the myth of aryan invasion of india

[sambya]

one of the most derogatory propaganda's of twentieth century is the theory of aryan invasion of india.it all began when early20th century historians,who were heavily influenced by christian faith and notions of european superiority devised the aryan invasion theory.in this it was hypothecated that the bearers of vedic knowledge were in fact a sopisticated white skinned brown haired nomadic tribes who attacked the uncivilized,barbaric dravidian occupants of the primitive india and thus the country got its first civilization(imported).

 

we all know that religion is always the bearer of culture and in the case of sanatan dharma vedas are the root of our religion.so it became the matter of utmost importance that the hindus be discredited of their shinning past and the vedas and make them remain as demoralized as before in order to retain the british grip over the vast subcontinent.this was very similar to the policy of divide and rule.so this absurd theory was formed.

 

the texts and writtings of any race constitute the biggest source of information about themselves,just as in the case of egypt.but in this case,inspite of no direct mention of a large migration anywhere in the early texts it was formulated.if aryans were nomadic tribes in rugged terrain of central asia what for they would have needed those chariots which is abundantely mentioned all over.chariot is essentially a urban vehicle of the plains.thankfully the later discovery of the spectacular indus civilization prooved this point beyond doubt the existence of a vast and superior culture millenia before the aryans 'entered' within the very soil of india.anthropologicaly aryans are one of the most superior primal races of mankind so attempt to link them to ones lineage has continued since history right down to hitler.

 

early reformers like swami vivekananda and dayanand saraswti raised the first voice against this false claim and called upon the nation to wake up and write their own history from their own prespctive.later numerous other scholars questioned its validity.if they did come from outside india then why the historians are not being able to say from where.it is a well reasearched fact that numerous latin and persian words have their root in sanskrit,which is regaurded as mother of languages.by this some historians wants to suggest that aryans were outsiders.isnt it more feasible that the indigenous aryan culture of india influenced the rest of the world? and specially when the other paraphernalias of aryans like vedas and varanshram are not found anywhere else.

 

another cause put forward by this theory is that indus valley people knew no use of horse which is why the aryans razed them to ground and overtook them.but subsequent seals unearthed from archaelogical sites show horses in them and modern reaserch has indicated natural disaster to be the probable cause of their dissapearence.the area of indus valley was heavily forested in those days with tigers and rhinos moving around,which has dramatically changed to arid desert now.isnt it more probable that some flood or deluge took place at that time as an external symptom of the sudden climate change?

 

keeping in mind these thoughts the correct hypothesis of a prudent mind would be that the flourising indus civiloization declined(not perished)due to natural factors and again resurfaced with much clearer and refined thougths at a later period.assuming this ,it would be easy to understand the strange similarities in the religion,behaviour,dresses and manners of these two giants of mankind.

 

sadly the school textbooks in india is still laden with these victorian propagandas.its time to realize our superiority and antiquity and shake off these prejudiced notions,for unless we realize the strength of our culture we can never be proper believer in our faith.and faith we all know is the start of realization.

[kaisersose]

The above post is a piece of trash culled from ignorant and uninformed sources.

 

If the people of India have to shed ignorance, the first step would to be avoid falling prey for such jingoistic trash articles and the nonsense dished out by Thackereys and such.

 

Btw, your article has left out some of the more entertaining "facts" whch are comonly found on the internet and enthusiastically passed around by many. Here are some of them.

 

1) Indian religion is the oldest because the Purana authors said so. All archaeologicial evidence, philological evidence and common sense in general should be ignored because they are British propoganda.

 

2) The British doctored Manu Smriti to include caste divisions. Otherwise Indians were very mature and caste dfferences were zero. What? You saw discrimination in other scriptures as well? Then the answer is, they were doctored by the British too.

 

3) Max Mueller had a propoganda to downplay the greatness of Indian history and so he wrote up false translations. Apparently, this was a tactic to divide and rule Indians. Otherwise, Indians were very united and were known for never letting foreign invaders inside the country. Hence, it was very important for the British to employ such alternative tactics to defeat them.

