojana — feeding ten million brāhmaṇas; CC Antya 3.222 koṭi-kalpe — in millions of kalpas; CC Antya 3.255 koṭi-deha — millions of bodies; CC Antya 4.55 koṭī sūrya — hundreds of thousands of suns; CC Antya 6.44 koṭi-cintāmaṇi-lābha — obtaining millions of cintāmaṇi stones; CC Antya 9.95 koṭi-sukha-poṣa — millions of times more happiness; CC Antya 10.8 koṭi aparādha — ten million offenses; CC Antya 10.96 koṭi-bhakta — millions of devotees; CC Antya 11.40 koṭi-indu — than ten million moons; CC Antya 15.14 koṭi-indu — millions upon millions of moons; CC Antya 15.21 koṭi — ten million; CC Antya 15.56 koṭi-candra — millions upon millions of moons; CC Antya 15.76 koṭi — millions upon millions; CC Antya 16.93 koṭi-yuga — millions of millenniums; CC Antya 18.14 koṭi namaskāra — hundreds and thousands of obeisances; CC Antya 19.19 koṭī-samudra-gambhīra — as deep as millions of oceans; CC Antya 20.66 koṭi-kiñjalka — by millions of filaments; Bs 5.26 koṭi — millions; Bs 5.30 koṭi-śata — thousands of millions; Bs 5.34 koṭi-koṭiṣu — in millions and millions; Bs 5.40

Posted by: ben_ami Jun 12 2006, 07:22 AM

QUOTE(dhu @ Jun 12 2006, 07:26 PM)
Entire history of the world needs to be re-written.
can you give us a insight inbto the new look world history that should come in future?? no AIT and indians originated in india is obviously one of them. what other MAIN differences from history as we know it should be there?? that europeans are white africans??

Posted by: dhu Jun 12 2006, 09:19 PM

ben ami, you shold take a look at David Frawley's new article on the AIT which combines all the recent developments: http://www.vedanet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=2&limit=1&limitstart=0 This article is just a plain masterpiece.

