Alright, where did I get to. I'll start here for today.
Niaz, The Aryan invasion theory as niaz your saying is total wrong but here are my short view on the same, Aryans existed beyond India that is for sure, but they didnt invaded India as it is being said,
Oh That I can agree to. Aryans existed outside of India (and Iran), and never invaded or migrated to either) - a quick look at the genetics will show this (I can agree to some Indian Punabis and Indian Gujeratis being of mixed Aryan-Dravidian descent however).
When river Saraswati dried up a group of peoples moved in the banks of Ganges from Indus, assimilated with new philosophies wrote new books as in upanishads which are more refined than Vedas.
Fanciful thinking at best. When the Saraswati (noone even knows if this existed) dried up, noone moved from the Indus except one or two tribes. The Indus remained populated by the Vedic people - populations do not change like this. Mass migrations do NOT occur in this sense. You seem to forget that the most important river in the Rig Veda is the River Indus. This makes the Indus (aka Ancient Pakistan), the most important area to the Vedic Aryans - Now you tell me, why would they moved from their most important river (Indus), to their LEAST important river - Ganges.
Let me explain this simply
- Vedic people lived only in Ancient Pakistan
- One or two tribes out of perhaps hundreds moved into the Gangetic Plains of modern India and RULED the indigenous Dravidian inhabitants by creating a NEW religion/philosophy for them that resembles modern day Hinduism
- A COLOUR based caste system was created by these rulers to maintain power
- The indigenous inhabitants of the Gangetic plains finally realized they had been subjugated unfairly, and usurped power from the Vedic Aryans, and THEN Hinduism was created - Hinduism is a purely Dravidian invention..The caste system became job based, BUT since all the darker people were placed in the lower castes beforehand, they got the wrong end of the job stick, and still it continues today
- Summary : One or two people migrated from the Indus Valley to the Gangetic plains, and ruled the inhabitants who then created Hinduism. Vedism and the Vedic people never left the Indus Valley
There were several parallel groups of peoples present in India at that time. From Genetics to discoveries of Archeology has proved it however lets not go there it will lenghthen the discussion hugely; On Genetics If you recall Kivisild was second author in the infamous Bamshad study of indian caste populations which had forcefed AIT once but then after the new study he has made a U turn and puted up what actually happened, however if someone says Aryans existed only in India thats a myth, Aryans are a race while what happened in India is a civilization formation which is a part of one race.
India is not one race. And if it were, it's not Aryan for sure (which isn't a race anyway, more an ethnic group).
I quote Sir.John Marshall, in his book Mohenja-dara and Indus Valley Civilisation, vol-1 Page vi-viii says:
"Taken as a whole, the Indus Valley people's religion is so Charesteristicaly Indian as hardly to be distinguished from still surviving Hinduism....
Does Sir John Marshall spell Characteristically as "Charesteristicaly" as on the forum India where you got that quote from?
One thing that stands out both at Mohenjadara and Harappa is that the Civilisation hitherto revealed at these two places is not an incipent civilisation, but one already age-old and sterotyped on Indian soil, wit many millennia of human Endeavour behind it."
Let's be clear now. When he says Indian soil, he means Ancient Pakistani soil.
Now please note that Hindusthan or Hindu is not from Sindu river, but "the Landmass between Himalyas and Indu Maga Samudram" and this place is Hindustan and people are Hindus and the book of ESTHER of Old Testament calls India as Hodu a minor variation of Hindu.
Wrong. "Hindu" is from Sindhu. The first reference to the word "Sindhu" is from the Saptha Sindhu of the Rig Veda who called their country (Ancient Pakistan), as Sindhu. The Persians and Greeks then pronounced the Vedic country as "Haptha Hindhu", and then after this as more and more of the subcontinent was discovered by the rest of the world, they called the people there Indians - this is why the majority of the early history (pre 500 AD - 1000 AD) or so of "India" is all Ancient Pakistan - in fact these were the majority of the great civilizations from the region.
It is to be noted that Dravidian gene is present among Aryans in the whole subcontinent, and even Dravidians are not the Tribal peoples who existed in India and still does in many places (I used the term Aryan and Dravidian Gene to simplyfy things but in reality they shoulds not be termed as Dravidian and or Aryan gene as such), My friend Vishnu Som a editor of NDTV travelled in Andaman with Indian Navy after Tsunami, and you know there is a tribe in there called as 'Shompel' Tribe and they are one of worlds oldest living tribes! They are neither Dravidians nor Aryans.
I'll tell you a starking thing, If you know the language of 'Baloch' peoples and see the similarity it has with Tamil, it is quite starking.
Don't use language to determine who is Aryan and who is Dravidian. Languages can be forced or simply adopted by people over history. Language says nothing about genetics. One example - Baloch do speak a Dravidian language, but are of a completely different race to Tamils - this is obvious to everyone. There is no Dravidian gene as such, but any "Aryan" genes in India have been well and truly swamped out in time by the Dravidian ones.
