'Aryan invasion of India', is a 'Myth'

[niaz]

You can refer to the latest genetic studies which shows caste system is very recent originating around 1st century. The so called Indo-Aryans after arriving in India intermarried with native inhabitants, their genes is present in every caste of Hindus either Indo-Aryan speakers, Dravidian speakers, low caste, high caste, remote tribal people in India in very high percentage around 30-55%. Which shows all those theories of Aryan invasion theory is full of flaws.

Having a keen interest in history, I purchased a book of Iranian history during my visit to Tehran a few years ago. This book which is in Farsi mentions that caste system existed in Iran until the Sasanian times. Even during the Achaemenids, there were 4 strata (Qeshr in Farsi). The priests, ruling class and the aristocracy, skilled workers such as builders, smiths, carpenters etc. and finally the tillers of the land. There were a lot of slaves as well but these were not classified as most were prisoners of war and sold off if not ransomed. This sound very similar to the Indian caste system.

Even in the Greek States that championed democracy, slavery was allowed and voting limited to citizens. Romans also had senatorial class and the plebeians.
Therefore I think that Indian caste system is quite old. In my view caste system or stratification of the society was an economic necessity in the ancient times. Only exception is the concept of ‘untouchables’ which appears unique to the Indian society.

In addition to the slave girls, it was common practice of the powerful to take sexual advantage of the females from the poor and the less fortunate; especially of the conquered people. Therefore it is not surprizing the Aryan genes are found among all strata of the Indian society. Geneticists have found that Chengiz Khan genes are present among 16-million people in the world, means that only one person has fathered 0.5% of the world population!

Genghis Khan a Prolific Lover, DNA Data Implies

Chengiz was from the 13th Century, can you imagine what could have happened to the female population of the conquered in pre historic times?

There were many invasions of the subcontinent by nomadic tribes from the Central Asian Steppes, whether you call it Aryan or by any other name is immaterial. My personal view is that Indus civilization was destroyed by the people who later called themselves 'Arya Putr' These were closely related to tribes who settled in Iran and what is today called Afghanistan.

However there was definitely lot of intermarriage with the indigenous population which explains high percentage of common genes.

 

[INDIC]

There were many invasions of the subcontinent by nomadic tribes from the Central Asian Steppes, whether you call it Aryan or by any other name in immaterial. My personal view is that Indus civilization was destroyed by the people who later called themselves 'Arya Putr' These were closely related to tribes who later settled in Iran and present Afghanistan.

However there was definitely lot of intermarriage with the indigenous population which explains high percentage of common genes.

Indus civilization wasn't destroyed, it has successor mainly as Cemetary H culture, Jhukhar/Late Kulli and Rangpur. In the mature Harappan period there are proofs of people switching to cremation instead of burying.

What happened after 1800 BCE? | Harappa

There were many invasions of the subcontinent by nomadic tribes from the Central Asian Steppes, whether you call it Aryan or by any other name is immaterial. My personal view is that Indus civilization was destroyed by the people who later called themselves 'Arya Putr' These were closely related to tribes who settled in Iran and what is today called Afghanistan.

The term Arya in Hinduism refers to those people who believe in Vedas, it means "noble" not specific to any race. Infact, ancient Hindus referred those people living in North of Gandhara as non-Aryans.

 

[INDIC]

In addition to the slave girls, it was common practice of the powerful to take sexual advantage of the females from the poor and the less fortunate; especially of the conquered people. Therefore it is not surprizing the Aryan genes are found among all strata of the Indian society. Geneticists have found that Chengiz Khan genes are present among 16-million people in the world, means that only one person has fathered 0.5% of the world population!

We may need concrete proof for such thing, since the mixing is between 4200-1900 years ago for more than 2000 years. It didn't stop in 200-300 years after so called Aryan invasion in 1500BC. What I heard 4 Varnas were mainly based on profession but intermarriages were always allowed but by 1st century people stopping intermarriages.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Why, @Aeronaut, why?

What a mischievous, terrible thing to do: open this box once again. Are you intent on proving the Dr. Hyde/ Mr. Jekyll thing? If so, there are less horrible ways of doing it.