Posted by: acharya Jun 12 2006, 11:16 PM

Myth of Aryan Invasion Update PDF | Print | Email Written by Dr. David Frawley Page 1 of 7 2005 Edition Preface The Myth of the Aryan Invasion was first written in 1994 in order to summarize important new information on the ancient history of India that refutes commonly held views on the subject inherited from the nineteenth century. It was a condensation of longer material from books of mine like Gods, Sages and Kings, Vedic Aryans and the Origins of Civilization (with N.S. Rajaram) and In Search of the Cradle of Civilization (with Georg Feuerstein and Subhash Kak). The 2001 update reflected my recent book Rigveda and the History of India that pushed the Vedic horizon further into the South India. The current 2005 edition reflects information from a new book that N.S. Rajaram and I are completing for the Swaminarayan movement and their new Delhi temple Akshardham, the largest to come up in the city in perhaps centuries, and its cultural displays. That book (Ancient India: From Oceanic Origins to the End of the Sarasvati) will take the origins of the Vedic age further back in time and in the direction of Southeast Asia. The amount of information available relative to ancient India is now much more extensive than that considered in old textbooks still used in India’s schools and in most schools in the West. Numerous new archaeological finds, including several larger than Harappa, the geology of the Sarasvati River, the natural history of the region, Southeast Asia as the homeland for most human populations prior to the end of the last Ice Age, new views of genetics, new theories of linguistics, archaeo-astronomy, and a greater sensitivity to Vedic texts and their vast spiritual and cultural implications, are only part of the new fabric to be woven in order to really understand ancient India. Whether one may agree with the details, it is clear that the ancient history of India needs to be totally recast. The history and cultural heritage of India is largely an indigenous development of the same basic peoples that have inhabited the region for over ten thousand years, as they have adapted to their environment and also discovered its spiritual essence in its great mountains, rivers and oceans. It is time to look at the history and culture of India as a whole, organically, and in an integral manner according to its own internal impetus as the primary factor. Older views of India based on outside migrations, external cultural influences and foreign borrowings as the primary forces are the products of a failure to understand the real soul and spirit of India. In the twenty first century in which the antiquity of cultures all over the world is being extended back centuries, if not thousands of years, there is no need to keep the history of India frozen around speculative events of 1500 BCE that have so far failed to prove themselves. It is time to open the door on India’s great ancient heritage that takes us back to the very dawn of time. This primary message of the book remains the same. More on the Southern Connection: The Findings of Natural History Southeast Asia and the End of the Ice Age Migrations Probably the most important development in the study of ancient India over the last five or ten years has been new evidence relative to genetics and natural history. This shows the antiquity of Indian populations in India and a strong connection with Southeast Asia going back to the Ice Age period. Such information supports the southern connection to the Vedic culture based that I have proposed, starting with the maritime symbolism of the Rig Veda highlighted in my first book on the subject Gods, Sages and Kings (1991). It was an important theme in my Rig Veda and the History of India (2001) and in previous editions of this current volume. These connections have also been addressed in books and articles by Subhash Kak, S. Kalyanaraman, N.S. Rajaram and many others. The more specific scientific data on the importance of Southeast Asia as a possible source of most ancient post-Ice Age cultures can be found in the work of Stephen Oppenheimer as in his books like Eden in the East. The southern basis for the Vedic culture is based upon two important points of natural history. The first is the geology of the Sarasvati River in the post-Ice Age period. The second is the dominance of South India and Southeast Asia as a major site of human habitation during the Ice Age period, and migration from it in the post-Ice Age era – when the region was flooded – as probably the main impetus for the development of cultures to the north and west extending perhaps as far as Europe. We have already discussed the first major point of natural history relative to ancient India in the earlier sections of the book. The development of agriculture and urban civilization in ancient India was based upon the geology of the Sarasvati River, which arose as a mighty river towards the later period of the last Ice Age over 10,000 years ago, and lost its perennial flow, owing to the later climate changes and the melting of the main glaciers in the 2200-1500 BCE era. This Vedic-Sarasvati culture, relative to its geology, lasted from around 10,000-2000 BCE, when the Sarasvati was the dominant river in North India. This perennial great Sarasvati defines the main period of the development of Vedic culture, Vedic kingdoms and the late Vedic era, when the Sarasvati began to decline. This is roughly the period from the older Rigvedic Hymns to the later four Vedas, Brahmanas and early Upanishads, though it is likely that the existent texts which we have were not entirely finalized until the end of this period. Older Patterns: India and Southeast Asia and Human Populations A third important point of natural history is that this movement of populations out of Southeast Asia at the end of the last Ice Age reflects an even older pattern of movements. According to recent science and genetics, modern man arose in Africa about 200,000 years ago and from there spread first into India and Southeast Asia by a coastal migration. According to the geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer, settlements in India appear about 90,000 years ago. From India there were later northeastern and northwestern migrations into Eurasia and the Far East. India has long been a focal point of this movement from Southeast Asia to the Middle East, Central Asia and Europe. Within India, the connections between the structure and vocabulary of the north and the south Indian languages indicate much internal migration of people and diffusion of culture, linking not only India to the Central Asia, but more importantly, India to the Pacific region and to Southeast Asia. In addition, it is not only the Indo-European languages that connect India with Central Asia. The Dravidian languages also have connections with the Altaic family of languages that includes the Japanese, Korean, and the Turkic. That is why western scholars have proposed similar Dravidian migrations into India in late ancient times – a kind of Dravidian invasion theory much like the Aryan Invasion idea, sometimes dated even after it, making the Dravidians into post-Aryan migrants into the region – to explain the connection of Dravidian languages in India with those in Central Asia. This was the view of Bishop Caldwell who first brought up the idea of a Dravidian family of languages. These Aryan and Dravidian invasion models would make the dominant language families of India intruders from the northwest at a late period. Such an idea is contrary to the natural history and the fact that India had stable populations and a cultural continuity throughout the ancient period. A much more likely scenario is that both Dravidian and Sanskritic languages developed in India and their influence spread to the northwest along with the movement of peoples in the Post-Ice Age era. This makes India an important central focus for not only populations, but for many of the languages of the world. One of the main mistakes of modern scholarship, relying uncritically on its own preconceptions about culture, is to not even bother to look for such connections. The artificial barriers put up by old theories that Indian civilization came from the West have to be eliminated. Southeast Asia has been regarded by western historians as an even more a cultural backwater than India because they regard it as having borrowed from India what India itself borrowed from the West! These ideas also need to be set aside. Southeast Asia may prove more important as a cradle for human populations and culture than the Middle East. The idea of India as a cultural patchwork is the result of poor or preliminary scholarship that has been unable to reconstruct the whole, like the blind man who cannot see the elephant as a whole. Once we add in the complete picture as revealed both by the natural history and the literature of the region, what we see instead is India as one of the most important centers not only for human spirituality through its great religions, but also of populations, languages and culture back to the period of prehistory. This is new view of India that will replace the current old worn distortions that are held up more by politics and by inertia than by anything else. In other words, in order to understand ancient India we must look at the natural history, languages, culture and peoples together. We cannot attribute the languages, peoples or culture of India to groups from outside of India, which India absorbed like a vacuum. Languages, peoples and cultures were already there and in abundance, as India has always been a very fertile ground for human development. Nor can we have these cultures like the Harappan mysteriously disappear or become replaced in the late ancient period, particularly when there is no evidence to support it. There is nothing mysterious about Harappan civilization or it’s arise or it’s fall. It is very Indian much like the later classical cultures of the region in arts, crafts, town planning, agriculture, tools or religious symbolism. We cannot divide it off into another stream which left no trace.

