Plot to kill Ayodhya judges busted: Chidambaram

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
The first group to arrive in India were dinosaurs and you go back further they were all friggin' bacteria. Humans are not the original inhabitants of anywhere except United States of bellendry. In the movie Matrix (the first one and the only one in my opinion that was worth watching), there was a very apt comment made by Smith- Human beings are like viruses, the disease of this planet.
We are talking in human terms. So in human terms the native would be the first humans to settle in a piece of land. wouldn't you agree ?
 

mayfair

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
6,032
Likes
13,109
We are talking in human terms. So in human terms the native would be the first humans to settle in a piece of land. wouldn't you agree ?
Human settlement has never been static. The so-called original inhabitants did not dwell in fixed abodes. They were hunter gatherers who set up temporary camps and once they exhausted all natural resources that area had to offer, they moved on. Sometimes to new virgin lands, otherwise they invaded other communities and appropriated their resources. Strictly speaking the first humans to settle a piece of land were the Neanderthals, who were displaced by the Cro Magnons who in turned were displaced by the modern humans- Homo sapiens sapiens, who took to agriculture and more permanent settlements. Technically they cannot be viewd as original inhabitants of that area.

The point is that humans have always displaced others from their lands and this goes on till today. So to determine original human inhabitants of an area is an extremely subjective matter. Most tribal populations save for those living in isolated pockets of Amazon, a few islands in the Andaman Archipelago and perhaps some parts of Congo basin cannot be deemed as relics of that bygone era.

Genetics and documented history only goes so far. There are plenty of gaps that are filled by conjecture, which even when scientifically applied is subject to vagaries of individual opinion.
 
D

Drona

Guest
There in lies your problem because ive never prescribed to that theory.

Also its not like straight out of africa people arrived in one big lump, on the contrary dozens of migrations happened over tens of thousands of years. Tribals also developed there culture...lets not deride them if you dont believe them to be worthy
I know people from Africa did not arrived in big lumps, they arrived in course of period, similarly cultural development happen over the course on period but much much after main migration period. There were not too many people in africa at that time only 2000-5000 individuals.
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
I know people from Africa did not arrived in big lumps, they arrived in course of period, similarly cultural development happen over the course on period but much much after main migration period. There were not too many people in africa at that time only 2000-5000 individuals.
Agreed.

Yes only few thousand people were left after many died out due to natural events. To think now that only few thousand people existed in the whole world and now there are billions...then surely everyone must be related to each other. Yet we humans create divisions and fight.
 
D

Drona

Guest
Agreed.

Yes only few thousand people were left after many died out due to natural events. To think now that only few thousand people existed in the whole world and now there are billions...then surely everyone must be related to each other. Yet we humans create divisions and fight.
Well thats what is being a human !
OT: have you watch movie "The Invasion" , theory in that might solve the problem.
 

A chauhan

"अहिंसा परमो धर्मः धर्म हिंसा तथैव च: l"
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
9,507
Likes
22,493
Country flag
Quote me anywhere on the forum where ive said India doesn't belong to hindus and i'll quit. If you cant find it will you quit ? or atleast apologize for throwing around false accusations ?
No one needs to quit or apologize, it was actually you who started the Aryan invasion theory. You replied to Karthik's post he said:-

The owner in that case was an alien invader who had nothing to do with India and who did nothing good to India. So whats that use of dilapidated relic that stands as a gory reminder of the bloody conquest of India by barbarians from Central Asia ? In fact even the Muslims in India should have supported pulling that structure off.

Any structure built on the blood of Indians by foreign invaders in not worth protecting.ASAT.
You answered :-

lol even the aryans were aliens to India. just because they happened to come few centuries earlier doesn't make them native.

according to your analogy everyone in India came from outside except adivasis since they were the first to settle in land mass known as India.
The Aryan invasion theory which in itself denies the nativeness of majority of Hindus to this land, and origin of humans from Africa has nothing to do with the destruction of Babri Masjid it was completely an OT post which forced me to assume that you were denying the Hindu occupancy in India(you believe in Aryan invasion theory so Hindus are Aryans for you). While development of Hindu culture has been occurred thousands of years ago; and by the way I do not follow the Aryan invasion theory, though I agree with you that humans came to India from Africa. Whether you call Hindus Aryans or not but Hindus are the native residents of India.


