Talk:Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies)/Archive 1

The western `so called' Sanskrit scholars interpreted some sanskrit verse in their advantage to say that aryan are white & south indian people ( dravid people )are black.But in any ancient Indian text there is no mention of Arya as race or different people. Arya in those texts like Ved ( which means knowledge in Sanskrit ), Ramayan , Mahabharat etc. is mentioned as respect gesture in speaking like it's said in English Respected Sir or Madam OR `My Lord' in courts. Arya means one whose is noble in character and this is not said to any person who is Non-virtueous in nature.This is true for virtueous mother like Gandhari who was Duryodhan's mother but the same is not called for Duryodhan who was very non-virtueous person. So, coining `Arya' term as separate race only proved to be disastrous not only on Germans but also on Jews,Gypsies etc.Germany whose Max Muller initially called Arya as separate race but when Hitler's Aryan madness started affecting Germans negatively , after many years gulped the same words and said that by Arya he does not mean any person or race but purely language and not carriars of language.But it was very late and the world saw Second World War.

Arya word is also found in Old Pesian texts, Rock enscripts by kings to mention that they are `Arya' means noble and not any special race. Avesta by Zorostrians will show that there are words which start with `S' in Sanskrit but it's starting with `H' which is very common `apabhransh' ( in Sanskrit it means degraded form )word speaking. Similar types of Apabhransh is found in Modern Indian languages which derives heavily from Sanskrit. (Like `V' becoming `B' in Bangla language ) And these Apabhransh is more nearer than any Non-Indian language word.

In ancient India Dravid term was used to mention south beyond Vindhya Mountain range in central India which roughly divides North & South. But Maharahtra and Gujarat people are also called Dravida in that sense by South Indian texts but there languages means Marathi & Gujarati are called as IE one. Now let me ask you all, is Italic - Greek and Norway - finnish person is not different in look and skin tone wise. Norway is in extreme North and Italy - Greece in South getting Mediteranian sun shine. So clearly more darker then Finnish poeple. So, can we say them as different racially ? ( As same logic is implied on India ). Do you know Lithuanian & Latvian has very much similarity in Grammer & structure wise with Sanskrit. Why these `so called Baltic' group is showing much more similarity with Sanskrit. If you know Sanskrit then it can called very much scientific language. Do you feel that any nomad people in central asia can produce such a scientific language ? Right or wrong ? If right then Why after many milleniums Central Asia is not advanced in language & science wise if same people who have migrated in India in form of `Aryan Migration Theory'. The Aryan Invasion becomes Migration theory ( ya, it's only theory without any proof. Right? ) And what about finding of ancient Saraswati river in NW India with all types of proofs.This same Saraswati river is cherished in Rigveda with naming her Mother River and Greatest River. This river totally stopped flowing Indian soil around 1900 BC and then in 1500 BC ( date given by Max Muller ) so called Aryans migrates to India and writes poems in praise of Saraswati river. Really they have great feeling for the dead river then their `original' central asian homeland river that they are saying verses to praise that river whose width was 3 to 10 Km in width during her hay day. Secondly, I want to quate that when Alexander came to NW India then they were amazed to see big rivers of NW India which is written as very much bigger than any European,Persian or Nile in Egypt.

I say that a great culture like Indus valley civilization ( which had common weights & measurements, planned towns with waste water underground pipelines, very advanced astrology and mathamatics, having area much bigger than ancient Greek , Mesopotamia , Egypt civilizations all combined ) ; very very civilized than central asian nomad wonderers can only produce very logical, phonetical and very structural language like Sanskrit and not nomad people of Steppes. Phonetic's separate understanding is not required ( unlike in English ) in Sanskrit and other Indian languages which is writtern exactly in the same way letters are pronounced. This was biggest feat of Devnagari script in which this became possible.

