Talk:Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies)/Archive 2

Archived

I have included new research on AIT. --Jay74 04:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is just a morass of ranting. I've archived it. john k 17:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!!

Vvuppala 01:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted WIN's comments. They are archived. See Archive1. Vvuppala. I am sorry I have not replied to yiour message. Will do soon. Paul B 12:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

If you delete any against scientifically proven and logical points for Aryan Invasion then it means that you are not able to withstand anything against AIT/AMT. If you can not answer to that logical points then do not delete it also. This reflects your Eurocentrism of last centuries still prevailing in 21st century.

You can term those points ( which are very scientifically proven and not any hyposis like AIT/AMT ) as rants & discard but dare to answer that points also.

Written by Win

=

I'm removing the npov tag. It was added by User:67.180.0.55, who added no other explanation for the tag as the statement that "We are white supremists and racists. We need to support this theory to prove that" [1] And to WIN: Please understand that talk pages here are a place to discuss the articles and that they are not meant to be an internet forum or Usenet. (I mean the discussions and posts at IA-migration and AIT). As I said before, take a look at other wiki articles to familirize yourself about wikipedia. --Machaon 12:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

User:67.180.0.55's edit summary was just dumb mischief-making. S/his edit history indicates that s/he's anything but a white supremacist. S/he seems to be an anti-Muslim Indian (surprise surprise).

I think this article needs to find a way to evade the constant confusion between arguments about race and arguments about migration. I suggest that it should concentrate on the history of the theory from the 1840s though to the post-war period, including a lead-in to the modern version addressed in detail in the I-A migration page. It should have a lot more detail on the actual arguments made over time, including the specific Nordicist/Nazi version of the theory, so we can see how that aspect related to other versions, rather than reduce everything to a misleading maninchean opposition between white supremacists and indigenists. Paul B 16:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think the political and historical aspects (for example more details on Max Müller,...) of this theory upto recent times should be expanded. (Part of this is of course already in other articles).Don't wait for someone else to do it. Be bold in updating pages. --Machaon 18:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

rewrite

I've done an extensive rewrite with the intention of clarifying that this article deals with the historical and ideological functions of the theory in the period from the its creation up to Indian independence. I've retained the concise discussion of the post-independence ideological debates and the modern theory. There is some overlap with the Aryan race article, but not too much, I hope. In general the race stuff about blond haired Indians etc etc should go here. I think a lot of these issues arise from confusion between the use of "Aryans" to mean "Indo-Iranians" and the use to mean PIEs. But that confusion is already there in many of the theorists in the 1880-1920 period, when the Nordic model is most influential. Another problem is that many theorists in this period also say quite "modern" things about IE migrations. There is no clear cut off between the early models and the current ones. Paul B 13:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Paul, the rewrite is amazing. Thank you, thank you, thank you! Vvuppala 23:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it! Paul B 17:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you too for the rewrite, it really is great. Just a minor comment: The first sentence of the article says: "AIT, is a term used by Hindu nationalists in India to refer to the 19th century European theory..." I think that this sentence, especially in the introduction is misleading, because the term AIT is used by others as well (Aryan invasion was after all not invented by them) and because to link to "Hindutva" is too general: Veer Savarkar, who invented the term Hindutva, did believe in the AIT. So, if such a statement has to be made, it would be more correct to say this about the OIT (Out of India Theory) (not the AIT) and to link to Indian Nationalism, not Hindutva. --Machaon 09:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. In the first sentence I was trying to stress that the phrase "Aryan Invasion Theory" is now pretty much exclusively used by people who are opposed to the migration/invasion model rather than by supporters of it, and these opponents are mostly Hindu nationalists. Later on in the intro I do say that supporters of modern Indo-Aryan migration models do use the term to refer to the 19th century version, which stressed the idea of invasion by "superior" warrior peoples. However, I think you are right that this is not clear enough. Thanks. Paul B 17:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

If /Archive 1 is morass of ranting then crediting some Aryans people of Central Asia or Steppes for whole of ancient India's achievements is much much more ranting. India's ancient past was suppressed by Britishers by way of AIT. But India's effects on her neighbouring areas like South East Asia, Indonesia & Malasia , China etc. can not be denied.