May you rot in a hell which unfortunately doesn't exist.

THE MYTH OF ARYAN INVASIONS OF INDIA
​

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. Some people misread Ramayana as describing an invasion of the South by a Northern prince. The Indian epic Ramayana narrates Rama’s tale, who invaded the Island of Lanka to rescue his wife Sita. Sita had been forcibly abducted by Ravana to the island of Lanka. Nowhere does Ramayana characterize Ravana as belonging to an alien or an inferior race.

Ravana was a scholar of the Vedas and was called a Chaturvedi, a knower of the four Vedas. Ravana belonged to the same stock as the victorious Rama. People who give credence to an Aryan invasion of India cite archeological evidence as proof. Among the thousands of clay seals that have been found in the region of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro (the sites of the Indus Valley Civilization, supposedly the home originally of the Dravidian people), no seals depict the horse or the wheel. In contrast, Aryans were known to have the horse and the chariot.

From this evidence it is concluded that the Aryans conquered the people of the Indus valley through the use of the chariot and the horse. K. D. Sethna in his book cited above disputes this evidence. Some seals depicting the wheel have indeed been discovered at the Harappan archeological sites. The wheel was known to the people of the Indus Valley. Francois Gautier cites recent research which indicates that the script on the Indus seals is of Sanskrit lineage. This proves that the people of Harappa belonged to a much older Vedic age.

The recent discovery of the dried-up Saraswati river further negates the Aryan invasion theory. Satellite photography from outer space shows the existence of a dried-up river bed in Northern India. The archeological evidence indicates that the river dried up several thousand years ago, much before 1,500 B.C., the date ascribed to Aryan invasions. Saraswati is mentioned numerous times in the Vedic scriptures of the Aryans, indicating that these people lived in India during very ancient times.

Recent DNA evidence further negates the Aryan invasion theory. Dr. Subhash Kak summarizes recent research as follows: Advances in genetics have made it possible to trace ancient migrations. It is now generally accepted that modern man arose in Africa about 200,000 years ago and from there spread first into India and Southeast Asia by coastal migration that probably included some boat crossings. There are several estimates of the time when this spread into India took place. 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.

The new findings turn on its head the previous view of the origin of Indians. The earlier view, popular in Indian history books, was that the Indian population came in two waves from the northwest around four or five thousand years ago, displacing the earlier aboriginals, descendents of regional archaic groups. The new view is that subsequent to the rise of modern mankind in Africa, it found a second home in India, which is the point of migration for the populations of Europe, North Africa, China and Japan.

The migrants in India slowly adapted to the wide climatic conditions in the sub-continent (from the tropical to the extreme cold of the Himalayan region) leading to the rise of the Caucasoid and the Mongoloid races.When the theory of the Aryan invasions into India is replaced by an “Out of India” viewpoint, one can readily explain regularities in languages that are spread widely. Linguists see connections between India and languages that extend to distant lands. Dr. Kak’s full article may be viewed at: Sulekha.com Rivr - Stream of Posts | Photos | Comments | Questions | Answers | Reviews | Deals

An invasion of India from the outside around 1,500 B. C. did not occur. Recent scholarship does not deny that the people in India had relations with other Indo-European people in Asia and Europe. There was a belt stretching from India to the Mediterranean inhabited by a people who spoke related languages, known as the Indo-European languages. Sanskrit is the oldest known language in this family and may appropriately be called as the Mother of Indo-European languages. English is an Indo-European language.

Those who seek to foster the unity of India need to emphasize its unity, not its division. In the great cultural and religious history of India, important contributions have come forth from every region in the nation. The vast Ganga-Jamuna plain in the North of India is indeed the ancient heartland of Hinduism. This is the seat of Ayodhya (Bihar), Mathura and Vrindavan (UP), Kurukshetra (Haryana), and Indraprasatha (Delhi). The Great Mahabharata war was fought in the northern plains.

