Aryan Invasion Hypothesis

[Ray]

Keep this stuff going so that I can learn something that I don't know.

But keep it clean!

 

[Param]

each vedic tribe only referred to itself as arya and everyone else, even other vedic tribes (who belonged to the same "race") that were enemies as dasyu.

arya and dasyu are adjectives meaning civilized and uncivilized, not racial identifiers.

it was connected to race by medieval minded europeans who were too narrow minded to think of anything but race. some idiotic Indians continue to believe these asinine theories because they would rather be slaves to europeans in mind rather than spend a little bit of brain thinking over it.

I don't give two hoots about what each tribe referred to itself.

Unfortunately there are some racists, supremacist, hidden casteist bigots who would like to believe that all history we read is a western conspiracy.
Why do they pursue this propaganda_ because they want to consolidate power by declaring that there are no racial, historic or caste differences.

They want to brainwash the masses by declaring that our "glorious" ancient history has been distorted by evil westerners.

There are plenty of Sheeple who may buy into this argument by these anti west fascist propagandists but not the likes who know the bitter truths about the ethnic and racial history of the subcontinent.

Good that the NCERT still has some unbiased and sane historical writers.

 

[Virendra]

So according to you, the foreigners are the better ones to listen our history from and not our own people and not our own sources?
People like Muller who failed to find a job in Germany, didn't even have an academic degree and yet called themselves a scholar?
And lets take it on factual case by case basis, why are we sweeping generalizations about both the camps. There might be inaccuracies in our Purans and misinterpretations of Vedas by both the sides.
What makes one holier than the other?

 

[Param]

So according to you, the foreigners are the better ones to listen our history from and not our own people and not our own sources?
People like Muller who failed to find a job in Germany, didn't even have an academic degree and yet called themselves a scholar?
And lets take it on factual case by case basis, why are we sweeping generalizations about both the camps. There might be inaccuracies in our Purans and misinterpretations of Vedas by both the sides.
What makes one holier than the other?

We are not homogenous bunch. If not for common nationality for the past 65 years we are foriegners to each other.

Btw I thought Romila Thapar is an Indian.

 

[Virendra]

We are not homogenous bunch. If not for common nationality for the past 65 years we are foriegners to each other.

And what would the nationality have done if there were no common culture. Why did we bind in this nationality at all, if not for common culture?
The common nationality was pretty much existent till Gupta dynasty reigned.
If you look for it, you will find many differences. Same is true about similarities.

Btw I thought Romila Thapar is an Indian.

Yes and I think she has abandoned AIT.

 

[Bhadra]

Why would they refer to themselves as dasas?

Dasa or dasya is not even a dravidian word.

Dasas and Dasyas was the name given to the vanquished non Aryans by the Aryans. And they did not reach the South. native ethnic groups in the South remained unnaffected for centuries.

Oh My Holy Cow !!

You mean to say that Tulasi Das, the Gowswamy Brahmin, was a "dasya of a vanquished tribe".
What you actually are referring to, may be Dasyu, meaning a tribal criminal gang or dacoits.

Das does mean the slave but many top notch Brahmins title themselves as "das" of the lord. So is in South where "das" could actually means utter devotees.

You people go in absolute tangents, so I think.

 

[LurkerBaba]

Btw I thought Romila Thapar is an Indian.

In Pragati: An Outdated Syllabus | varnam

First, let us look at the Aryan Invasion Theory. In his book The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate (2004), Prof. Edwin Bryant who looks at both sides of the Aryan debate concludes that, "there is general consensus among South Asian archaeologists that, as far as archaeological record is concerned, clear, unambiguous evidence of invading or immigrating Aryans themselves is nowhere to be found either in central Asia or in the Indian subcontinent." Romila Thapar writes in Early India: From the origins to the AD 1300 (1995), that, "The theory of an Aryan invasion no longer has credence."


Second, when it is mentioned that only members of the BJP are against the Invasion Theory, it is incorrect. Edwin Bryant is not an Indian; Romila Thapar is an antagonist of Hindu Nationalists. Truth is the casualty when he says that opponents of Aryan Invasion Theory have been ignoring archaeological evidence for Prof. Bryant's survey shows that it is the lack of archaeological evidence, among other things, which prompted many historians to re-think. Instead of the invasion theory, many scholars now believe in a migration theory.


Finally, Prof. Bulliet says that opponents of the invasion might take refuge in the writings of his colleague Edward Said, the author of the seminal book Orientalism. On this point, he is absolutely right. It was the colonial historian who gave us the concept of race. 19th century Europe was the center of racial studies; scientists measured the volume of the skull for various races and found that the white race was the largest and hence of superior intellect.

 

[Param]

And what would the nationality have done if there were no common culture. Why did we bind in this nationality at all, if not for common culture?

Was there any other choice? Indian federation is not the result of an agreement between States_ as simple as that.

What is the difference between Indian Constitution and American Constitution?

The nationality was pretty much existent till Gupta dynasty reigned.

South India and the NE have nothing to do with the Gupta dynasty rule,since those regions were outside the territorial limits of the Gupta empire. The concept of nation states in the modern sense emerged in Europe.

If you look for it, you will find many differences. Same is true about similarities.

Then there are no differences between Euros, chinese, africans and Indians. All are similar since all are humans.

Yes and I think she has abandoned AIT.

Has she abandoned AMT?

 

[Param]

Oh My Holy Cow !!

You mean to say that Tulasi Das, the Gowswamy Brahmin, was a "dasya of a vanquished tribe".
What you actually are referring to, may be Dasyu, meaning a tribal criminal gang or dacoits.

Das does mean the slave but many top notch Brahmins title themselves as "das" of the lord. So is in South where "das" could actually means utter devotees.

You people go in absolute tangents, so I think.