There were no cities but there weren't forests either. The tribals were living then as they are living now. Do you know what the term "original inhabitants" means ? It means the first group of people to live on a piece of land. And aryans were certainly not that. Infact before the arrival of aryans there were organized cities near indus river. So you see aryans weren't even the 2ng group of people to migrate into India. If you know anything then there have been dozens of migrations into India through tens of thousands of years. Religion doesn't enter into it the equation im afraid. Hindus weren't always hindus and muslims in mecca weren't always muslims. Tomorrow if an adivasi being an original inhabitant converts to judaism then will judaism become a native religion ? No. Hinduism is Indian because it transpired in the Indian subcontinent but aryans came from outside. Even the hindu texts mention this so why cant you agree ?
I believe you are talking about Harappan civilization, whose religious tendencies are not clear but according to Sir John Marshall some of the sculptures found there seems to be Hindu sculptures. Swastik seals and Shiva Lingams have been found there so no doubt they were Hindus though they were in earlier stages. And it's evident that Hindus turned the land full of forests into a modern civilization.

I have already said I do not follow Aryan invasion theory, it is a clever theory created to deny nativeness of Hindus to Indian lands. Like I said before, original inhabitants of India has nothing to do with Babri Masjid's destruction. No doubt Adiwasis were here before evolution of any culture but the very first religion which evolved from India is Hinduism which brought India into present status. Hindus created a culture and religion out of such tribal fashion of living,who in no way were able to represent India you might call them Original inhabitants but it doesn't deny the fact that Hindus are the native residents of India.

Even during the times of mughals India was a golden bird...our wealth was only transferred out in mass by the english. Have i denied that muslims didn't invade ? No. I dont smudge over facts. In this forum itself ive mentioned it several times that hindu temple should be built on the very spot they want and mosque can be built in neighboring area but i bet you missed that.
Well It is possible, I might have missed your such posts, and I agree during Mughals too India was a golden bird. But this is also true that Hindus suffered most during Muslim rule.I agree the Hindu temple should be built on the very spot.
 
Last edited:

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
No one needs to quit or apologize, it was actually you who started the Aryan invasion theory.
What a evil person i am ?

Before jumping to conclusions i suggest you read what ive written. have i said aryans invaded India ? No.
I think you didn't bother to go through the source i posted, it describes the migrations same as in the image you posted , but with more proof with better references which are broad genetic study on Indian population. It simply debunks Aryan Invasion theory which undermined the cultural heritage of indigenous population developed on their own after arrived from Africa in India where they evolved differently and far earlier than other places in world.
There in lies your problem because ive never prescribed to that theory.
How dare i say aryans invaded India ? Guess what i didn't :laugh:
 

A chauhan

"अहिंसा परमो धर्मः धर्म हिंसा तथैव च: l"
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
9,507
Likes
22,493
Country flag
What a evil person i am ?





How dare i say aryans invaded India ? Guess what i didn't :laugh:
Before jumping to conclusions i suggest you read what ive written. have i said aryans invaded India ? No.

They come from outside India ? Yes
Were adivasis the first inhabitants ? Yes
Were aryans the original inhabitants ? No
The word Aryan is a misinterpretation of the original Sanskrit word, Arya. Arya means pure or good in Sanskrit. In the holy Vedas the good people were called Arya no Aryan ever came to India and you are saying Aryans were not original inhabitants ? :p haha You said Aryans were not the original inhabitants !! then who were they? You should specifically have said that there is nothing like Aryans if you denied that invasion theory, but lack of such specific post forced me to take it as i took it.

Some of the European scholars of Indian culture in the 19th century were Germans. These German scholars who found that Swastika was also a holy symbol among the Hindus distorted the word Arya to Aryan by their misunderstanding and assuming that somehow Hindu civilization and German people (Hitler who used Swastika symbol) are connected.

Whenever any thread uses "Ayodhya" or "Babri" words it becomes Hindu-Muslim debate of justifications and in such background and purview of the thread such Aryan invasion theory posts become Off Topic, and any post which denies Hindu nativeness becomes Anti-Hindu post and just for that I replied. :p
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
That is mere semantics...use whatever word you like. Fact of the matter is that they migrated into India from outside. That doesn't mean hinduism isn't Indian because hinduism originated in Indian subcontinent.

You may have good intentions to defend what you believe in but atleast read what other person is saying. So are accusing me of saying something which i have already denied couple of times before in the thread itself.
 

