Definitive END of Aryan Invasion Theory - Founders and Genetic origins of Indians.

[Gadkari]

In case of this particular language you tell me.

Why ?

 

[peagle]

It IS my fathers India and My India and as mentioned I have NO intentions of talking about his complex.

It is called the Indian subcontinent and the Indian ocean and there is nothing you can do about it.

You can take solace in the fact that the name India comes from Indus river that flows in pakistan. That's about it.

I don't doubt it is your fathers India, as it is his fathers India, and his India. But I find people like you take the view that the only thing Muslims ever did was rape and kill and nothing else, then one has to think who got raped and are the genes in a family, really your genes?

Also, lets assume your actual name is "Gadkari", whatever it maybe, but it is your family, your parents who named you, that is the basis of an identity. All cultures around the world name themselves, a Bengali is a Bengali and a Maratha is a Maratha because that is how they identify themselves. India is a name given by foreigners to a region that did not have an identity of its own.

SO, you have no identity to claim, it is a regional identity, a South Asian identity, henceforth on a national level there is Indian history, a Pakistan history and a South Asian history applicable to the region. Regional history cannot be referred to as Indian history, that's essential logic based on facts.

 

[Gadkari]

I don't doubt it is your fathers India, as it is his fathers India, and his India. But I find people like you take the view that the only thing Muslims ever did was rape and kill and nothing else, then one has to think who got raped and are the genes in a family, really your genes?

Also, lets assume your actual name is "Gadkari", whatever it maybe, but it is your family, your parents who named you, that is the basis of an identity. All cultures around the world name themselves, a Bengali is a Bengali and a Maratha is a Maratha because that is how they identify themselves. India is a name given by foreigners to a region that did not have an identity of its own.

SO, you have no identity to claim, it is a regional identity, a South Asian identity, henceforth on a national level there is Indian history, a Pakistan history and a South Asian history applicable to the region. Regional history cannot be referred to as Indian history, that's essential logic based on facts.

You are nobody to grant or dismiss my Identity. No point in trying to impose your identity crisis on us/me.

I wear my Indian identity with pride and live the culture that was born here and practice the religion that was born here. The land between India and china was called Indo china. US was discovered by a man trying to find a new path to India, not "south asia". The books, architecture, music, literature, science, mathematics, medicine and philosophies are all Hindu / Indian.

 

[peagle]

You are nobody to grant or dismiss my Identity. No point in trying to impose your identity crisis on us/me.

I wear my Indian identity with pride and live the culture that was born here and practice the religion that was born here. The land between India and china was called Indo china. US was discovered by a man trying to find a new path to India, not "south asia". The books, architecture, music, literature, science, mathematics, medicine and philosophies are all Hindu / Indian.

Ok you seem to be going into your fantasy world, please do not try to misrepresent my words.
At no point I have done anything to your identity, I am just stating facts, there is no historical Indian identity, it is a foreign creation, if that hurts you that is your problem, not mine. Counter my argument, don't give me your fantasies.

Regarding the scientific theories, from my understanding it is mixture of both, local groups and from other regions. There was another finding recently that took the DNA from the Gandhara region, and proved a proportional link it to its present day residents of Punjab, Kashmir and KPK. It seems logical that localisation, and assimilation has happened overtime, it has happened in every society and culture around the world, and I fail to see why that would be different in South Asia. People have migrated and met each other through history, much before planes, trains and automobiles. The Gypsies of Europe are though have migrated from South Asia.

DNA results are based on percentages, and proportional links to other groups, they are not a positive vs. negative result.

I don't wish to ponder to your fantasies any longer, as you have nothing sensible to say, but I will clarify one thing, Indo China is a local region in South East Asia. Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos are known as Indo China, you don't know the basics, here you are trying to discuss science.

 

[jamahir]

Why ?

If I understood your post you said the "early Iranic" people spoke Sanskrit which then mutated to Avestan.

 

[Gadkari]

Ok you seem to be going into your fantasy world, please do not try to misrepresent my words.
At no point I have done anything to your identity, I am just stating facts, there is no historical Indian identity, it is a foreign creation, if that hurts you that is your problem, not mine. Counter my argument, don't give me your fantasies.

The very fact that Alexander wanted to conquer India and his men wrote a book Indika is enough to dismiss your claim.

The chinese even today call us Yindu (Hindu/Indos). This was from their ancient way of saying Hindu ie. Tien-chu. From that to Yin tu to today's Yindu.