AIT and now AMT was propogated by Europeans and not by Indians so AIT now only used by Hindu Nationalists is wrong to say in main articles's first line. And, Out of India theory is also not any recent Hindu nationalist but AIT was opposed by many during last centuries also. To speak anything in favour of India should not be termed as Hindu thing. Do any Indians label AIT as some Christian thing always ? Then, why wrong terminology. WIN 04:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

India's "ancient past" is no more "suppressed" by AIT than the ancient past of Europe itself is "suppressed" by the argument that its languages resulted from the very same migrations. Is it derogatory to the British to say that their culture arose from migrations and invasions of Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Normans etc? All these invasions are thought to have happened after the Indo-Aryan migration into India. According to the very same "Aryan" (I-E) migration model, the Greek language entered Greece from the outside. Is that derogatory to the Greeks? Does it "suppress" their ancient achievements? The same is true for Latin in Italy. India is not being singled out by this model. The very European peoples you are accusing of doing-down Indian culture put their own cultures in the same position. No-one says that "the whole of ancient India's achievements" is due to "Aryan people of the Russian steppe". At the most, that's what some very extreme white supremacists say, and what people like the Nazis said in the past. Yes, at one point (c1890-1930) the Nordicist model was widely accepted, but even then it was strongly challenged within Europe (see Mediterranean race). All that the modern theory says is that the I-A languages resulted from migrations of peoples, just like numerous other migrations and invasions in human history. The early Vedic culture is assumed to have emerged from more primitive Indo-Iranian cultures, but to have developed over time in India to heights of spiritual and intellectual sophistication unknown to the the Proto-Indo-Iranian peoples and unique to India. In Iran independant ideas developed into Zoroastrianism - unique to Iran. In Greece independent ideas evolved into Greek philosophy and culture - unique to Greece. Just because the Rosenbergs of history have used AIT to justify racism and cultural-imperialism doesn't mean it has to be that way. The same model can be used to show the wonderful variety and diversity of achievements in different cultures as peoples spread and mix with eachother. AIT can just as easily be co-opted for the values of multiculturalism and diversity as for exclusivism. Paul B 15:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Sanskrit language which is called as IE language and that or some previous PIE language is called as language of Aryans ( now called Indo-Iranians by Westerners ). They are called to migrate ( and not invade as per previous AIT )in India around 1500 BC. Around that time or afterwards same PIE speaking tribe is thought coming to Europe. But that time there was no civilized culture in Europe where as that time Indians were highly civilized as evident from Indus valley civilization excavations. And to implant some language + religion + culture on very vast civilized area by comparatively very minor amount of these Indo-Iranian ( Aryan ) tribe people is highly impossible and that to with migration and not invasion method. Britishers ruled 150-200 years fully in India but were not able to implant their English language on masses.So, implanting language & culture on more primitive people of then Europeans will be easier than ancient Indians who were highly advanced then that time Europeans.

Indians are living in USA or UK via migration ( and not invasion ) in very very less percentage in those countries but they will not be able to implant their language on others. Infact they are highly educated people and cream of Indian social & intelectual people but implanting language & culture is not possible as they have migrated there and they are not any invaders for whom it may be easier or possible ( Mughals invaded North India & ruled for 200 years but infact they could not totaly suppress the original language of Indians )

Aryans came and sang in praise of Saraswati river in Rigved but during 1500 BC Saraswati river was a dead river. So, if at all they have come to India then it's much before it. Aryans came to India and wrote in Mahabharat that Saraswati river is dying river and it's not reaching sea anymore.So, Mahabharat will be before around 1900 BC.

Before AIT proposal noone in India knew about any Aryan tribe coming to India ( not even South Indian people ). Before Indus Valley civilization's findings in 1920, India's past was limited to Superior, advanced & cultured Aryans invading native & primitive dravid Indians. Whole very grand Sanskrit scriptures were attributed to these Aryans. In 1920's Indus Valley civilization was foundand then same aryans became nomadic , primitive & barbaric Invaders and native south Indians became original very advanced inhabitants of north India and driven away to Southern India by nomadic aryans. Then after Saraswati river findings & other proofs, same aryans or Indo-Iranians as called by today's western Indologists instead of invading India came to India via simple migration method. Aryans were nomads and then also were able to possess very highly structured Sanskrit language and other things which original Indians loved so much that they changed their original dravid language for Sanskrit. They also forgot town planning & making abilities of Indus Valley time that whole of India started living in primitive era. Now what to tell you for this current prevailing story !

To explain about relation between current European languages & Sanskrit , so many things is required to assume and modify the story when some against findings are met.

What to tell of Rigvedic Anu people driven away in extreme North West ancient India ( i.e. NW province of current Pakistan & Afghanistan ) and beyond areas.

What to tell about Hebrew 's similarity with Sanskrit. And, what about Lithuanian & Latvian languages' ( of Extreme western Baltic states ) very nearness in word,alphabet,grammer with Sanskrit and not with any other current European languages.