Posted by: Mudy Jun 15 2006, 10:49 AM

QUOTE
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Center for Indic Studies June 14, 2006 Conference to Resolve Aryan/Non-Aryan Origin of Indian Civilization Recently, a controversy arose in California which has serious implications in America and elsewhere. Today’s multicultural world requires new noncombative ways of preventing and resolving cultural misunderstandings. The California controversy involves the portrayal of India and Indian origins in the California education system as well as in various textbooks. In response to this, the Center for Indic Studies at UMass Dartmouth has organized a symposium to discuss and debate the essence of the issue: whether Hindus of today are the products of Aryan invasion or survival of indigenous peoples. This will be the first time in a conference on this topic that population geneticists such as Dr. Peter Underhill of Stanford University and Dr. V. K. Kashyap of National Institute of Biologicals, India, will share the stage with prominent international scholars on archeology, history, linguistics, and anthropology to try to resolve the vexed issue of Aryan vs. Indigenous origin of the oldest surviving civilization on earth. “Given the list of speakers and topics being covered, the discussions are going to be hard. I hope we can keep it civil”, commented Dr. Petr Eltsov, of Deutches Archaeologisches Institut, Berlin, Germany. The symposium speakers include Dr. B. B. Lal, former director of Archeological Survey of India, and Dr. N. S. Rajaram, author of a recently published book, SARASVATI RIVER AND THE VEDIC CIVILIZATION (Aditya Prakashan, 2006). The symposium is part of the Fourth Annual Indic Conference organized by the Center for Indic Studies at University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, June 23-25, 2006. The conference will be held at UMass Dartmouth campus, Board of Trustees Room. The conference also includes a symposium on the Indian Family System that will debate issues of philosophy, traditions, and practicality of Indian family culture in modern times. The family symposium will include a presentation by Honorable C. M. Bhandari, Indian Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, on the ways to practice the joint family system in modern times using his own example as a case study. Other topics to be discussed include economics of the Indian family system by Dr. Mona Khaitan of MassBay Community college, and the role of women in Indian family by Dr. Divya Tripathi, DAV College of Girls in India. A workshop on Indian Civilization is also being offered at the conference in an effort to develop a textbook on Indian Civilization for American college students. The workshop will discuss developing introductory course content by experts in Indian science, archeology, astronomy, history, philosophy, dance, music, social structure, politics, culture, and geography, among about two dozen topics of the proposed book. Workshop participants include Drs. Shiva Bajpai of California State University at Northridge , Subhash Kak of Louiana State University, Vanita Shastri of Meru Education Foundation, V. T. Patil, former Vice Chancellor of Pondicherry University, Yvette Rosser of UMass Dartmouth, and R. P. Singh from Jawaharlal Nehru University, among others. Bal Ram Singh, Director of the Center for Indic Studies commented, “I’m very excited about the topic and timing of the conference. It so happened that the focus of this year’s conference was Indian Civilization. The controversy on California textbooks just provided us an extra impetus to contact scholars in the field to put together a symposium on the topic. I am very grateful for the response of scholars to the symposium.” During the conference weekend, a special concert by vocalist par excellence Vidushi Sumitra Guha (www.sumitraguha.com) has been arranged. The concert will be held on the UMass Dartmouth campus Saturday, June 24 at 7:30 PM. The public is welcome. For more information on the conference or about tickets for the concert please contact Dr. Jerry Solfvin via email (jsolfvin@umassd.com), or phone (508-910-6630). And visit the Center for Indic Studies website: http://www.umassd.edu/indic/c2.htm. Bal Ram Singh, Ph.D. Director, Center for Indic Studies University of Massachusetts Dartmouth 285 Old Westport Road Dartmouth, MA 02747 Phone: 508-999-8588 Fax: 508-999-8451 Email: bsingh@umassd.edu Internet address: http://www.umassd.edu/indic