 

4) The British wanted to show all good stuff came from Europe; so they said Aryans came from Europe (Clearly, they were sleeping on the day when scientists wrote man originated in Africa, else they would have changed it to man originated in London).

 

There were some more gems, but I am not able to recollect them now.

 

Cheers

[sambya]

i dont believe that max muller downplayed indian history infact a minimum knowledge would immediately reveal his invaluable contribution in restoring the vedas(infact he saved it from extinction).neither did i mean to say that british always devalued india.they gave india many new and valuable developements(for exmple the idea of nationhood) and did a lot of good for this country. but it is a undeniable fact that they indulged some foul politics to retain their grip,(read through history to verify in case you have not). ive tried to read through the arguments of both the camps before forming an opinion in this matter,for believing something without sufficient study is against my principles.

 

but as you insist that this had not been the case im curious to know why do you say so.what actually makes you think that the aryans were a superior "white men' from some unknown destinations who showed india(the dark tribal nation) light through their colonizations.it would help me to understand your view better if you elaborate your belief with proofs from history.

[sambya]

one more thing.i dont believe in the idiotic theory that puranas were written before satya yuga and similar hilarious 'facts'.puranas were composed over a period of 1000 years with subsequent additions conntinuing till 18th century. and as to your comment on origin of man in africa it should be remembered that this is a a very recent theory formed under the liberalism and globalization influenced western society totally unlike the imperialistic 19th century west.

[kaisersose]

 

i dont believe that max muller downplayed indian history infact a minimum knowledge would immediately reveal his invaluable contribution in restoring the vedas(infact he saved it from extinction).neither did i mean to say that british always devalued india.they gave india many new and valuable developements(for exmple the idea of nationhood) and did a lot of good for this country. but it is a undeniable fact that they indulged some foul politics to retain their grip,(read through history to verify in case you have not). ive tried to read through the arguments of both the camps before forming an opinion in this matter,for believing something without sufficient study is against my principles.

 

Of course, the British played dirty politics in their goal to take control. They pitted one King upon another and gained in the process. All this was possible, because we were weak and lacked trust among our own. They saw this weakness and exploited it. They were briliant at strategy and ruled the entire world at one time without finding it necessary to meddle with local religion and history anywhere.

 

Therefore, it is not true that they had to resort to distorting scriptures or writing false history. There was no need for any of that as they were already walking all over us - with no effort at all. Just like foreign invaders walked all over us for 600 years before the British ever set foot inside India.

 

There was nothing new about the British ruling India as foreigners rules us for several centuries before that. The only difference was the skin color. It is relatively easier for the Indian to accept a similar skinned Persian ruler than to accept a white ruler. That was the fundamental driving force for Indians to unite for the first time against foreign rule.

 

 

but as you insist that this had not been the case im curious to know why do you say so.what actually makes you think that the aryans were a superior "white men' from some unknown destinations who showed india(the dark tribal nation) light through their colonizations.it would help me to understand your view better if you elaborate your belief with proofs from history.

 

I did not say the white man is superior. Everyone came from somewhere; no one in India just manifested himself out of nothing. White, dark, etc., everyone moved into the area at different points of time.

 

All Brahmins sects of South India trace their origin as North India. The Madhvas, the Nambudiris, the Iyers, etc., all trace their origin to the North. If you have studied South Indian Brahmins, you will find a number of them are tall with very fair skin, (green eyes sometimes) and look more like Europeans and less like the other dark skinned people of the South.

 

Then we have philological evidence of striiking similarities between ancient greek, ancient latin, persian and sanskrit. And hardly any similarities between ancient tamil and sanskrit. Compare the Sanskrit Rig and the Persian Avesta. One did not come out of the other; but rather both came out of a common source. In the Rig, Dasyus are described as Dark skinned and are the enemies of the Aryans. This difference was not invented by Max Mueller.

 

Later we see how this Vedic religion merged into something else to form Hinduism. Pancharatra, Krishna (dark skinned), Rama (dark skinned), Shiva (dark skinned), Kali (dark skinned), etc., are non-vedic and yet are more pevalent in India than any of the Vedic Gods.