I have visited Tamilnadu few times and talked with my mothertongue people settled there.They have not found any major difference between Tamil and my mother tongue West Indian Regional language (IE ) that Tamil can be classified as from Dravid separate language family. I myself has noticed that there are many loan words specific to marathi & gujarati in Tamil language. They are not pure Sanskrit word also. After AIT intro in India, last century Tamils tried delebarately to remove Sanskritic words otherwise Tamil also would have sounded similar to Malayalam. Malayalam came from Tamil some thousand years ago and Malayalm still contains heavily Sanskrit words ( like other South Indian language like Kannada or Telugu ).

Indian language scripts also looks slowly changing regionwise like language.

Script wise from Hindi ( IE ) to eastern side Bangla ( IE) & Assamese (IE) script change then little down in south Oriya (IE) ( of Orissa ) change and it's alphabets round more than Hindi or Bangla. Then further down in south Telugu ( Dravid ) & Kannada ( Dravid ) script comes. Their alphabets are more rounded & scripts are similar. Then further down Tamil ( Dravid ) & Malayalam ( Dravid ) scripts come and are similar looking.

In India, it's gradual change region wise and it's similar to Europe only ,like Greek,Italic,Spanish,French,German,Polish,Russian,English etc. There is similar degree of distinction between Gujarati ( of West India ) , Assamese & Bangla ( of East India ) and Malayalam & Tamil ( of South India ).So, classification of Dravid language itself false and misguiding.

You're welcome to draw such hasty generalizations based on your own perception without knowing anything about linguistics or anthropology etc., But, do not put all your crap into articles, for the sake of our sanity. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

This is same situation like Europe but in relatively smaller land area of India. Do any English person understand ( read or speak ) Russian of East Europe or Greek of South East Europe. The answer will be NO. It's similar to that.

How Dravid and Aryan as separate race was called in last century, it's similar situation of false fabrication for Dravid language family.

WIN 10:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Please go through http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/aid/astronomy.html for dating of Rig-Veda which gives very clear idea that Rig-Veda can not had been composed around 1500 BC. This also confirms Hindu tradition that it was first in India that highly advanced civilization spung up and that knowledge was radiated to other parts of the world. WIN 12:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

they did not come from "Europe", they came from Kazakhstan (Andronovo culture. Nobody (almost) believes in an "out of Europe" picture anymore, and whoever argues that IA migration is "Eurocentrist" is shooting 19th century strawmen. What do you mean "civilized"? Indo-Aryans in 1500 BC were not "civilized" according to modern standards. Nor was anyone in Europe. If the IVC was "civilized", that was 300 years in the past by 1500 BC. The whole "barbarian vs. civilized" dichotomy is, likewise, shooting 19th century strawmen. 1500 BC Indo-Aryans were a semi-nomadic culture with highly developed ritual and poetry. If you consider this "civilized" or "barbarian" is a matter of perspective, I suppose. Nobody is crediting "Central Asians" with "Indian acheivments". These people started migrating maybe in 1800. They came to India maybe in 1600. The Vedic civilization reached its peak in maybe 1000, and early Hindu science peaked in 500, full 1300 years after the "Central Asians". These people were Indians, no doubt about it, just like English people today are from England, not from Germany, even if their ancestors migrated from there 1500 years ago. Ah, and the astronomy claims. Have you read the Rigveda? I have yet to see identifiable astronomical information there. It is all in the eye of the beholder. The topic is a red herring (but it has to be properly debunked, I agree, I don't expect anyone to take my word for it. It is just very rare that these astronomical "discussions" quote actual texts. So quote your "tables", and we'll see if we can debunk them. Obscurantist numerological musings à la Kak of course hardly quailfy, if you look for a given number in a given text, you'll be sure to find it somehow) dab (ᛏ) 18:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Aryan invasion theory is a myth created by British and has been completely debunked. Please read "The Real Eve Modern Man's Journey Out of Africa: Stephen Oppenheimer Publisher: Carroll & Graf; (September 9, 2004) ISBN: 0786713348".

DNA shows that the non-african world was colonised by different waves of emigrants from India. He has analysed both maternal DNA ( mitochondrial ) and Paternal DNA, the Y chromosome.

There is a genetic link indeed between Europe and north west India However, the DNA shows the roots to lie in kashmir and Punjab (Ancient Saraswati civilization which is mentioned most in Vedas and was destroyed due to an earthquake which caused saraswati to dry up).

The author specifically debunks the Aryan Invasion Theory

Every single non-african human is traceable to India which was the only inhabitable place outside africa till about 50k years ago.