Sorry i think I am not sure about the difference between Dasyus and dasas in the later Vedic context.

What you said about Brahmins calling themselves das is different from the Vedic context of the word dasa or Dasyu, since Brahmins were only one of the many priestly classes then.

 

[Virendra]

Was there a any other choice? Indian federation is not the result of an agreement between States_ as simple as that.
What is the difference between Indian Constitution and American Constitution?

I'm not talking about that once happened political decision. I'm talking about how and why did the society gelled together, regardless og how politics kept unifying and fragmenting along the centuries.

South India and the NE have nothing to do with the Gupta dynasty rule,since those regions were outside the territorial limits of the Gupta empire. The concept of nation states in the modern sense emerged in Europe.

Then we are viewing ourselves with a wrong yardstick.

Has she abandoned AMT?

That as well, will come in due time
She is not the only one, let me name a firang this time. Nicholas Kazans used to teach AIT till late 1990s and today he is a strong critic of that theory.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Param]

I'm not talking about that once happened political decision. I'm talking about how and why did the society gelled together, regardless og how politics kept unifying and fragmenting along the centuries.

Common hatred towards colonial British rule.

Then we are viewing ourselves with a wrong yardstick.

A lot of modern concepts emerged i the west, including modern democracy and universal adult franchise. Maybe we should go back to the 3rd century BC system of governance.

That as well, will come in due time
She is not the only one, let me name a firang this time. Nicholas Kazans used to teach AIT till late 1990s and today he is a strong critic of that theory.

Regards,
Virendra

I fear the Right wingers might Succeed.

But It will result in backlash. Not all sections of society are going to accept the right wing version of History. The various state boards have their own Historical authors.

As for most Foreign Historians, except for few small names almost all support the AIT or AMT.

 

[TTCUSM]

A lot of modern concepts emerged i the west, including modern democracy and universal adult franchise. Maybe we should go back to the 3rd century BC system of governance.

Both Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome kept large populations of slaves.
The right to vote was limited to free men.

 

[balai_c]

The question of nationalism is a funny one. As far as notion of nation-states are concerned, all we know is

A country is a region legally identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with a previously independent people with distinct political characteristics. Regardless of the physical geography, in the modern internationally accepted legal definition as defined by the League of Nations in 1937 and reaffirmed by the United Nations in 1945, a resident of a country is subject to the independent exercise of legal jurisdiction, while "Any person visiting a country, other than that in which he usually resides, for a period of at least 24 hours" is defined as a 'foreign tourist'.

Country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So going by this definition, any geographical entity governed by a recognized political entity can be regarded as a "country" or a nation.This validates the existence of empires as supposedly recognizable entity. Now we know that as far back the Mauryan empire was concerned, it was one of the largest geopolitical entity ever known to date in India. The age of the modern nation state of India is exactly 64 years old. Mauryan empire lasted for over 200 years. How can we regard that it cannot be regarded as some semblance of nationhood.
Now if absence of common rule leads us to believe that Indian would regard themselves as foreigners, then how could the common identity of Europeans appear, inspite of so many nationalities? White Race is , after all, defined a definite geography, and not skin colour.

 

[Param]

Both Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome kept large populations of slaves.
The right to vote was limited to free men.

Yes that's true.

When I mentioned 3rd century BC I was referring to the ancient Indian system of governance and not Greece or Rome.

But modern democracy as we know has its origins in the Magna Carta signed by King John in 1215. Followed later by the formation or House of lords and finally the house of commons. All this happened in Britain over a period of many centuries.

The second greatest contributor to democracy was the American war of Independence that resulted in George Washington becoming President. If he wanted to he could have become King George but he preferred to remain President and stepped down after his term.

 

[Rahul M]

so param would rather be a janitor in a foreign land rather than be a king in India. suit yourself buddy, just do not project your thoughts on to others.

so the history created by the self declared champions of divide and rule is the ONLY true version and the version that teaches that Indians are one (proven repeatedly by genetics) is apparently created by caste supremacists.

just one little problem, the supremacists would claim the opposite isn't it ? look at supremacists anywhere, they claim that they are the best and everyone else is inferior. I haven't come across any white supremacist (for example) who claims blacks are same as whites.

so why would 'caste supremacists' in India claim all Indians are same ? could it be because they are not supremacists at all, just a bunch of people trying to get rid of mental cages imposed by europe ?

Has she abandoned AMT?

have dog's tails stopped being crooked ? romila thappar and her hypocritical nonsense won't change in a day. AMT is a fig leaf to rescue AIT for which there is not an iota of evidence.

 

[Param]

so param would rather be a janitor in a foreign land rather than be a king in India. suit yourself buddy, just do not project your thoughts on to others.

Tell that to NCERT not me.

 

[SHURIDH]

many south indian belives aryan invansion theory

 

[warriorextreme]

Oh My Holy Cow !!

You mean to say that Tulasi Das, the Gowswamy Brahmin, was a "dasya of a vanquished tribe".
What you actually are referring to, may be Dasyu, meaning a tribal criminal gang or dacoits.

Das does mean the slave but many top notch Brahmins title themselves as "das" of the lord. So is in South where "das" could actually means utter devotees.

You people go in absolute tangents, so I think.

yup...huge difference between dasyu and das....dasyu means those vedic dharmics who stopped following vedic path and became criminals while das means servant....ram das,tulasi das etc

 

[Param]

many south indian belives aryan invansion theory

Because there is more logic than the claim that 10% of a particular minority have Arab or Turkish ancestory.

 

[Param]

many south indian belives aryan invansion theory

Not all are South Indians.

bahujan

[video]http://www.firstpost.com/topic/organization/bahujan-samaj-party-bahujan-movie-teesri-azadi-part6-video-7_mHmPfqewk-15518-6.html[/video]