From Vedic times , great Rishis had put great emphasis on right pronunciation of Sanskrit words as Sanskrit words are derived from some particular word root and so the word should be properly pronounced. That's why all Vedas,Upnishads etc. are available today in the same proper words without any deviation from last atleast 5,000 years. This Vedic Rishis have always believed that Good teachings passed on to future generations is more important and will be more remembered than any Strucure which can / will be destroyed by passing ages. Vedas are written in Poetic forms with Superb mathematical type joining of words ( found only in Sanskrit & it's daughter Indian languages).This makes remembering them much easier. (What do you remember your childhood poems or pros in better way ? Naturally poems, right ! This is the simple logic of composing Vedas, Upnishads, Ramayan, Mahabharat in verse form so that they are perfectly remembered. That's why Vedas are the first ancient literature available in the world. There are unique mathematical links available in Rig Veda. Also it mentions some unique astronomical observations from which one can get the time of creation of that verse.All this is ignored by Max Muller and his followers and said that they are absurds or written much after than actually happened. If that is possible to write down that unique astronomical situations then it means that ancient Indians were having very highly computer type mind as back dating observations can be known only by today's complicated computer softwares as to do mathematically is impossible. All this to give credit to nomads of steppes is like attributing USA's current achivements to Eskimos by some `Max Muller' after some milleniums in future.

If `so called Aryans' are Non-Indian origin then why major Hindu gods like Vishnu,Ram,Krishna,Shiva are portrayed as Dark Bluish / Black in skin colour for which `so called white aryans' should have allergy.( Color racism was till recently official in South Africa )

Secondly, Tamil people attribute their language to Sage Agatsya who was ancient great sage ( Rishi ) from `so called Aryan world'. Just explain these riddle please !

In Mahabharat it is mentioned that during that time Saraswati was not perennial river and instead of ending in sea , it is ending in land area. If Mahabharat is thought to be during around 3300 BC then it means that from 3300 BC to 1900 BC ( when Saraswati was almost totally stopped flowing ) the river was flowing and ending in land area. ( Note that Dr. Vartak has scientifically decoded the dating mystery associated with it by using deep knowledge of Indian astonomy and extracting some unique time indiacating verses and told us that Mahabharat actually happened on 16 th October 5561 BC with exact dates and proof of arriving at the date. This available on the net but to understand it you require knowledge of Indian astronomic terms which are from Vedic times and still in use very actively )

In Mahabharat also Saraswati is thought to be ceasing continuously. That means the reason because of which Saraswati river got affected and Satluj & Yamuna stopped of being it's tributory ( this is said on proofs and is not theory ) is much older phenomenon then Mahabharat. Also, Krishna was born in Mathura & spent childhood in Gokul which is on the banks of Yamuna. So, Yamuna diverting from Saraswati to Ganga is very older than Mahabharat itself.

Secondly, Mahabharat is some what urben type and many kingdoms mentioning saga. In it Ganga is prominent.

Indians say that Prayag ( Allahabad in U.P. state ) as Triveni Sangam ( confluence ) of Ganga, Yamuna & Saraswati rivers. `Saraswati is thought to be flowing underground & meeting here'. This is though a myth gives idea that Yamuna which was meeting Saraswati in the past , is now meeting Ganga and by underground of Saraswati mentions vanishing of Saraswati in Land area & thinking that it's going underground to meet sea ( which it was previously ).

This is combination of thought based on some real history.

Secondly, in dry Saraswati river area like Pushkar in Rajasthan or Sidhpur in North Gujarat there still small river named saraswati. In Sidhpur, there is also old temple after Saraswati. Both area are found to on dry river bed of ancient saraswati river. Indians seem to be remembering very ancient things very nicely. ONLY THEY FORGOT ARYAN INVASION OR MIGRATION THEORY. Really sad for Western so called scholars !

If any thing is required to defend that then write it pure logical manner.

The AIT theory was inspired by British political people to say about its legitimacy of its occupation of India,to get some answer of then found similarity between Sanskrit & other European languages and to facilitate Christian Missionery which were facing hard times to convert Hindu. This will be their agenda of `Divide & Rule' which Britishers used ( I don't have any bad feeling for current Brits ). The details are available on the net. India was the richest country in the world before Britishers rule on India ( like US is today ) and the current situation of poor Indians will give shock to those Western people who are not aware about where India lies geographically ( forget about their knowledge of India's past which is seen with the false fabrication & misrepresented stories). If you want to know about Britishers policy then just know that even though India was highest producer of Cotton crop but then also it was not allowed to make cloth on machine ( to make England rich ).Everything was to be imported from Briton and it was one major reason because of which Briton's economy was steaming ahead.