The 8th to the 13th century revival in Hinduism originated in the South. Sankaracharya from Kerala laid the foundation of modern day Hinduism. Sankara traveled to many parts of India and established centers of teaching and learning in various parts of the country. Sankara wrote extensive commentaries on Brahma Sutras, Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, which are standard texts for Hindus. Ramanuja from Tamilnad and Madhava from Karnataka initiated the Bhakti movement, which spread to many parts of the country, both North and South. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu from Bengal, Mirabai from Rajasthan, Tulsidas from U.P, Guru Nanak from Punjab, Jnaneshwar from Maharashtra, Jaideva (author of Gita Govinda) from Orissa, have all contributed to Hindu religion.

The four Hindu holy places and pilgrimage sites (Tirathas and Dhams) at Badri Nath,Rameshwaram, Puri, and Dwarka are located in four corners of India: north, south, east and west. Every pious Hindu aspires to visit the four Dhams in one’s lifetime. Some people equate Sanskrit with Hindi language and the Devanagri script. According to Swami Dayananda Saraswati, founder of Arsha Vidya Gurukulum in Pennsylvania and a Sanskrit scholar, Sanskrit language originally did not have its own script.

It was written in a variety of local scripts. The writing of Sanskrit in the Devanagri script is a later development in history. An Aryan invasion of India from the outside around 1,500 B. C. did not occur. People of North and South India have lived together in peace as two branches of one family since antiquity. People who talk of an Aryan conquest of India parrot the 19th century British viewpoint and do disservice to the cause of unity of India.

_____________________________________________________________________

Dr. Madan Lal Goel

University of West Florida | United States.

Dr. M. Lal Goel

 

[Kompromat]

No sir, just found it to be a thought provoking read.

 

[Joe Shearer]

No sir, just found it to be a thought provoking read.

I have to grant you that. It is just that I do not feel like elaborate explanations of a very complex subject, explained with a revisionist twist by a professor of a subject not even remotely connected with these issues.

 

[INDIC]

I have to grant you that. It is just that I do not feel like elaborate explanations of a very complex subject, explained with a revisionist twist by a professor of a subject not even remotely connected with these issues.

Can you refer to loopholes, which you see in this article.

 

[Juice]

May not have been a full-on "invasion"...but the fact remains that the similarities in many European languages and many Indian ones is there....so something happened to spread the language family across this arc...

 

[INDIC]

May not have been a full-on "invasion"...but the fact remains that the similarities in many European languages and many Indian ones is there....so something happened to spread the language family across this arc...

Similarity exists, that similarity is closest between Indian and Iranian cultures and languages but there is widespread loopholes in Aryan invasion theory and Aryan-Dravidian divide. The mount of graves found in Harappa which the colonial historian claimed as slaying of Dravidian people by invading Aryans while reality those graves belong to different period of times, not the proof of Aryan invasion. Moreover, new archaeological sites shows continuity of Indus valley civilization and their expansion eastward into Gangetic plains and while religious customs showing more resemblances with modern Hinduism.

 

[Joe Shearer]

THE MYTH OF ARYAN INVASIONS OF INDIA
​

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 much is pretty accurate, and I have to restrain my inherent antipathy to the views of this author until such time as he makes an error.

The key is "racial division".

Language is not race. Language is language. It is ridiculous to think of, for instance, a 'fairer Aryan language' counterpoised by a 'darker Dravidian language'. That, in effect, is what we are being asked to do by those nincompoops who think language equals ethnicity (another scholarly way of saying 'race', which is an unclean word today).

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.

There is no additional value in the passage above.

Once we understand that the Aryan languages were languages, and not one-is-to-one packages of language and ethnicity, we realise that there was no conquered race, and that one being 'pushed' down by another invading race is not necessarily established by the fact of their different languages.

The Turks of Anatolia, formerly Asia Minor, today's Turkey, are not ethnic Turk, except to a very small proportion, around 10 to 15%. But they speak Turkish. Egyptians, similarly, are not Arabs, but they speak Arabic. There are enough instances of language and ethnicity being widely different to discard the former German (typically) or British (far more subtle but as vicious) supposition that language denoted a difference in race.