 

Based on this and a lot more, this is my position,

 

1. Since a very long time ago, Indians were having their own religions made up of Pashupatas, Pancharatras, Shaktas, etc. They worshipped Shiva, Krishna, Rama, Vasudeva, Shakti in various forms and a number of other Gods like Ganapathi, etc. Some other indigenous beliefs are the doctrine of Karma and the core set of Puranas.

 

2. The Aryans were a branch that moved in either directly from Europe or from the Middle east like Persians. They had their own fire based rituals and Gods like Indra, Mitra, Vishnu etc.

 

3. Eventually the Aryan religon which had a small following merged into the mainstream. The Brahmin authors mapped existing Dravidian Gods to Vedic Gods ( through the avatar concept) as part of this merger to create Hinduism.

 

The majority of Hindus have no beliefs which are related to the Vedas in anyway. There is no reason to believe this was not the case in the past. I think this is how it was always.

 

Cheers

[sambya]

that makes better sense.i also share somewhat similarity with your views. but even if aryans did invade it was not like the version put forward by victorian historians that they brought light into the subcontinent.but if you read through the points in both the camps then the theory that they did not invade is more probale and fits in more nicely than the other.

 

btw i liked your stand in the discussion reguarding advaita in another thread

[Gaea]

 

The above post is a piece of trash culled from ignorant and uninformed sources.

 

If the people of India have to shed ignorance, the first step would to be avoid falling prey for such jingoistic trash articles and the nonsense dished out by Thackereys and such.

 

Btw, your article has left out some of the more entertaining "facts" whch are comonly found on the internet and enthusiastically passed around by many. Here are some of them.

 

1) Indian religion is the oldest because the Purana authors said so. All archaeologicial evidence, philological evidence and common sense in general should be ignored because they are British propoganda.

 

2) The British doctored Manu Smriti to include caste divisions. Otherwise Indians were very mature and caste dfferences were zero. What? You saw discrimination in other scriptures as well? Then the answer is, they were doctored by the British too.

 

3) Max Mueller had a propoganda to downplay the greatness of Indian history and so he wrote up false translations. Apparently, this was a tactic to divide and rule Indians. Otherwise, Indians were very united and were known for never letting foreign invaders inside the country. Hence, it was very important for the British to employ such alternative tactics to defeat them.

 

4) The British wanted to show all good stuff came from Europe; so they said Aryans came from Europe (Clearly, they were sleeping on the day when scientists wrote man originated in Africa, else they would have changed it to man originated in London).

 

There were some more gems, but I am not able to recollect them now.

 

Cheers

 

As a scientist, I've found the works of Cremo and Frawley quite interesting - IMHO I don't think we can rubbish all of what the original poster has posted... tho some of the stuff flying around on the net is pretty dire.

[ranjeetmore]

What waste of time.

Take the puranas.read them.that's history.

Don't apply too much brains.

You'll figure out zilch if you do.

 

Vivekananda is quite interesting really...His master,ramakrishna,was quite some devotee and this fellow turned out to be something else in totality.

I remember reading once that he was quite confused when a particular deity of some goddess in the temple spoke to him..He became astonished and started questing whether God was formless or He took all various forms...

I really thought it was an intelligent question that time...But now?

hehe...

His master said clearly,"The ocean is greater than land and the planetary system is greater than the ocean.But greatest of all is the Mahatma's heart which always houses sri Vishnu's feet which covered these three."

It's actually common knowledge.

A mahatma is called a mahatma ONLY AND ONLY if he's surrendered totally to Sri Krsna.There's no loop hole at all.....

I think i've deviated a tad bit too much.......

[sambya]

taken from that veiw point engaging in these debetes and discussions in this forum is also useless,istead of doing sadhana to realize the supreme.but anyways its good to see you having a minimal respect of ramkrishna inspite of being a vaishnav.all iskcon followers hate him.

[Sheki]

 

another cause put forward by this theory is that indus valley people knew no use of horse which is why the aryans razed them to ground and overtook them.but subsequent seals unearthed from archaelogical sites show horses in them

 

Was that not discovered to be a hoax made by the hindutva people during the BJP government?