Page 83

Mitochondrial DNA study

The main African Eve circa 150k years ago is denoted as L

L had several daughters of which a branch of L3 , rooted in Ethiopia During the ice age circa 85k years ago, the red sea was shallow and the gulf was above water A small band of L3 migrated to coastal Yemen and on the beach road and the first inhabitable non-coastal area was India

L3 then splits into N and M lines

N was born near baluchistan and M deeper in India

Europeans and middle eastern people have no M lines

India has the deepest variety of M lines dated to 75k years

M is found in Central Asia, Australia, New Guinea

Page 87

Europeans came from South asia circa 50k years ago

Page 136

N had a daughter lineage R, born in India 65 K years ago

(R is genetically rooted in India )

R had several daughters

U in India, splitting up into several U lines

U5 is the ancestor of kurds, armenians and basques and dates to 50k

years

U6 migrated to North African coast

R had another daughter HV, dated 40K years ago

and HV migrated to Europe

N had a daughter I , dated 33K years

who migrated to Europe

R had a daughter J/T who migrated out of India

20K years ago

In short the entire maternal DNA of Europe is rooted in India which in turn is rooted in Africa

Shivraj Singh 15:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

-The genetic evidence you present above does not convince me. Just because the genetic lines originate in South Asia does not mean Indo-European languages or langauge roots were present at the same time. It's very well possible that people whose ancestors migrated out of South Asia centuries ago, originated the IE language family root in either the steppe north of the Black Sea, the steppe north of the Caspian Sea, or the Anatolian plateau. Also, I would like to know the citations of the evidence you presented above Shivraj. And, remember, just because there was a so-called Aryan migration does not mean it brought Indian culture from outside. This is a misconception held by all opponents. The Aryan migration theory, in it's non-tainted form states that around 3-4k years ago, heterogenous bands of Indo-Iranian-speaking tribes who sometimes called themselves "Aryans", migrated into what is know Afghanistan. Here, they were supposed to have split into Indo-Aryan and Iranian branches, which lived together for a while before moving and settling in opposite directions, the former in the Indian subcontinent, and the latter in the Iranian plateau. When they arrived on the Indian subcontinent, the Indic Aryans came into conflict with various aboriginal groups and most significantly, a previous group of invaders known as Dravidians, whom they drove out and borrowed extensively from to form the Vedic civilization. Aryan culture was modified and changed to form a culture wholly unique to the subcontinent, similar to but yet greatly different from the preceding culture brought from the outside. The Iranian Aryans did the same in Iran and the surrounding regions, adapting Aryan culture to make something as different from both Aryan and the new Indo-Aryan cultures, something distinctly unique to Iran, the Persian civilization. This is a common course of history. A group of newcomers arrive at a new world populated by others. They conflict with these until they settle down and combine their culture with the locals until both groups merge to form a new civilization distinct from both invader and invaded. This happened in Mesopotamia with the Arabs, France and Spain with the Romans, Mexico and the rest of Latin America with the Spaniards and Portuguese and the Carribean with the Europeans, the Africans, the natives, and the East Indians(to a certain extent). Aryans did not bring Indian culture with them. They brought a parent culture that they merged with that of the locals and developed a new civilization similar to but overall different from what was practiced by both the natives and themselves. That's all the AIT says. Stop falling into this trap of Hindu Nationalism. In fact, genetic studies themselves show that groups of Caucasoid tribals entered the Indian subcontinent some 3000 years ago and merged with the locals to become the ancestors of most Northern Indians and higher caste people. - [[Afghan Historian 21:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)]](that's just my nickname. I'm actually a Pakistani of mixed Pashtun descent.)

Pashtun boy are you a genetecist by training? If not you better do some reading. Evidence presented by me is actually from a book written by an England based genetecist, i.e person who has spent better part of his life tinkering around with DNA/genes/chromosomes etc. Shivraj Singh 18:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

-Dont even go there Mr Singh! None of that "Pashtun boy" tripe here! And you didnt understand my argument. How do you know Indo-European roots existed at the time of these gene lines you present? Answer that question please. And, also consider the genetic evidence I presented done just a few years ago that proves a migration of Indo-European-speaking peoples some 3,000 years ago, sometime after the fall of the IVC. My genetic evidence comes from an article by a geneticist in the San Francisco Chronicle (2001 or 2002 I think) about a study done by geneticists from both India and the US. -User: Afghan Historian

Aryan or Indo-Iranians Migration supporter believes in it like it is some scientific invension. And, then they are not ready for any kind of opposition. 1500 BC invasion or migration is like some God's words. So, their story revolves around invasion or migration based hyposis. It's really useless to speak with such deaf people.