Was 'pushing down' possible? are we cancelling it because it couldn't have happened, and never did, among the world's population, or are we cancelling it because it might or might not have been due to different languages spoken by different groups?

For starters, the Bactrian Greeks were ethnic Greeks, settled in north-west Afghanistan and neighbouring parts. A little later in history, the Scythians of modern-day Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kirghizia were pushed into Afghanistan, moving into and occupying the old Arachosian desert, and leading it to be named after themselves, Sakasthan, soon to become Seistan. They moved further east under further pressure, and settled in Gujarat, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, parts of the two big provinces, the UP and the CP.

The Kushanas followed. So did the Huns. So did the Afghans.

There is significant evidence that in India, populations moved.

Sri Aurobindo did not subscribe to the theory that the languages of North and South India are unrelated.

He was not a professional linguist, and, while we may admire his remarkable knowledge, his individual views prove nothing.

MORE LATER.

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. Some people misread Ramayana as describing an invasion of the South by a Northern prince. The Indian epic Ramayana narrates Rama’s tale, who invaded the Island of Lanka to rescue his wife Sita. Sita had been forcibly abducted by Ravana to the island of Lanka. Nowhere does Ramayana characterize Ravana as belonging to an alien or an inferior race.

Ravana was a scholar of the Vedas and was called a Chaturvedi, a knower of the four Vedas. Ravana belonged to the same stock as the victorious Rama. People who give credence to an Aryan invasion of India cite archeological evidence as proof. Among the thousands of clay seals that have been found in the region of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro (the sites of the Indus Valley Civilization, supposedly the home originally of the Dravidian people), no seals depict the horse or the wheel. In contrast, Aryans were known to have the horse and the chariot.

From this evidence it is concluded that the Aryans conquered the people of the Indus valley through the use of the chariot and the horse. K. D. Sethna in his book cited above disputes this evidence. Some seals depicting the wheel have indeed been discovered at the Harappan archeological sites. The wheel was known to the people of the Indus Valley. Francois Gautier cites recent research which indicates that the script on the Indus seals is of Sanskrit lineage. This proves that the people of Harappa belonged to a much older Vedic age.

The recent discovery of the dried-up Saraswati river further negates the Aryan invasion theory. Satellite photography from outer space shows the existence of a dried-up river bed in Northern India. The archeological evidence indicates that the river dried up several thousand years ago, much before 1,500 B.C., the date ascribed to Aryan invasions. Saraswati is mentioned numerous times in the Vedic scriptures of the Aryans, indicating that these people lived in India during very ancient times.

Recent DNA evidence further negates the Aryan invasion theory. Dr. Subhash Kak summarizes recent research as follows: Advances in genetics have made it possible to trace ancient migrations. It is now generally accepted that modern man arose in Africa about 200,000 years ago and from there spread first into India and Southeast Asia by coastal migration that probably included some boat crossings. There are several estimates of the time when this spread into India took place. 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.

The new findings turn on its head the previous view of the origin of Indians. The earlier view, popular in Indian history books, was that the Indian population came in two waves from the northwest around four or five thousand years ago, displacing the earlier aboriginals, descendents of regional archaic groups. The new view is that subsequent to the rise of modern mankind in Africa, it found a second home in India, which is the point of migration for the populations of Europe, North Africa, China and Japan.

The migrants in India slowly adapted to the wide climatic conditions in the sub-continent (from the tropical to the extreme cold of the Himalayan region) leading to the rise of the Caucasoid and the Mongoloid races.When the theory of the Aryan invasions into India is replaced by an “Out of India” viewpoint, one can readily explain regularities in languages that are spread widely. Linguists see connections between India and languages that extend to distant lands. Dr. Kak’s full article may be viewed at: Sulekha.com Rivr - Stream of Posts | Photos | Comments | Questions | Answers | Reviews | Deals

An invasion of India from the outside around 1,500 B. C. did not occur. Recent scholarship does not deny that the people in India had relations with other Indo-European people in Asia and Europe. There was a belt stretching from India to the Mediterranean inhabited by a people who spoke related languages, known as the Indo-European languages. Sanskrit is the oldest known language in this family and may appropriately be called as the Mother of Indo-European languages. English is an Indo-European language.