HOW WILL YOU REACT IF YOUR RULER BREAKS THE CHURCH AND CONSTRUCTS THE MOSQUE ON THE SAME SITE. FOR YOU SPAIN IS EXAMPLE. THE SAME IS WITH INDIA. WHEN IT WAS FOR SPAIN THEN IT IS CHERISHED CHRISTIAN REACTION BUT WHEN IT COMES TO INDIA THEN IT'S HINDU FASICSTS. WHY CHURCH IS RIGHT AND TEMPLE OF RAM ON HIS BIRTHPLACE IS WRONG ? For this even historical records speak that there was Ram Temple which Babar broke and made Mosque on it ( like thousands of beautiful temples were broken and that's why you find few temples before Muslim invasion. It's good that Angkor Wat is in Camodia & not in India ). If you have visited Qutab Minar in Delhi then that complex is made from previous Hindu & Jain temples there. Yes, India was so advanced that more than 1600 years old Iron Pillar is not rusted. To make such a long pillar now is also engineering problem or puzzle by Modern Iron makers. Read about it on the net and you will understand India had not only made advanced progress in other subjects but also in Chemistry, Metallurgy. You can say that for almost all subjects which Europeans says sign of culture, you can find lots of systematic written work. Sanskrit written work ( even after huge losts ) is much more than all combined work till 17 - 18 century. Even Indian dance & music has scientific & mathematical basis ( unlike Pop & Disco dance & music. But today's majority Indian youth find hard to understand the science behind Indian Music & Classical dances which not only gives pleasure to body but also mind. That's why they do not require any Heroin,Escatcy type drugs or alcohol to get temporary high which is very bad for youths in every way )

Indians are having very ancient traditions that the first civilization spunge up on Indian soil. It was concepulised by Vedic Rishis ( Sages ) who developed very high standards & virtues. For them Knowledge was very much sought after. This also made Ayurveda to develop. Still today their concepts are true. Ancient Indians have observed their land, sky, plants to that deep level that they were having better knowledge about human body better than few centuries before Europeans.

To go extreme deep in their knowledge about undestanding this world which led them to develop Ancient Indians to develop major treaties of science, maths , language, arts , music etc. Their systematic development was such that India was sought after by Non-Indian Students in ancient days for Knowledge to Columbus ( who left to search Indian sea route as land route was blocked by Turks by capturing Istambul ), Vasco-Da-Gama to Britishers for HUGE PROFIT etc.

`Femine of Bengal' in 19th century under British Rule which caused millions of people to die. But why this femine occured. It was not at all due to lack of rain. Bengal region ( current West Bangal + Bangladesh which is highly populated but very poor ) is such that it will alway receive very good rains ( If it does not rain in Bangal or Konkan then whole India will not get any rain - due to Monsoon winds mechanism ). Also , Bengal region is fully mouth area of Ganga & Bramhaputra rivers which will never have problem of water ). IT WAS DUE TO INDIGO CROPS THAT WAS TAKEN FOR SOME YEARS CONTINUOUSLY AS IT WAS FORCED BY THEN BRITISH RULERS WHICH WAS PROVIDING HUGE PROFIT TO THEM. But this Indigo crop which was only source of Blue colour before advent of Artificial Chemical Dyes should not be taken continuously from the same land as it extracts all fertile power of land. Due to this continuous Indigo crops , the land became non-productive for their staple Rice crop. Due to this Rice crop for some years could not happen and millions of Bengalis died. BUT THE WHOLE STORY IS NAMED AS `FEMINE OF BENGAL' AS IF THAT RICE CROP FAILED DUE TO LACK OF WATER. THIS IS SAME MISGUIDING LIKE `FIRE OF SAN FRANSISCO'. THE FIRE WAS DUE TO TERRIBLE EARTHQUAKE BUT IT WAS MISQUOTED AS DURING S.F. WAS PROSEPROUS CITY IN USA AND IF EARTHQUAKE GHOST WILL REMAIN IN OTHER US PEOPLE THEN IT WOULD BAD FOR SF'S ECONOMY.