WIN 19:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

WIN do not worry be bold and make your edits and I will support you. Shivraj Singh 19:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Support what? So far you have produced a genetic timeline that has no connection whatever to "Aryan invasion theory". If you don't even understand what the theory is about, what are you going to add? Whether or not Europeans descend from a hunter-gatherer ancestor who migrated from India 20 thousand years ago has absolutely no relevance to a theory about the migration of Indo-Iranian peoples a mere 3-4000 years ago. All your evidence demonstrates is that there were already people in India, which no-one has ever denied. Who, after all, were these Aryans supposed to have invaded? Indeed even the most racialised forms of the AIT theory depended upon the assumption that people already lived in India, since they tended to see India as microcosm of human evolution brought together in one place – from "primitive" tribals through to "superior" Aryans. The proponents of Nordicism would be entirely happy with the argument you present. They took the view that ancient peoples migrated from warmer to harsher environments, evolving through natural selection into hardier and more determined races as they did so. They then used their superior determination to migrate southwards again and become the ruling classes of the people who created the great Mediterranean civilisations (Greece, Rome) – and others, including India. It's baloney of course, but it's not so very different in essence from the kind of racial nationalism peddled by "WIN". That's what make his arguments so offensive. The endless complaining about unfair treatment from Europeans would be more convincing if it were not in the service of an argument that is the mirror image of the one it objects to. WIN wants to claim India to be the racial source of "civilised" peoples and even to be the fons et origo of all civilisation. This is pure ethnocentism of the worst kind, made all the more objectionable by the fact that it claims to condemn the very thing it epitomises. If you genuinely want to contribute to this subject, I suggest you read some of the pages related to the relevant issues, and, more importantly, some of the primary sources. Paul B 03:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Support WIN's correct stance. Genetic timeline is crucial as DNA in India has no source from Europe. If 2000 years ago Europeans "came back" to the home they left this would be traceable in our genes and it is not. Secondly no archaelogical digs have brought up an iota of evidence supporting the "invasion" claims. Thirdly Panini wrote Sanskrit Grammar in 900 BC.

Panini should be thought of as the forerunner of the modern formal language theory used to specify computer languages. The Backus Normal Form was discovered independently by John Backus in 1959, but Panini's notation is equivalent in its power to that of Backus and has many similar properties. It is remarkable to think that concepts which are fundamental to today's theoretical computer science should have their origin with an Indian genius around 2500 years ago.

This sourced from [2]

If Panini was an Aryan how come his relatives back in Europe did not even know what grammar was in 9th century BC? Problem is west wants to acknowledge Greeks as source of all ancient knowledge and the truth is most thigs attributed to greeks were learnt by Greeks from india as these two countries had pehnomenal cultural exchanges. If you get a chance read Megasthenes. Also read Donald Knuth's [professor of computer science at Stanford University] book on algorithms where he describes what was discovered where. He still missed out on quite a few things but is still right in attributing bunch of stuff to Indian scientists like pythagorean theorem etc i.e greeks learnt it from India. Shivraj Singh 18:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

What? I do apologise. I thought you might be amenable to rational argument. It seems not. You are another inhabitant of WINworld. What on earth has Panini's grammar got to do with whether or not he was an "Aryan"? Of course he was, since he was a Brahmin from Gandhara. Why do you persist with the fantasy that the theory has something to do with "Europeans" "coming back" to India, or that some mass military "invasion" is, or ever was, proposed. It was always a theory about migration. Paul B 12:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You are not following. Argument can be on two points a) Either this theory is correct and hence India has been inhabited by Aryans. b) This theory is false and hence India has no aryans.

Since you call brahmins , aryans, you believe in a). This is the bug. My arguments were to disprove AIT. Once again Indians have no genetic lines from Russians/Kazhaks/Europeans. So no influx of this group into India took place, ever. Panini example requires some thinking before you can absorb it. If you believe Aryans were europeans/Kazhaks/Slavs/Nords (take your pick) who came into India from somewhere outside then what caused them to become discoverers of "theoretical computer science" in this "new land" and yet the group which they left behind , wherever they came from , remained clueless about basic things as grammar/mathematics until much later? Reason is simple India had an indigenous group of people, no outsiders, who had advanced concepts in Maths/Astronomy/Science/Linguistics. There were universities in India where students learnt these concepts in an organized manner. There were professors and surgeons in the Indian society in 1000 BC. Huge libraries existed at Nalanda and Taxila which were burnt, courtesy muslims.

Fact is there was no AI. Second letter is the word Invasion. So talking about invasion and trying to link it with archaelogical evidence is logical.