Those who seek to foster the unity of India need to emphasize its unity, not its division. In the great cultural and religious history of India, important contributions have come forth from every region in the nation. The vast Ganga-Jamuna plain in the North of India is indeed the ancient heartland of Hinduism. This is the seat of Ayodhya (Bihar), Mathura and Vrindavan (UP), Kurukshetra (Haryana), and Indraprasatha (Delhi). The Great Mahabharata war was fought in the northern plains.

The 8th to the 13th century revival in Hinduism originated in the South. Sankaracharya from Kerala laid the foundation of modern day Hinduism. Sankara traveled to many parts of India and established centers of teaching and learning in various parts of the country. Sankara wrote extensive commentaries on Brahma Sutras, Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, which are standard texts for Hindus. Ramanuja from Tamilnad and Madhava from Karnataka initiated the Bhakti movement, which spread to many parts of the country, both North and South. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu from Bengal, Mirabai from Rajasthan, Tulsidas from U.P, Guru Nanak from Punjab, Jnaneshwar from Maharashtra, Jaideva (author of Gita Govinda) from Orissa, have all contributed to Hindu religion.

The four Hindu holy places and pilgrimage sites (Tirathas and Dhams) at Badri Nath,Rameshwaram, Puri, and Dwarka are located in four corners of India: north, south, east and west. Every pious Hindu aspires to visit the four Dhams in one’s lifetime. Some people equate Sanskrit with Hindi language and the Devanagri script. According to Swami Dayananda Saraswati, founder of Arsha Vidya Gurukulum in Pennsylvania and a Sanskrit scholar, Sanskrit language originally did not have its own script.

It was written in a variety of local scripts. The writing of Sanskrit in the Devanagri script is a later development in history. An Aryan invasion of India from the outside around 1,500 B. C. did not occur. People of North and South India have lived together in peace as two branches of one family since antiquity. People who talk of an Aryan conquest of India parrot the 19th century British viewpoint and do disservice to the cause of unity of India.

_____________________________________________________________________

Dr. Madan Lal Goel

University of West Florida | United States.
Dr. M. Lal Goel

 

[niaz]

I have read a lot about the debate about whether Aryan invasion did or did not happen. Thus far I have not come across any conclusive proof that it did not. My belief that it did happen is primarily based upon three factors.

First is the similarity between the Indian & the Iranian languages. This is true that language does not make a race. Nevertheless language connections do imply racial & cultural similarities.

Second is the destruction of Indus civilization. No civilization is completely destroyed in one blow. The very fact that it migrated eastwards implies that probably foreign invaders pushed the local population eastwards.

Finally the presence of a stratum of population called ‘Untouchables’ or Dalits as they are called in India. Until quite recently Dalits were not even allowed to enter the temples. In my view, Dalits are the indigenous or original inhabitants of the subcontinent.

Besides, when it is proven that Achaemenid Emperor Darius invaded Indus valley around 518 BC. Alexander defeated Porus in 326 BC. It is also logical to believe that Aryan could have invaded India around 1500 BC.

Aryan meaning noble in old Hindu text reinforces the theory that nobility or the ruling classes were of Aryan stock. Additionally, rulers of the region north of the Gandhara were Yavnas, Sakas, Kushans or Hunas in later times and were indeed not of the Aryan stock.

However this debate has been going on for more 60 years and is not going to be resolved in this forum.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Germans even don't carry R1a genes common among Indians and East Europeans.

Aryan's R1a probably evolved in West Asia, then one branch moved into Europe and another branch moved into South Asia.

The original R1a carriers were dark haired and dark eyed Mediterraneans like the Vedic Aryans in South Asia, but the branch moved into Europe has married the indigenous blonde European women, thus their descendants have also became blonde and blue-eyed.

That's why the Vedic Aryans remained the original Aryans, while those blonde Scythians were probably belonged to the East European branch of AR1ans like Slavs and Balts.