Posted by: bhushan Jun 15 2006, 11:42 PM

One thing has always bothered me that Hindus have focused on the what but not the why in this debate? I don\\\\\\\'t mean the colonial calculation but the present one. There are couple of main reasons why people today believe in this theory. One is inferiority complex by a certain number of people who got educated in the Catholic/Marxist/Macaulite tradition (along with their weakness for white skin) But politically it gets more interesting: On the Indian side you have the leftist and liberals. Their political agenda is divide and rule through the policy of reservations. They know that the argument of historical oppression doesn\\\\\\\'t stand any ground since there is no contemporary evidence that any group was oppressed in ancient India although there is evidence to the contrary (In other words their giant exercise of backward projection is bound to fail) Now during medieval times to present even if certain people were stopped from being upwardly mobile, social/economic conditions have changed and they should have no problem competing on merit. Secondly if the current generation is to pay for the crimes of the past generation (when the victims are all dead) , then Hindus should seek the same form of justice from the Muslim community and India should ask for compensation from the British, Ahoms should be made to pay Nagas, Mizos, and Bodos, and Sikhs should be made to pay Punjabi Hindus. You see how absurd it would get. So the liberals are left with only one essentially racist position: The Forward Castes are decendents of Europeans and therefore superior to the middle castes and the backward castes. If the backward castes are inherently inferior, then they cannot compete on merit and should be given reservations. Now where do they get the premise that Forward Castes are European, well the AIT of course. On the western side they still cling to the Eurocentric world view where every major philosophy, invention, or advance by humanity is a result of the white race or their derivative race (aryans) and they will defend this view of European master race. Christianity and White Imperialism have gone hand in hand for centuries. One may recall the Portuguese and Spanish imperialism and the attendant inquisition or the movement of \\\\\\\"Positive Christianity\\\\\\\" in Nazi Germany. Christianity whether evangelical (right) or Catholic/Lutheran(left) has never given up their dream of a global empire and the AIT can be very useful. There is now the liberation theology which seeks to convert people by couching the debate in the language of social justice and the Aryan myth comes in handy against the backward castes. Many Indians have internalized the anti-hindu propaganda of Christianity, Islam, and Marxism and they will do everything in their power to keep AIT alive. Therefore, we need science/biotechnology to slay this AIT monster. Could someone point me to DNA studies and their conclusions on the Aryan debate?

Posted by: dhu Jun 22 2006, 10:32 PM

QUOTE
There is now the liberation theology which seeks to convert people by couching the debate in the language of social justice and the Aryan myth comes in handy against the backward castes.
IIANM (If I am not mistaken), Liberation theology is a potent cocktail emerging out of the south american communist movements. An eloquently argued facade of native rights attempts to keep the converted faithful from either returning or progressing into the commie netherworld. In the case of heathen India, however, liberation theology entices the heathen into the christian fold. Christianity, Communism, and Islam may be mortal enemies elsewhere, but in India they are all united in final combat against the hindu. Each one of these three ideologies supports the aryan invasion theory.
QUOTE
Many Indians have internalized the anti-hindu propaganda of Christianity, Islam, and Marxism and they will do everything in their power to keep AIT alive.
At some point, they may jettison the AIT as they have jettisoned overt racial superiority in the west. but the assertion will have to be made by the so called lower castes themselves . This may be one of the reasons why it was so important for them to hijack the anti-AIT ambedkar and portray buddhism as a pre-christian liberation theology.