THE SAME WAY `ARYAN INVASION THEORY' WAS FABRICATED TO MISGUIDE THE WORLD BY THEN THEIR `GOBBLE'S ' PROPOGANDA. The reasons are well adressed on the internet which I will not repeat again here.

Written by Win

This is not supposed to become a pov fork of Indo-Aryan migration. Rather, that article was swamped by historical controversies, so that a separate article became necessary to address 19th century views, and the history of the concept. dab (ᛏ) 07:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

To categorize AIT under Hindutva without categorizing it as well under categories like Eurocentrism or Dravidian chauvinism is pov. Some supporters and critics of the AIT would fall in such categories, but the AIT is first of all a historical (not political) theory. Many supporters, critics or scholars on the AIT do not fall in such political categories, and thus the categorization is too generalizing and pov. --Machaon 14:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no category. After going through above points one can give some proper & logical answer to above whole points. But it seems that when ever some logical conversation is required , the AIT supporter slips to that words which is not at all connected with the topic and something ( probably ) they only can understand.

The whole concept of the Aryan Invasion Theory needs to be put into perspective. The time when this was written, the Europeans had at last conquered the world, and to solidify their feelings of control, they needed a creation myth. When the Europeans saw the Polynesian Easter Island sculptures, they immediately claimed to be the creators. They said their Europeans ancestors had somehow managed to sail all the way there and built the sculptures. They said this because they did not want to believe that the native peoples of the region had the faculties for such complex construction. This kind of Cultural appropriation is common for 19th Century Europeans. Everything from the Egyptian and Mayan pyramids to the ruins of African city-states were claimed by Europeans. Because India had a 4000-year old history, and was a land full riches and knowledge, the Europeans sought to use it as the start for their creation myth. When the Japanese defeated the Russians, the Europeans did not see the Japanese as Asian any more, instead, they made the " honorary whites". Cultural appropriation is the only explanation for the ridiculous theory that Max Müeller put forward. Vvuppala 20:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Vvuppala, have you read any of Max Müller's books? I do wonder, because there is nothing "ridiculous" about what he wrote, though of course it has been superceded by more modern research. Look at his essay The Home of the Arya. The notion that the Arya migrated into India is no more insulting to Indians than the accepted notion that the Hellenes migrated into Greece is insulting to the Greeks. I guess it's true that some Europeans have claimed that Mayan pyramids and other artefacts were built by migrating Europeans, but even in the 19th Century this would be a rather minority view. Paul B 16:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Paul, I haven't read any of Müller's writing, though in the days since I made the comment, I have done a lot of research into the topic. Certainly I agree it isn't insulting to Indians that our history is one of migrations and invasions.

What I do want to clarify is that notions amongst Europeans as to their conception of race and their attitude towards non-Christians, non-Whites, and non-Europeans in general was one of chauvinist hostility. It was by no means a minority view point, though I think it interesting that you believe it to be so.

If you take a look at Social Darwinism, you'll see just what I mean about the concept of breaking the Human Diaspora into a set of "races" which then have certain characteristics based on European stereotypes of them. Thus, the propensity of East Asians for slanted eyes means (insert demeaning slur here), etc.

As for cultural appropriation, regardless of what modern genetics says, the 19th Century theory of Aryan invasion was an attempt to justify British presence in India, and was a part of a movement of Cultural Appriation that was rapidly developing in Europe at the time (it was not part of Müller's assertions, as I found out in my research).

I am seriously considering making research into the whole European appropriation of culture as my honors thesis as I go into my last 3 semesters here at UMass/Amherst. Look forward to an in-depth article explaining just what I am trying to get across here about the magnitude of European social thought about the acheivements of European culture.

It basically boils down to this: Africans aren't claiming that all the worlds acheivements are their own, because of its role as the starting place of modern man. (Many, according to me) Europeans (some, none the less), in the 19th century, asserted that because ancestral Indians shared origin with them, that they therefore were responsible for Hinduism, for India. This assertion is false. While Europeans and Indians shared the same ancestry, for 19th Century Europeans to claim that they in any way had started and introduced Hinduism into India is utter nonsense. That is what I will attempt to prove beyond doubt.

