how much of Urdu is Sanskrit based and persian based?

[Joe Shearer]

Most indian nationalists pretend to be aryans, the only indians I respect are actually the ones who call themselves Dravidians, because that is what indians are

Would you mind very much if I called you an imbecile? Because that is what you are.

There is no Dravidian race, only a Dravidian system of languages. Only those speaking Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Tulu and Malayalam are speakers of Dravidian languages. Your formulation is wholly incorrect and based on theories of race which disappeared with the Nazi Party.

 

[abvgroup]

It may be that the Rig Veda does not reflect the conditions in the Indic civilization of that time as a whole.

For example, the pre-eminent Kshatriya dynasty of ancient India were the Ikshwakus, the "solar warrior" dysnasty.

However, that finds only a very periheral mention. But the Puru clan figures prominently.

Rig Vedas does not reflect any thing indian, it wasn't indian to begin with.

 

[neokautilya2]

Most indian nationalists pretend to be aryans, the only indians I respect are actually the ones who call themselves Dravidians, because that is what indians are

who said to you that aryan means being blue eyed...... stupid hitler

aryan in sanatan dharm means NOBLE....

if u want to call urself aryan or watever care to read what it is all about

 

[abvgroup]

who said to you that aryan means being blue eyed...... stupid hitler

aryan in sanatan dharm means NOBLE....

if u want to call urself aryan or watever care to read what it is all about

lol yeah right, we all know where aryans came from, it has been genetically proven. They defiantly did not come from your ****** ganga river

 

[neokautilya2]

lol yeah right, we all know where aryans came from, it has been genetically proven. They defiantly did not come from your ****** ganga river

so do u have aryan genes???

 

[Joe Shearer]

It may be that the Rig Veda does not reflect the conditions in the Indic civilization of that time as a whole.

For example, the pre-eminent Kshatriya dynasty of ancient India were the Ikshwakus, the "solar warrior" dysnasty.

However, that finds only a very periheral mention. But the Puru clan figures prominently.

The interpretation is not that the Rg Veda was wrong in its depiction of ancient Indian society. First of all, your mistake is to assume that from the Rg Vedic verses, we can create a history of ancient India. We cannot, for we are unable to link those verses to more than fragmentary evidence of historical movements. That part of India's past comes into proto-history, not history.

The correct interpretation of this proto-historical period is impossible to find. We can only surmise, and that is what historians looking at this proto-historical period have done. But I fail to see why you take the evidence of the Ramayana as superior to that of the Vedas.

Rig Vedas does not reflect any thing indian, it wasn't indian to begin with.

What do you mean? Is it your point that it was composed somewhere north-west of the Punjab, and therefore it is not geographically part of India?

 

[abvgroup]

so do u have aryan genes???

defiantly more than you. Most northern pakistanis actually have a lot more indo european genes, you can just look at their faces and tell that. Most indians have native south indians genes, again you easily tell that by looking at them

 

[Joe Shearer]

defiantly more than you. Most northern pakistanis actually have a lot more indo european genes, you can just look at their faces and tell that. Most indians have native south indians genes, again you easily tell that by looking at them

You really have a serious learning problem.

 

[Bang Galore]

The interpretation is not that the Rg Veda was wrong in its depiction of ancient Indian society. First of all, your mistake is to assume that from the Rg Vedic verses, we can create a history of ancient India.

Especially since we haven't the faintest idea of the actual time line.

For example, the pre-eminent Kshatriya dynasty of ancient India were the Ikshwakus, the "solar warrior" dysnasty.

The problem here is what exactly is ancient India & what is the evidence that Ikshwakus were preeminent? There is no other literature available to directly contradict the Rg veda and for all we know & it is fair to surmise that the Rg veda was speaking for a tribe & not as some sort of a neutral observer.

 

[Rig Vedic]

First of all, your mistake is to assume that from the Rg Vedic verses, we can create a history of ancient India.

That was not my assumption - I was only saying that the Rig Veda may be more focused on some clans rather than others, so cannot give us an overall picture.

 

[Bang Galore]

You really have a serious learning problem.

That's because he only has a "Indo European" face, he probably forgot to borrow a brain .

 

[neokautilya2]

defiantly more than you. Most northern pakistanis actually have a lot more indo european genes, you can just look at their faces and tell that. Most indians have native south indians genes, again you easily tell that by looking at them

how shud i believe?????since u have started the discussion u shud now prove it

 

[jandk]

defiantly more than you. Most northern pakistanis actually have a lot more indo european genes, you can just look at their faces and tell that. Most indians have native south indians genes, again you easily tell that by looking at them

hahaha ok beta. you are aryan. we north indians are black. happy ? idgaf what you think
btw i have seen yourso called aryan punjabis. they look darker than indian punjabis who are in turn darker than saraswat brahmins. but keep living in delusion
take a look at aditi gowitrikar, prakash padukone for pure saraswat brahmin looks

 

[neokautilya2]

lol yeah right, we all know where aryans came from, it has been genetically proven. They defiantly did not come from your ****** ganga river

oye kaha gye mr. gore aryan????

 

[Rig Vedic]

The problem here is what exactly is ancient India & what is the evidence that Ikshwakus were preeminent?

As per legends recorded around 900 BC (Mahabharata), they were preeminent. Also in the Ramayana, which is older than the Mahabharata.

it is fair to surmise that the Rg veda was speaking for a tribe & not as some sort of a neutral observer.

quite