Their most famous work is "journey to the west" which is about a trip to India. so LOL at your claims about our lack of Indian identity.

Regarding the scientific theories, from my understanding it is mixture of both, local groups and from other regions. There was another finding recently that took the DNA from the Gandhara region, and proved a proportional link it to its present day residents of Punjab, Kashmir and KPK. It seems logical that localisation, and assimilation has happened overtime, it has happened in every society and culture around the world, and I fail to see why that would be different in South Asia. People have migrated and met each other through history, much before planes, trains and automobiles. The Gypsies of Europe are though have migrated from South Asia.

DNA results are based on percentages, and proportional links to other groups, they are not a positive vs. negative result.

I am not interested in discussing fantastic "scientific theories". I am talking about HARD FACTS. And the evidence is irrefutable and undeniable. India was the place from were all the secondary migration began.

I don't wish to ponder to your fantasies any longer, as you have nothing sensible to say, but I will clarify one thing, Indo China is a local region in South East Asia. Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos are known as Indo China, you don't know the basics, here you are trying to discuss science.

There is nothing for you to say in face of definitive genetic evidence.

I can point to the name of Syria from the ancient SURYA or the to Hindu iconography found in Russia, but that would be unnecessary. Genetics has resolved any confusion for once and for all.

 

[Gadkari]

If I understood your post you said the "early Iranic" people spoke Sanskrit which then mutated to Avestan.

Avestan is nothing but Prakrit.

It is for you to say "WHEN" they became Iranic.

 

[peagle]

The very fact that Alexander wanted to conquer India and his men wrote a book Indika is enough to dismiss your claim.

The chinese even today call us Yindu (Hindu/Indos). This was from their ancient way of saying Hindu ie. Tien-chu. From that to Yin tu to today's Yindu.

Their most famous work is "journey to the west" which is about a trip to India. so LOL at your claims about our lack of Indian identity.



I am not interested in discussing fantastic "scientific theories". I am talking about HARD FACTS. And the evidence is irrefutable and undeniable. India was the place from were all the secondary migration began.



There is nothing for you to say in face of definitive genetic evidence.

I can point to the name of Syria from the ancient SURYA or the to Hindu iconography found in Russia, but that would be unnecessary. Genetics has resolved any confusion for once and for all.

You seem incapable of understanding simple points, I really don't understand why you keep going off-topic. I'll try to make it simpler, what did you call yourself through history, identity is self identifiable, self created. You were and are Maratha, Bengali, Guajarati, Tamil etc.. but you had no collective identity, NONE.

"the name India comes from Indus river that flows in pakistan"

You've already admitted the origin of the name India, it was given to a region for the people of Indus and beyond, because the people of this South Asian region had no collective identity, therefore, others had to give them a name, any name. That's the point India is not an actual self created identity.

You have usurped the name India for your modern nation state, so it cannot be used in the same historical context, it is the modern nation state of India, distinct from the historical region of India. To conflate the two is to accept a fallacy, a lie.

 

[jamahir]

I can point to the name of Syria from the ancient SURYA

Now you are going into PN Oak land. Next would be the Shaivite origin of the Kaaba.

 

[Fawadqasim1]

we homosapien sapiens are the children of a single pair we are all related genetically and otherwise the differences are due to the potential information in our dna for survival in diverse situations/conditions these are misconstrued as chance mutations by a certain interested/biased philosophy in simple words the potential for these mutations was front loaded in our dna for our survival in the diverse environment of our planet.

 

[Gadkari]

You seem incapable of understanding simple points, I really don't understand why you keep going off-topic. I'll try to make it simpler, what did you call yourself through history, identity is self identifiable, self created. You were and are Maratha, Bengali, Guajarati, Tamil etc.. but you had no collective identity, NONE.

"the name India comes from Indus river that flows in pakistan"

You've already admitted the origin of the name India, it was given to a region for the people of Indus and beyond, because the people of this South Asian region had no collective identity, therefore, others had to give them a name, any name. That's the point India is not an actual self created identity.

You have usurped the name India for your modern nation state, so it cannot be used in the same historical context, it is the modern nation state of India, distinct from the historical region of India. To conflate the two is to accept a fallacy, a lie.

India does not Define us, India DESCRIBES US.

BHARAT DEFINES US.