Vvuppala 03:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting that you attribute to me statements that I did not make at all. I said the claim that Mayan pyramids and Easter Island heads were built by migrating Europeans was a minority view, even in the nineteenth century. I did not say that nineteenth century Europeans did not have chauvanist or racialist ideas. "Social Darwinism" is a term covering ideas that meant different things to different theorists. Theories of racial divisions and hierarchies certainly were maintream after the 1850s, and were consistent with many different attitudes to Darwinian ideas. Prior to that they had been justified on biblical grounds. I think you underestimate the extent to which ideologies are adaptable. The notion of a superior "Indo-European" or Aryan people would have served European imperialist ideologists just as well if these people had been proven at the time to have originated in India. All you do is say that the original Indian population advanced yet further up the evolutionary ladder as it moved into Europe. It would be the same argument used by racists to associate Africans with "lower" stages of development, by arguing that the more advanced and energetic individuals moved on, creating the "higher" races. This kind of argument was common at the time. Paul B 11:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Paul, I wasn't suggesting that you denied the existence of racist ideas in 19th century Europe. My comment was simply expanding on all the points I initially made. You do make a good point about how some theory or another would have been formed to justify colonialism. Vvuppala 13:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

---

---

This is for all those supporters of Aryan Invasion / Migration theory. Please read http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/08kak.htm and find that how best this issue should be addressed now. It proves scientifically that non-african people originated in Indian sub-continent.AND THIS IS NOT ANY SO CALLED THEORY BUT BASED ON GENOLOGY WHOSE RESULTS CAN NOT BE DENIED.

How much more of this drivel do you intend to add? Paul B 13:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Dude, who are you talking to? why are you so hostile? i've seen Nothing on the Talk page for this article that deserves that kind of rhetoric. Tone it down a bit, eh? Vvuppala 15:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not specially for you on the talk page but to all other Aryan Invasion / Migration supporters. And I am not hostile compared to what previous century Brishers have done to falsely fabricate the true Indian History. Instead of it do write some more serious stuff to counter attack my above points. But it is true that it's not possible for non-Indian to advocate AIT or AMT now as deep rooted Indian will have much sound things to say than any bla, bla, bla. And now even Genology disproves AIT / AMT. This anguish is for those people and their supporters who are ignoring any proof indication from Indus Valley Civilization or Ancient Indian scriptures like Ved ,Upnishads, Ramayan , Mahabharat etc. They are clearly ignoring or saying it absurd because if they accept then there will be a major blow to World History which will require total re-writing of Indian and hence European past which can be unpleasing for them. For them Stonehenge's rocks are more scientific then Indus Valley's planned town excavations. They try desparately to prove their Eurocentric views by saying any non-related & sometimes humourously absurd things without any scientific basis to it.

Attacking AIT would not "a major blow to world history" at all, but rather a relatively minor matter about the dates of ancient linguistic and cultural movements. Your arguments above actually have nothing to do with AIT. They are about very ancient migrations out of Africa during the stone age. Aryan migrations are supposed to have happened in the late bronze age - many many thousands of years later. The article you cite simply states that during the Ice Age Europe was too frozen and cold for modern humans, so that the first migrants from Africa stuck to the warmer areas, which included India. When the ice receded humans migrated into Europe. This has nothing whatever to do with AIT. It's like arguing that the Romans never invaded Egypt by pointing to evidence that stone age people lived in Egypt before Rome was founded. Paul B 08:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The world civilization history is very important as that laid foundation for today's civilizations across the world and everything today you do in life like learning,science,maths,arts,music,dance which makes we human different from Monkeys is due to cililization. So, history of human civilization is important to us.

Please don't quote or write any misguiding sentences like comman AIT/AMT supporter. If AIT/AMT is not important to you then the language in which we are writing and other European languages would not have been bearing some heavy Sanskit `Apbhransh' ( degraded ) words. It's like pretending to have happened nothing even after getting major electric shock. So, please read carefully the full article and read below points from the same article which you seem to have read how previous AIT/AMT supporters have overlooked astronomical datings and mis-interpretating Sanskrit verses.But here it's only English which can not be misinterpreted to the whole world.