Do you believe this theory is wrong and you are just expounding what posterity forumulated (max Muller etc)? If so then you should not use words brahmins and aryans in the same sentence. Shivraj Singh 05:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I "should not use words brahmins and aryans in the same sentence"???? Do you actually know anything about the meaning(s) of the word Aryan at all? Look it up. There is no doubt at all that there were Aryans in India. That's what the Vedic peoples called themselves. The application of the term to people outside of India and Iran (yes, "Iran(ian)" means "Aryan") arose from the discovery of the IE language group, and so was born the concept of "primitive Aryans", or Proto-Indo-Europeans as we now say. From that idea arose the debate about the origin of these people, and of how their culture evolved through time and through migrations and encounters with other peoples. Even most of the avid indigenous-Indian thinkers don't deny that the spread of Vedic culture came from the Indus to the East of India.

Paul you have no idea what you are talking about. Brahmins are Arya and NOT ARYAN. Veda mention Arya/Arya putra and THIS WORD IS NOT SAME AS THE WORD ARYAN OF AIT.

And this is the biggest nonsense that Iranian is source of word Aryan. Languages are very bad source of learning history. Once again Indians have no genetic DNA from either Europeans or Kazhaks.

Lastly what is your personal belief about this theory? Who according to you are these "Aryans" who inhabhited India? Where did they come from? Shivraj Singh 05:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. "Aryan" is just the anglicised form of "Arya". There are variant spellings in other languages. For example, in German it's spelled "Arier". Of course Western usages have developed into several forms, as have eastern usages. The Nazis often used the term Aryan as a shorthand for "non-Jew", which, though true of Panini, is not a very meaningful thing to say of him. In more meaningful senses, Panini was an Aryan in the sense that he was a twice-born casted member of the Vedic community, and also in the sense that he was an occupant of an area that had long-standing native speakers of Indo-Aryan languages. In the broader senses in which "Aryan" has been used, he was also defined as one - that is, he was a member of an Indo-Iranian and, more broadly, an Indo-European speaking community. So he was an "Aryan" in all the important western usages of the term. Your other comments are just assertions, with nothing whatever to back them up. It is a fact that the name of Iran derives from Arya(n) and that the word is used by the Iranian prophet Zoroaster. Saying Indians have no "genetic DNA" from Europeans is meaningless. Genetic links are well established, though their interpretation is disputed.

What I believe about the origins of the Indo-Iranians is irrelevant. In a sense I don't "believe" anything, just provisionally accept what seems to be the best model on the existing evidence. What matters is that we accurately present the information and the evidence, and fairly report on the history of ideas. However, it seems to me to be very likely that Proto-Indo-European originated outside of India. Indeed almost all linguists believe this. The culture that became the Vedic religion is clearly linked to cultures in Iran/Afghanistan and clearly spreads westwards from the Indus, so the obvious explanation is that it arose from an earlier culture that slowly expanded into India and eventually achieved a cultural hegemony there. Other models are certainly possible, but that's the most obvious and most straightforward one. Paul B 01:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Panini was - roughly - contemporary with the major Greek philosophers. Greek culture evolved over a roughly similar period from primitive warlordry to intellectual sophistication. Why do you find it so hard to believe that the same thing happened in India? As for the claim that Indians have "no genetic lines" to European peoples, that's wholly false. India's peoples are very diverse. There is no unified "Indian race". North eastern Indians are similar, as one would expect, to nearby peoples outside of India - in Afghanistan, Iran etc. There are genetic studies that support the migration hypothesis, and there are others that challenge it. But even at the high point of Aryan-mania in the west, there were very few people who believed that a group of Europeans had transferred themselves wholesale to India. They believed in a slow expansion, "farm by farm", as Morris put it, which also involved absorbtion into local populations. No-one in ancient India discovered "theoretical computer science". Panini's grammatical system has, in hindsight, been interpreted as similar in form to the kinds of codings used in computing. Paul B 00:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Paul once again it seems you do not know what computer science is. BNF is fundamental to CS and is used to define the grammar of computer languages. A person, in 900 BC, if he could discover the notation that is identical to this modern BNF goes to show how Advanced that grammar and that representation of panini is. This cannot be appreciated by people uninitiated in CS. Aristotle and pythagoras were still on simple geometrical theorems, which they also borrowed from India. Read Donald Knuth.