Posted by: dhu Jun 22 2006, 10:40 PM

QUOTE
Could someone point me to DNA studies and their conclusions on the Aryan debate?
see this http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=553

Posted by: agnivayu Jun 23 2006, 09:52 AM

My Personal profile: Race: Aryan Occupation: Invader Interests: Riding horses, composing hyms, reading primitive poems

Posted by: Mudy Jun 23 2006, 10:48 AM

ROTFL.gif ROTFL.gif Same is my profile. cheers.gif

Posted by: Viren Jun 23 2006, 11:22 AM

came via email:

QUOTE
Thanks to xxxxxxxxx for pointing to this painting in Bhimbhetka caves. The painting dated to circa 3000 BCE shows horses. So, the horses were indigenous to Bharatam. Equus caballus did NOT have to be imported into the lives of Bhimbhetka cave dwellers. http://www.art-and-archaeology.com/india/bhi4.html More pictures at http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/mleccha/hurrian01.htm See spoked-wheel chariots on cave paintings: http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/ratha4.htm http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/ratha1.htm Kosambi calls this painting of the dark hero of the yadus weilding a chakra as a charioteer.
QUOTE
I recently came across a website (http://www.art-and-archaeology.com/india/bhi4.html) with a photo of a cave painting from Bhimbetka in MP. This painting was made by vanavasis and is dated 3000BC. It explicitly shows several horse riders. The website mentions that since the painting has horses and since aryans are supposed to have brought horses to India after 1500BC, the dating process itself must be wrong! However, this painting itself and its estimated date of3000BC can be used as yet another proof to counter aryan invasion theory (if it is not yet being used). Please show this to someone working on aryan invasion theory, in case they have not noticed this painting yet. -xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Posted by: dhu Jun 23 2006, 11:53 AM

I wonder why so much brouhaha over the horse. Europe is known for not having domesticated even one plant or animal. all its domesticates are imports from the mideast. and now these jokers want us to believe they domesticated the horse. hahahaha.................. can someone name even one thing domesticated in europe???????

Posted by: unarayanadas Jun 23 2006, 12:09 PM

QUOTE(dhu @ Jun 23 2006, 11:10 AM)
QUOTE
Could someone point me to DNA studies and their conclusions on the Aryan debate?
see this http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=553
*
I have recently read an article in the Indian Express: it was in fact an open letter, Mr.Jagmohan, former BJP/NDA minister wrote to the present prime minister. It appears, just before the NDA government fell, it ordered studies into the Saraswathi Valley Civilisation which predates even the Indus Valley Civilisation. This is because certain geneological studies based on DNA analysis have established links between the earliest inhabitants of Africa from where 'man' has originated and the earliest inhabitants of SVC and not repeat not with the inhabitants of Germany (which is purported to be the home of the Aryans). Of course the myth - or mischief if you like - was invented by another German missionary, a.k.a. Max Muller who claims to have fallen in love with India without ever having seen it. And we swallowed the myth, hook, line and sinker, just because the word of respect used in our mythologicals is semantically similar to the name of the German tribe. The objective of the missionaries was of course to dismantle the prisetly class by driving a wedge between them and the others. They have largely succeeded in this. Today Bharat Varsh is happy hunting ground for religious mercenaries. Mr.Jagmohan urged the prime minister - naively hoping that he calls the shots - not to discontinue the sudies as they are expected to unearth India's hoary and proud past. But will the Italian Dowager listen? I have tried to obtain the web-link to the article to be attached to this message but was unable to open the page.

Posted by: Sudhir Jun 23 2006, 01:07 PM

QUOTE
I wonder why so much brouhaha over the horse.
A single horse in India predating AIT can flush Witzel's entire career. And Steve Farmer's too. They seem to have bet on the wrong horse here ROTFL.gif

Posted by: dhu Jun 24 2006, 05:59 PM

Mleccha and Aratta are both specifically sutra period terms. The Sumerians use these terms, meluhha and aratta, to refer to punjab. I will like this witzel moron to explain how this possible. a steven farmboy will also do.

Posted by: Husky Jun 26 2006, 11:43 PM

Post 223: Obviously the pasted writing is full of nonsense and re-iterations of the classical AIT with disclaimers that they are talking about a linguistic group called Oryans and not an ethnic one (whilst at the same time talking about them Oryans as an ethnicity).