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.''

Ancient Indian books mention Western Movement of people by way of King Yayati expelling his two from five sons to West. Ancient scriptures do mention westward movement but not any into India kind of movement which they should definitely mention as the language and people writing those are supposed to be Central Asian Aryan tribe people and not Indus Valley people. Any Indian scripture do not mention any `Aryan tribe' coming to India. If Indian Civilization/scriptures are credited with any Aryan tribes coming to India via AIT/AMT then they will certainly mention it as they were able to implant their language which is said as Proto Indo European on much much much larger population of then India.

Regarding Aryans it is said that they introduced Horses & Chriots in India. But Ved mentions 17 pair of rib horses and not 18 pair of rib horse which is central asian type one. 17 paired rib horse is uniquely Indian breed of horse like unique Indian Elephant.But why still AIT/AMT supporter wish to ride on that horse topic ? And,Wheel diagrams are found in Indus Valley's planned towns excavations so why still old misguiding points are written as some big point in support of AIT/AMT.At the starting of Mahabharat war it is written that planatary positions are very unique and the same will not be seen again in the Earth's life. Please go through http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/mahabharat/mahab_vartak.html Also read http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/mahabharat/mahab_abhijit.html

If you want to answer then write point to point wise to counter attack my above mentioned points. ( But I am sure that some AIT/AMT supporter will find this proof absurd without knowing ancient Indian Astonomical terminology which is still prevalent in India. )

By Win

Win, by all means add more of you own comments, but do not delete those of other contributors. Paul B 12:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

restored reply:

There's nothing remotely extraordinary about these conclusions and they have nothing to do with AIT. They are about very early primitive humans — paleolithic hunter-gathers. Hence the references to mammoths! Mammoths were extinct by the time the Vedas were written, unless you are suggesting that they were written in the Paleolithic era (i.e. "more than 40,000 years ago"). Do you think that chariots and bronze weaponry were used to bring down mammoths? If so you need to do a bit of research. The astronomical argument is usually considered to be a highly dubious method of dating because of its inherent ambiguity, since it is based on interpreting vague poetic imagery. European languages do not bear "Sanskrit degraded words" any more than Sanskrit bears Greek degraded words, as one anti I-E writer once claimed. Paul B 11:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The genology article's points are given here by me to tell that Indians and Europeans are same racially ( Cacacius type ) so how Aryan term is coined separately by past century Britishers and Dravid term is used by them as different racial people leaving in South India , both are absurd racial term. To tell that it's written here. And if Aryan & Dravid are not any special races then why any separate terminology should be given to misguide the world !

I am Indian and from West Indian region. For me Bengali is as difficult to understand as Malayalam. Bengali is termed as Indo -European language and Malayalam as Dravid language. But mind you both heavily contains Sanskrit world which is possible to understand but not the typical grammer.

I am wondering that do you know Sanskrit or any Indian language that you are saying anything that Sanskit bearing some Greek words. Then read below sentences very properly.

`The Ashkelon facility, on Israel's southern Mediterranean coast, is the first in a series of large-scale seawater desalination units. Others are planned for Ashdod, Palmahim, Kishon and Caesarea.'

The above sentences are from some Israelly website.

Kishon is kishan ( or krishna's Apbransh. Caesarea means Kesaria ( which is also very sanskrit ) and this name is also related with Krishna.Palmahim is word in Sanskrit and used specially for Kings. This word is used like ` My Lord ' used for Justice in Courts.

Now answer that how Israelly place names are typical Sanskrit ? For your reference there is one article which says that in some 19th century someone has researched Hebrew & Sanskrit and told that Hebrew can be termed as derived from Sanskrit.Read http://www.viewzone.com/matlock.html

And, why you are not defending on any above written points ?