Lastly it seems you have this bias that ancient Greece was source of all ancient knowledge. This is the fundamental reason why AIT was postulated by westerners. Shivraj Singh 06:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yawn. AIT has nothing whatever to do with claiming priority for Greece. Far from it. It claims that both Greek and Indian culture (among others) independently arose, ultimately, from the same primitive ur-culture. In fact it was the early opponents of the Indo-European model who wanted to emphasise Greek priority. Belief that the Greeks were the fount of all civilization predates AIT. No-one is denying the brilliance of Panini, but it does not alter the fact that what he did was only seen in retrospect to be comparable to the coding systems used in computing. The same is true of insights by many ancient scholars - such as Democritus's atomic theory. As for links between ancient Greek and Indian mathematics, that's possible, but disputed. Paul B 01:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Paul , you are dire supporter of Dravid race theory and Aryan Invasion ( which is ruled out world over but it still lingers on you ). Dravid as separate race and even language wise ( as opposed by me ) is totally false fabrication. Then why Lithuanian & Latvian is not made Indo-Aryan when their words,grammer,pronunciation all are very very near to Sanskrit ?

Before 4 thousand years England was hardly civilized or even inhabitated.So, germans can easily come to that place for settling there but 4 thousand years ago Kazakhistan is & was scantly populated compared to India. And, from there some people invading ( which is ruled even by BBC ) or migrating & leaving such a mark on Indian civilization & her people that they forget their Indus Valley civilization time skill & knowledge and start leaving like primitive Aryans is highly illogical. And, when Indus valley time Indians were having advanced town planning, metalurgy , sense of uniform weight system, trading , navigation skills then they must be having some sort of language & literatures.And, that language + literatures they forget for some nomadic & primitive aryans is highly illogical. Infact in kalibagan & lothal excavation in Indus valley civilization area , fire altars as mentioned in Rig-Ved is found.So, Sanskrit ( which is highly advanced language ) and superb scriptures in Sanskrit are from atleast Indus Valley time. That's why they are and were very dear for Indians for long. I have also mentioned Shrimad Bhagvat ( one of holiest book for Hindus )'s time frame of composition as around 6 years before ( It is mentioned in my previous arguments ).So, to overlook every scientific points seems to be order of every Aryan Migration supporter.

You always keep any sort of logic behind and firmly believe in Max Muller theory of some aryans so rigidly.

Rigved verses were misinterpreted differently and racially by Max Muller. And, why you are not commenting on it. Instead you are commeneting on some Astronomical coding in Rigvedic verses as mis-interpretation. That's your pseudo thing about this matter. Rigved's wrong and racial interpretation is criticized and ruled out by many western acedamics.So, to find basis in it through Aryan Invasion or Migration is totally wrong. WIN 05:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

If you had ever read any books by Max Muller you would not characterise his views in this way. Where does he interpret Rigvedic verses "differently and racially"? Show me the relevant passages. And what exactly is "Dravid race theory"? "Dravidians" is a loose term used to refer to a large ethno-linguistic group. Even in the 19th century European ethnologists divided India's peoples into several different racial categories, according to the models of the day. Of course the Indus valley had a language, but there is no good evidence that it had a literature. Go to Indus script and read the famous Farmer/Sproat/Witzel article that is linked from there. Look at the history of the IVC - when it declined and the common explanations for it. As for your fantasy that Dravidian languages are similar to Sanskrit, find a bona fide linguist who agrees. There are none. Of course they contain many Sankrit loan-words, but English contains many loan words from Latin. That does not make it a Romance language. Quite what you are trying to argue about Baltic languages, I don't know. Of course they are similar to Sanskrit to an extent, because they are part of the Indo-European group (unlike Dravidian). They contain some distinctive archaic features, that's true, but no linguist puts them in the Indo-Aryan group, or even the Indo-Iranian group. Paul B 10:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

-Sorry for butting in here, but genetic proof demonstrates that many of the Dravidian-speaking peoples are somewhat racially different from the Indo-Aryans of the north, although as a whole group, they probably arent what you call homogenous. And, as for the Rishi Agatsya creating Tamil, Indian mythology may have some small grains of truth but I highly doubt this myth is one of them. Dravidian languages are on a whole fundamentally different from the Indo-Iranian languages, although they are greatly influenced by them, via Hinduism, Buddhism and the arrival of the Iranian Baloch on Brahui territory. And as for similarities between the Vedic culture and the IVC, it must be remembered that the Indo-Aryans borrowed a great deal from the local Dravidian-speaking peoples and various aboriginal groups such as the Munda, the Naga and even the primitive Negrito culture, (to a small degree). The similarities are more indicative of the fact that the Indo-Aryan migrants(rather than invaders)borrowed heavily from the Dravidians rather than of a scenario of the Indo-Aryans (and, ultimately, the Indo-European-speakers as a whole) being indigenous to the region. This was to back you up Paul. [[Afghan Historian 21:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)]](sorry for not specifying myself earlier or logging in. I'm kind of lazy when it comes to writing down author labels for myself).