QUOTE
Perhaps the most famous proof for the prehistoric existence of PIE is the word for king: rex in Latin, raja in Sanskrit, ri in Old Irish, along with a host of other cognates. All are obviously variants of a common word for king.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a month or more ago when this was first posted, didn't rex and raja get compared to the English world 'regal' - just like member Benjamin had done in another thread? In any case, the word regal is Middle-English from Old French from Latin Rex, Regis for King. It is to be noted that English came into existence in the 5th or 6th century. That's about 1400 to 1500 years ago. The language of the Dutch is recognised as having split from being a German dialect in the 11th or 12th century. We're left with Old Norse, Old German and of course the extinct Gothic language. English Regal need never have been mentioned by anyone (even were it not derived from Latin), because a language as recent as the 5th or 6th century doesn't even come into question. By the way, what are the "host of other cognates" for king in these languages? Why does Avestan not appear to have a word for king or royalty that starts with an 'r'? Does this put a damper on the whole Eureka moment? Regardless of whether it's Celtic ri or English regal in the argument:
QUOTE
the most famous proof for the prehistoric existence of PIE is the word for king: rex in Latin, raja in Sanskrit, ri in Old Irish
And this is the most famous proof? This??? No it is not. I know the famous proof for how Samskrit, Avesta and Latin are closely related. And this isn't the one. Obviously the author of indhistory (no doubt the same who authored the equally hilariously and purposefully inaccurate india-facts and pakhistory sites) knows so little of European, Iranian and Indian languages that he knows of no greater similarity than this pathetic example that Ben also pulled. There is of course a much greater and more fundamental similarity that anyone with the slightest bit of familiarity with these languages could have discovered and repeated on their site. But obviously the author of indhistory can't be expected to know anything. I don't need to repeat the basic words that are common to Latin and Samskritam here - in any case I don't want to help the author of indhistory with his propaganda nonsense, in case he's getting the contents for his pages from Ben's writings on this site. What a miracle! Raja, rex and ri start with R! Praise be to Allah! If that's all the examples of striking similarities that the author of indhistory can provide, what to say of the following: Mother and father in Tamil are amma and appa, whilst in Mandarin (maybe also Cantonese?) it is amma and abba. Tamil and Mandarin must be related! Wow. And in German, we have mama and papa! Ooooh! German and Tamil and Mandarin are related! According to all that's required by way of logic as per indhistory, they would have formed the Tamage branch of languages, and in history had called themselves the Tamages and roamed Central Asia and invaded countries on all sides. It is well-known that Celtic people arrived on the west-coast of France and then crossed into the British Isles from there, having originally arrived from somewhere further off in Europe. It was greatly believed by the pre-Christian Romans that their city was founded by those who escaped the fall of Troy, headed by Remus and Romulus. Whether their origin story was legend or not, Troy existed and was located in what became Anatolia and has now become Turkey. What a coincidence! What a distance from Troy to Persia and India! And where in distant Europe would the Celts have originated I wonder? Far-south-eastern Europe? Somewhere close enough to Persia? Close enough to India? What a coincidence of language similarities that would be. How could they have such similarities! It must be the Oryans who invaded every country from Central Asia on horseback (who did not invade after all), destroyed the Dravidian Indus Valley Civilization (which wasn't Dravidian after all), called themselves collectively as Aryans (and yet only the Iranians called themselves Airyas [the Greeks referred to the Zoroastrians of Persia as Arians] and the Indians called themselves Aryas - whilst there's no record of anyone else doing so), spoke PIE (of which not the slightest evidence that it matches the reconstruction that people today have created for it nor that it ever even existed) and gave rise to Samskrit (though that is a wholly Indian language and only significant migrations out of India have been attested both scripturally and genetically). It is a miracle indeed. Should I pass or fail the faithful presiding over indhistory? Full marks for his loyal adherence to Allah that he is even willing to spread preposterous lies if it will further the cause of Islam. Zero marks for the utterly unfactual info and the total lack of use of valid current information (though it seems all of that was intentional). Now here's something that's going to hurt the faithful's pride: Arabic was a language spoken and written by the literate heathen Arabians. Yet the Arabic used in the Koran is considered by many scholars of the language to be a mangled and vulgarised Arabic. That's right - it would make sense had Mohammed really been illiterate initially, as he or whoever wrote the Koran couldn't compose or write in coherent Arabic. But now, ironically, it's become the staff against which other compositions are measured. The heathen Arabians must be rolling in their graves to see their language so mutilated. Oh no, wait - they're living comfortably with their ancestors in pre-Islamic, pre-Christian heaven.