== The AIT nonsense ==

Aryan invasion theory (AIT)is a pure fiction concocted by some racist Europeans. According to this theory Aryan tribes supposedly invaded India from Europe around 1500BC, when the Harappan civilisation was already in decline. Aryans tribes were supposed to be a nomadic warrior race that displaced the remnants of the earlier Harappan (or Dravidian) people. If this were true, they achieved the impossible with in a short span of time. First Aryans defeated and drove out the Harappans all the way down to South India. Next, Aryans began to compile Rig Veda at a furious pace because they had to complete this task before the beginning of Mauryan Dynasty. The Aryan saints who compiled Rig Veda apparently suffered from collective amnesia because there is no mention of external origins anywhere in Rig Veda. Aryan tribes also changed their nomadic life style and became farmers and even town folks! Meanwhile the defeated Harappans renamed meekly settled down in South India and forgot their Harappan origins. All these dramatic changes were supposed to have taken place without creating any historical or religious records or even any legends. Aryan invasion theory sounds may sound utter rubbish to many Indians now, but please remember such theories have caused divisions and was even responsible for the holocaust during the Second World War. Written by i55g-news@yahoo.com.

==========================================================================================

I want to add something here,

The number system was invented by India. Aryabhatta was the scientist who invented the digit zero.

Sanskrit is considered as the mother of all higher languages. This is because it is the most precise, and therefore suitable language for computer software. ( a report in Forbes magazine, July 1987 ).

Chess was invented in India.

Algebra, Trigonometry and Calculus are studies which originated in India.

The' place value system' and the 'decimal system' were developed in 100 BC in India.

The World's First Granite Temple is the Brihadeswara temple at Tanjavur in Tamil Nadu. The shikhara is made from a single ' 80-tonne ' piece of granite. Also, this magnificient temple was built in just five years, (between 1004 AD and 1009 AD) during the reign of Rajaraja Chola

The game of snakes & ladders was created by the 13th century poet saint Gyandev. It was originally called 'Mokshapat.' The ladders in the game represented virtues and the snakes indicated vices. The game was played with cowrie shells and dices. Later through time, the game underwent several modifications but the meaning is the same i.e good deeds take us to heaven and evil to a cycle of re-births.

The World's first university was established in Takshila in 700 BC. More than 10,500 students from all over the world studied more than 60 subjects. The University of Nalanda built in the 4th century was one of the greatest achievements of ancient India in the field of education.

Ayurveda is the earliest school of medicine known to mankind. The father of medicine, Charaka, consolidated Ayurveda 2500 years ago.

Although modern images & descriptions of India often show poverty, India was one of the richest countries till the time of British in the early 17th Century. Christopher Columbus was attracted by India's wealth and was looking for route to India when he discovered America by mistake.

The art of Navigation & Navigating was born in the river Sindh 6000 over years ago. The very word 'Navigation' is derived from the Sanskrit word NAVGATIH. The word navy is also derived from the Sanskrit word 'Nou'.

Bhaskaracharya rightly calculated the time taken by the earth to orbit the sun hundreds of years before the astronomer Smart. His calculations was - Time taken by earth to orbit the sun: ( 5th century ) 365.258756484 days.

The value of "pi" was first calculated by the Indian Mathematician Budhayana, and he explained the concept of what is known as the Pythagorean Theorem. He discovered this in the 6th century, which was long before the European mathematicians.

Algebra, trigonometry and calculus also orignated from India. Quadratic equations were used by Sridharacharya in the 11th century. The largest numbers the Greeks and the Romans used were 106 whereas Hindus used numbers as big as 10*53 ( i.e 10 to the power of 53 ) with specific names as early as 5000 B.C. during the Vedic period. Even today, the largest used number is Tera: 10*12( 10 to the power of 12 ).

Until 1896, India was the only source for diamonds to the world. ( Source . Gemological Institute of America )

Sushruta is regarded as the father of surgery. Over 2600 years ago Sushrata & his team conducted complicated surgeries like cataract, artificial limbs, cesareans, fractures, urinary stones and also plastic surgery and brain surgeries.

Usage of anesthesia was well known in ancient India medicine. Detailed knowledge of anatomy, embryology, digestion, metabolism, physiology, etiology, genetics and immunity is also found in many ancient Indian texts.

---

New report on the BBC dumping the Aryan Invasion Theory

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history5.shtml

This conclusion is very clear about the validity of the Aryan Invasion Theory. The text of the link is given below.

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

---

Sandith (www.prathamam.org)