 

[A1Kaid]

I don't understand why many Indians keep denying the Aryan invasion theory, is it mostly southern Indians who deny this?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Can you refer to loopholes, which you see in this article.

It's not loopholes, @INDIC, these pieces are part of revisionist history by Indian revisionists. I am writing a paper on Indian revisionist history, but just for now, these are generally (not exclusively - there are exceptions) Indians with academic and non-academic backgrounds, but not of backgrounds in history, who have the view that British colonial historical views of India were wholly (not partially) distorted. It has been their effort, as a result, to seek to overhaul all of Indian history, starting with the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT). Their collective wisdom and assessment has resulted in the Out of India theory (OOI). In sum, my assessment is that their criticism of the AIT was long overdue, and has forced professional historians to confront their own lazy acceptance of a clearly deficient and outdated construct. Sadly, their substitutions have not been very convincing, but in the collective shape of the OOI, it remains floating about the Internet to inspire generations of Internet Hindus to bizarre conclusions about Indian history.

Their greatest contribution has been to force all of us to face up to the fact that we did not consider alternatives to an invasion of India, an invasion on the lines of the later Iranian, Greek, Bactrian Greek, Scythian, Parthian, Kushan, Ephthalite, Turkish, Mongol, Afghan and European invasions. It forced us to consider other models of the dissemination of culture and language, and to look within ourselves, to the activities with regard to acculturation and linguistic change in specific parts of the country, for better models.

I don't understand why many Indians keep denying the Aryan invasion theory, is it mostly southern Indians who deny this?

Specifically, Brahmins, but south Indians in general, because the concept of an ubermensch sweeping in, pushing a whole population in front of them, driving them away from fertile and plush plains into a corner of the peninsula, replacing their language, and their gods, and their culture, and putting strange new versions in their place - don't you find it insulting and humiliating to be told this is what happened to your ancestors? this is why you are where you are today, not by choice, but by compulsion?

I have read a lot about the debate about whether Aryan invasion did or did not happen. Thus far I have not come across any conclusive proof that it did not. My belief that it did happen is primarily based upon three factors.

First is the similarity between the Indian & the Iranian languages. This is true that language does not make a race. Nevertheless language connections do imply racial & cultural similarities.

Second is the destruction of Indus civilization. No civilization is completely destroyed in one blow. The very fact that it migrated eastwards implies that probably foreign invaders pushed the local population eastwards.

Finally the presence of a stratum of population called ‘Untouchables’ or Dalits as they are called in India. Until quite recently Dalits were not even allowed to enter the temples. In my view, Dalits are the indigenous or original inhabitants of the subcontinent.

Besides, when it is proven that Achaemenid Emperor Darius invaded Indus valley around 518 BC. Alexander defeated Porus in 326 BC. It is also logical to believe that Aryan could have invaded India around 1500 BC.

Aryan meaning noble in old Hindu text reinforces the theory that nobility or the ruling classes were of Aryan stock. Additionally, rulers of the region north of the Gandhara were Yavnas, Sakas, Kushans or Hunas in later times and were indeed not of the Aryan stock.

However this debate has been going on for more 60 years and is not going to be resolved in this forum.

Dear Sir, you are lucid and clear as usual. I will take the liberty of dilating a little on your penultimate para when I get back to this topic. Regards, 'Joe'.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Only 'upper cast Brahmins' claim this 'historical fallacy' to their name.

No, all 'dwijas', twice-born, claim this. It includes a number of other castes besides Brahmins, notably Varmas (kshatriyas) and some castes presumably originated in the Vaisya.

Gosh they oppressed people of Bharat for thousands of years, based on a complete lie.

Yes and no. Yes, they dominated Indian society for thousands of years. No, it was not through a complete lie, it was through spread of language, culture and religion. The process was completed in Tamilakam, deep south India, commencing about 800 AD.

Eh? We still do. The similarity and connection between ancient Iran and India can not be denied. But that has nothing to do with Aryan invasion, there is another "out of India theory" which most Indians would rather prefer to be true.

Not proven, and based on rickety facts. The best summary of the issue is available from the posts of Bang Galore, but he must be bored of writing the same thing over and over and over again.