WE are defined in our ancient puranas as,

uttarain yat samudrasya Himadrescaiva daksinarh, varsam tad Bharatam.

translation,

Bharat / India as land lying north of sea and south of Himalayas

An orthodox Hindu while taking a bath utter the mantra, oh ye gange and Yamune, Godavari and Saraswati, Oh Narmada, Sindu and Kaveri reside in this water (in which I am taking bath). Then, he feels inwardly, he is part of whole of India, the sacred land of his ancestors. This has not changed for thousands of years.

This is part of our culture, religion and tradition. These are name of the river spread across all of Bharat. From the Northern "ganga" to the Western Sindhu to the Eastern Yamune to the southern Kaveri.

YOUR disconnect from your ancestors and traditions is not our problem.

India always referred to Bharat , to Hindus and that is how it will always be.

 

[Unite & Defend]

Indians have not identity - there are two events that occurred and significantly elevated primitive Hindu tribes within the sub-continent:

1) Muslim conquest of the subcontinent - before this event, primitive Hindu tribes lived in forests eating insects from leaves - an animal-like behaviour - Muslims with their advanced culture, religion and science, introduced a sense of civilisation, civility etc amongst these people.

2) British invasion and occupation - this event led to Hindus being handed a large landmass without a fight.

Point is: Hindu primitive tribes have been babied for about 800/1000 years by Muslims and people (s) from other parts of the world, including people of the Indus Valley (Pakistan).

The Hindu identity was crafted largely by Muslims - the rest is largely made up by Hindu revisionists.

Take Note:
The "academic" is a Hindu extremist who fully supports the current rulers in India - nothing more to say about that.

 

[peagle]

India does not Define us, India DESCRIBES US.

BHARAT DEFINES US.

WE are defined in our ancient puranas as,

uttarain yat samudrasya Himadrescaiva daksinarh, varsam tad Bharatam.

translation,

Bharat / India as land lying north of sea and south of Himalayas

An orthodox Hindu while taking a bath utter the mantra, oh ye gange and Yamune, Godavari and Saraswati, Oh Narmada, Sindu and Kaveri reside in this water (in which I am taking bath). Then, he feels inwardly, he is part of whole of India, the sacred land of his ancestors. This has not changed for thousands of years.

This is part of our culture, religion and tradition. These are name of the river spread across all of Bharat. From the Northern "ganga" to the Western Sindhu to the Eastern Yamune to the southern Kaveri.

YOUR disconnect from your ancestors and traditions is not our problem.

India always referred to Bharat , to Hindus and that is how it will always be.

I do not wish to have a religious argument, so I will refrain from commenting on what your claims are, that's your business. So, I would prefer not to get into that in this thread.

But don't you see, that is the point. Call yourselves Bharat or Hindustan or anything you choose, if you feel that is your identity, but not India, because that is not your identity. It would have been better to let India remain a regional identity, because it is more factual. And, by using the name India for the nation state of India, you have created confusion for yourself, and created a basis for a historical fallacy and lies.

For the record I am very clear about who I am, the land of Indus is my ancestral home, but you very clearly are confused. After all the discussions, you just claimed the name Bharat, and recognised that India is not your identity, and yet continue to use it. It seems a bit silly.

 

[Gadkari]

I do not wish to have a religious argument, so I will refrain from commenting on what your claims are, that's your business. So, I would prefer not to get into that in this thread.

But don't you see, that is the point. Call yourselves Bharat or Hindustan or anything you choose, if you feel that is your identity, but not India, because that is not your identity. It would have been better to let India remain a regional identity, because it is more factual. And, by using the name India for the nation state of India, you have created confusion for yourself, and created a basis for a historical fallacy and lies.

For the record I am very clear about who I am, the land of Indus is my ancestral home, but you very clearly are confused. After all the discussions, you just claimed the name Bharat, and recognised that India is not your identity, and yet continue to use it. It seems a bit silly.

Puranas means "old books", i.e history books.

There is NO CONFUSION in Indian regarding our Indian Identity. The confusions is all yours and you are welcome to it.

Our country is called India AND Bharat as defined in our Constitution. Like I said there is zero confusion.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It IS my fathers India and My India and as mentioned I have NO intentions of talking about his complex.

It is called the Indian subcontinent and the Indian ocean and there is nothing you can do about it.

You can take solace in the fact that the name India comes from Indus river that flows in pakistan. That's about it.

There are two different India's here - one is the fascist, petty, greedy state established in 1947.

The second is the historical region of South Asia, also referred to as the Indian subcontinent.

The nation-state of India formed in 1947 is the equivalent of the Chinese deciding to name their country 'Asia'.