KS

Bye bye DFI
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
8,005
Likes
5,758
That is mere semantics...use whatever word you like. Fact of the matter is that they migrated into India from outside. That doesn't mean hinduism isn't Indian because hinduism originated in Indian subcontinent.

You may have good intentions to defend what you believe in but atleast read what other person is saying. So are accusing me of saying something which i have already denied couple of times before in the thread itself.

That is whay your highness thinks. Not everybody thinks the same.
 

A chauhan

"अहिंसा परमो धर्मः धर्म हिंसा तथैव च: l"
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
9,507
Likes
22,493
Country flag
That is mere semantics...use whatever word you like. Fact of the matter is that they migrated into India from outside. That doesn't mean hinduism isn't Indian because hinduism originated in Indian subcontinent.

You may have good intentions to defend what you believe in but atleast read what other person is saying. So are accusing me of saying something which i have already denied couple of times before in the thread itself.
Your approach is paradoxical mate, one way you say that Aryans migrated from outside and second way you said there was no invasion ? However leave it for the sake of thread's purview.It's a misconception that Aryans are a race who came from the outside. Let me clear it, recent studies show that Indians have descended from two local Indian tribes Ancestral South Indians (ASI) and Ancestral North Indians (ANI), who, respectively, came to the subcontinent 65,000 and 45,000 years ago. so peace :tea:

Indians are one people descended from two tribes - Sci/Tech - DNA

@ Mods please move "Aryan invasion theory" posts to http://defenceforumindia.com/politics-society/25056-genetics-aryan-debate-michel-danino.html :)
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
There were no borders back then like today and yes they migrated into India.
 

Param

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
2,810
Likes
653
Your approach is paradoxical mate, one way you say that Aryans migrated from outside and second way you said there was no invasion ? However leave it for the sake of thread's purview.It's a misconception that Aryans are a race who came from the outside. Let me clear it, recent studies show that Indians have descended from two local Indian tribes Ancestral South Indians (ASI) and Ancestral North Indians (ANI), who, respectively, came to the subcontinent 65,000 and 45,000 years ago. so peace :tea:

Indians are one people descended from two tribes - Sci/Tech - DNA

@ Mods please move "Aryan invasion theory" posts to http://defenceforumindia.com/politics-society/25056-genetics-aryan-debate-michel-danino.html :)
Maybe it was a peaceful Migration!:lol:
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
Maybe it was a peaceful Migration!:lol:
people came out of africa and landed up in India say 60,000 years ago and from that time period till now different how they did evolve different skin tones while living in the same climate ? remember all people that came out of africa were black like africans are right now.

many migrations happened into India and peacefully early on.
 

Param

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
2,810
Likes
653
people came out of africa and landed up in India say 60,000 years ago and from that time period till now different how they did evolve different skin tones while living in the same climate ? remember all people that came out of africa were black like africans are right now.

many migrations happened into India and peacefully early on.
Africa was the origin. But there were incubation centres like middle east and Central Asia where fair complexion evolved. Those who migrated directly along the Arabian sea and settled along the coasts and the south still have dark skin.
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
Africa was the origin. But there were incubation centres like middle east and Central Asia where fair complexion evolved. Those who migrated directly along the Arabian sea and settled along the coasts and the south still have dark skin.
That is right because that region was much colder back then than it is now but how do you account for fair complexion in India ?
 

Param

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
2,810
Likes
653
That is right because that region was much colder back then than it is now but how do you account for fair complexion in India ?
If I say the truth my fair skin Indian friends friends may pounce upon me.
 

A chauhan

"अहिंसा परमो धर्मः धर्म हिंसा तथैव च: l"
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
9,507
Likes
22,493
Country flag
We can't guess perfectly but may be due to north Indian cold climate they became fairer in thousands of years, as we see Nepalis are very fair; in the same way native people from Uttaranchal are also fair, perhaps north Indian became fair by such climate..
 

Param

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
2,810
Likes
653
We can't guess perfectly but may be due to north Indian cold climate they became fairer in thousands of years, as we see Nepalis are very fair; in the same way native people from Uttaranchal are also fair, perhaps north Indian became fair by such climate..
Not everybody in the north is fair. And there is no evidence of migration or invasion from south.
The nilgiris and other ranges in the border between kerala and TN are colder than Delhi, but how come they have dark skin? Ethiopia has cold climate since it is a high plateau but people there are dark.
 
Last edited:

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top