Posted by: Husky Jun 27 2006, 12:03 AM

Post 237:

QUOTE
This painting was made by vanavasis and is dated 3000BC. It explicitly shows several horse riders. The website mentions that since the painting has horses and since aryans are supposed to have brought horses to India after 1500BC, the dating process itself must be wrong! However, this painting itself and its estimated date of3000BC
Aha, but you don't get Indology logic. Internal inconsistency is its very essence. Therefore, we will now use their logic rules to work out their conclusion: Though the vanavasis made the drawings in 3000bc, Indologists can explain it by the following: (a) The vanavasis in their 'animistic' dreams anticipated the white superior horse-riding Aryans and this painting represents their nightmare of being subjugated by the invaders 1500 years into the future. (b) The vanavasis couldn't draw. Hence their donkeys or cows or dogs looked like horses. They only learnt to draw after the Oryans invaded in 1500 bce, who also brought their superior drawing techniques from Central Asia. (c ) The people dating the painting are obviously incompetent. They don't understand the water-tight science of Indology. Never fear, the Indologist linguistic scholars are capable of everything and are aces in every field. They will correctly date the painting to some time after 1500 bce - don't worry. If the carbon or other dating method keeps yielding 3000 bce or thereabouts they'll make the results say 1500 bce. Frontline and The Hindu will then ensure that this corrected date is repeated all over the subcontinent. (d) The horses are obviously not Aryan horses. They look like typically indigenous or dravidian or vanavasi or pre-Oryan Indian horses. Don't you know that the Indologists had always insisted that the Oryans brought Oryan horses into India? Oryan horses therefore only appeared after 1500 bce. Other horses have not been of any import in their arguments and that's why they've been ignored thus far. (e) A combination of all of the above, although (a) might have to be eventually be abandoned as a preliminary explanation since it deals with the supernatural (predictive dreams). After all Indology is a Science.

Posted by: romani Jun 27 2006, 06:14 AM

you say that indians are the most advance society ,the mother of all civilisations? thats quite wrong . the truth is diferent .the balkanic peninsula in europe was far more advance then india .in 4000 bc exist towns whit 20000 people ,while in india was none;the first writing in the world 2000 years older then sumerian one they made in 2bc the most pure iron in the world 99,97 much pure then ur iron delhi pillarfrom 4AD,and having 3 layers of protections not one like delhi pillar -iron oxide -magnetite - aluminosilicates

Posted by: Mudy Jun 27 2006, 07:00 AM

romani, I can understand you had education from Communist school. Before posting again, either read books which are not written by communist writers or provide links to your source. People here are not suffering delusion.

Posted by: romani Jun 27 2006, 07:39 AM

QUOTE(Mudy @ Jun 27 2006, 07:30 PM)
romani, I can understand you had education from Communist school. Before posting again, either read books which are not written by communist writers or provide links to your source. People here are not suffering delusion.
*
hahaha ,i didnt learn this in the comunist school.in comunist school was learning totaly diferent things. sorry to disapoint you . the fact the first writing was found in romania ,whit later similar discoveries in bulgaria, 2000 years older the sumerian one ,is not propaganda .search on net about tartaria plates. the motive i post this is the false propaganda that indians start ,whit india the mother of civilisation .read about old europe on net .you gona see that an least the balkan peninsula was far more advance then most of world places. by the way we find even statues in yoga position much older then any indian similar statue. i gona try to provide links in english .i hope that this will bring a new light in this aryan theories specool.gif

Posted by: Mudy Jun 27 2006, 07:42 AM

romani, How about providing some pictures? Please enlighten us and ofcourse you will provide us some links to your source before posting again. I hope you are not from renowned IER fools club. By the way, I have been to Romania and know education system, schools and books very well. biggrin.gif

Posted by: dhu Jun 27 2006, 07:45 AM

romani, you have nine pages of anti-AIT material to disprove. go ahead and get started. by the way, the famous dasmascus steel was actually from India. Why did the Syrians import their steel all the way from India when the balkans were just around the corner. even the gypsy romany were prized for their metalworking techniques in so-called europe.

Posted by: Mudy Today, 11:28 AM

Closed - crossed more than 250 post.k 

ARCHIVES
November 2003 / December 2003 / January 2004 / February 2004 / March 2004 / May 2004 / June 2004 / July 2004 / August 2004 / September 2004 / October 2004 / November 2004 / December 2004 / January 2005 / February 2005 / March 2005 / May 2005 / August 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 / November 2005 / December 2005 / March 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 /


Powered by Blogger