Guys Churchill got the worst Jhappad from Gandhi
Guys Churchill got the worst Jhappad from Gandhi
It is as good as saying that Aryan language (Sanskrit-Prakrit) was similar to European-Celtic languages and so these could've been the same guys.
I agree that there are linguistic differences. But linguistics is not enough a factor to determine the origin of people. Fall of Aryan Invasion Theory has proven that beyond any doubt.
Where are we taking this thread by the way
The biggest blows to the Aryan Invasion Theory have come in recent years.
1) DNA tests have shown that there is little racial difference between the peoples of India. The North-South divide is a linguistic divide only, not a racial one.
2) Further research into the Indus Valley Civilizations has shown that the IVC did not collapse around 2000 B.C.E. from a devastating Aryan invasion as was previously assumed, but continued in intermittent stages until around 1500 B.C.E. or later. There were, most likely, large migrations of people from Central Asia to the subcontinent around this time, but their arrival was nowhere near as earth-shaking as the colonialist historians had it. It appears that the establishment of agricultural settlements and regional polities in India during the Iron Age was the work of the indigenous people or a mix of indigenous people and Central Asian migrants. It was not a case of light-skinned, technologically advanced Aryans ruling over a vast, submissive dark-skinned Dravidian population.
Last edited by civfanatic; 02-12-11 at 09:48 PM.
There is no evidence of an 'invasion'. But Indo Aryans were racially different from Dravidians and other racial groups that inhabited the subcontinent.
Indus Valley civiisation_
2.farmers and traders,
3. idol worshippers,
4.gave importance to Bull,
5.Did not use horse
Early Vedic civilisation(indo aryan)_
3.nature worshippers(indra, varuna, agni ets),
4.gave importance to Cow,
5. Used horses in large scale.
Were they the same people? How did they have so many differences around the same time in history?
Last edited by Param; 02-12-11 at 09:55 PM.
This is what most likely happened.
Anyone who believes in aryan invasion theory is an idiot.
true..but a punjabi knew a punjabi very well than a Madrasi or a Bengali....moreover pitting clans against clans of the same tribe gives you far more reults than pitting a complete stranger against a unified tribe.
This may not be the only reason...but I guess it may be one...
1857 and the consequent distrust in the Bengali troops..moreover with ever increasing number of pathans,baluchis,punjabis,gurkhas willing to join the army why need others who were not willing or were deemed inferior..?
I say that was not only racism but also a genuince but pigheaded romance for the constant clan fighting...
.Not only the pak army...but also the indian army.
I agree...but all Param's post, your post & fanatic's post look valid...
the conclusion obtained could be...they were different people but with over time, they intermarried, the genepool got mixed and now the racial difference has diminished to a very large extent....
Morover one thing to be noted is.when we say (Adi) Dravidians in the racial sene,the most likely of them today are the hill tribes in border reas of TN & Karnataka - the Toda, Irulas, Badugas etc.
Last edited by KS; 02-12-11 at 10:22 PM.
deemed inferior....... means racism, practised by the British colonial rulers and those who subscribed to it.
There were a lot of others who were willing to join the army but the Brits won't recruit them.
I agree. 100% pure races are hard to come by. Those who try doing politics or have false pride in it are morons.
That's what I meant.
They also had a pig-headed romanticism with the constant/pointless fighting amonng the various clans over there.
If they had come in the time of "Moovendar" to South they would have named us too Martial
I had a very romantic view of Scotland at one time. Then I picked up a book on its history. When I put the book back down I had a very different view.
One story I still remember. There was a King of Scotland on the run (not The Bruce) who took refuge after losing a battle. He went into the first house he came to, and begged the owner to find a priest to give him last rites. The owner ran out and said to a man he saw on the street,"The King is in my house and needs a priest." The man said, "Aye, it so happens I am a priest." Then the man went into the house and stabbed the King to death.
Some Scots have been cowardly murderers.
Glencoe Massacre - MacDonald Clan Glencoe Massacre
One of the earliest peoples to arrive in India are the Mundas of Chota Nagpur Plateau. They predate even Hinduism, seen by the fact that they do not even use the caste system.
[QUOTE=Param;364050][QUOTE=W.G.Ewald;364042]The assumption, I believe, is that those defeats resulted from a failure of the soldiers, whether from Scotland or elsewhere. I believe that Scotland, like India, has produced very estimable military formations. I don't say they were invinciible. Robert E.Lee is still a hero, as the leader of a lost cause.
As for British colonial policy, I have nothing invested in it. :-D
Any suggestions for book titles on Indian military history?
I found this one on Amazon.com
Amazon.com: A Military History of India and South Asia: From the East India Company to the Nuclear Era (9780253219992): Daniel P. Marston, Chandar S. Sundaram: Books
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)