Indus writings decipherment is not done till today. But that is not related with our topic. Where as fire altars findings in Kalibangan & other Indus Valley excavations gives proof that similar fire altars which are mentioned in Rig-Ved must have been known to Indus Valley people. Then only you can find them in excavation. This is just one solid proof of Rig-Ved knowing Indus valley people.

All Indians' knowing of Ganga, Yamuna & Saraswati's confluence at Prayag gives idea that Indians are still remembering their Ancient Rig-Vedic Saraswati river. In Rig-Ved , it's mentioned as Mother River from all Indian rivers including Ganga and Sindhu. That means during Rig-Vedic time , it was the greatest and widest of all Indian rivers.

But, then in Mahabharat ( writtern by so-called Aryans around 1000 BC - 500 BC as told by Max Muller's follower Indologists ), Saraswati river is mentioned as Dying river and it's mentioned that Saraswati river is no more reaching sea and ending in land area only.

But modern findings say that Saraswati river was dried by 2500 BC or at the most latest by 1900 BC. So, now tell me whether this is not any proof that Rig-Ved and Mahabharat were written atleast before 1900 BC.

Even my above mention of Shrimad Bhagawat's period around 6,000 years before is one proof besides so many proofs.

Go through http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/aid/astronomy.html for dating of Rig-Veda which gives very clear idea that Rig-Veda can not had been composed around 1500 BC.

There are so many logical proofs which clearly says that Rig-Ved is written much before 1500 BC. But then also you always overlook that points and do not comment on it. Because you do not have any answer for that logical & scientific explanations.

You have one set mind that there was Aryan Invasion or Migration in India and then based on that you give your explanations.

Your assumptions & speculations are always right. No way. First Aryans were Literate and highly civilized people before Indus Valley excavations. Then after they became primitive & nomadic people. Aryans related story line always changes with some proofings. First Invasion and now Migration. But your idea of Sanskrit coming from out of India will be always right.

In other veda, the kind of depth is shown in Medicine,Plants in knowledge is hardly makes us believe that that was obtained within 300-400 years after coming to India. Even till today, Europeans have not developed any natural & herbal based Life Science like Ayurveda. That shows that so called nomadic Aryans can not develope within 300 -400 years this type of Science after coming to India.

Avesta mentions Sapta-Sindhu area ( i.e. current punjab & haryana ) as their earliest occupied area. Then it mentions Afghanistan area, East Iran and then in the last nearby Central asian areas as occupied areas.

If avestan people came from Central asia then they should not mention Sapta-Sindhu area as occupied and that too very early occupied area. They should mention deep Central asian area first as occupied area and then East Iran and then Afghan area. But not at all Sapta - Sindhu area.

It clearly means that Avestan Iranians moved from Sapta Sindhu to Iran and then nearby central asian areas.So, now comment on this points.

WIN 06:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

-I dont know if you know this WIN, but Paul and I talked about the Sapta Sindhu argument at the bottom of this page and how the region is not mentioned in the Avesta, like you claim.

A Call To Arms

Friends, there is a swiss-german admin of wikipedia called Dbachmann User: Dbachmann who holds deep hatred of Hindus and Indians in his psyche, for reasons best known to him only. He has been vandalizing any good article edits which even mildly favorable to Hindus. In place of that he spreads lies like Bhagvad-Geeta was written after Jesus christ's times and so on.

He was unknown to most Indian wikipedians till he tried to mess up the Rajput article. A cursory glance of his contributions on wikipedia convinced us to report this guy to other admins. He deserves to be banned from wikipedia altogether, and at the very least his admin previledges needs to be revoked. We have filed a complained against him. Here is a link to that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_%282%29

All self respecting Indians are called upon to go to this link and sign the petition. A complete list of charges against this user can be found in the petition.

Thanks everybody

Sisodia

==============================================================

Several reasons why Migrations could not have happened after 3500-3000 BC

(a) Hinduism almost disappeared in 600 BC after the advent of Buddhism. Did Hinduism exist only for 400 years before disappearing ? This is outright absurd ! (plus Hinduism was already In decline by 1000 BC – how could it begin to decline before it even developed ?

(b) Sanskrit too meets with a similar fate if we take a date of 1500 BC : according to Indian tradition Sanskrit disappeared long before 1000 BC: This is simply irreconciliable.

Comment on this point :

During Mahavir ( of Jainism ) and Buddha's time around 600-500 BC , people's languages were Pali and Ardhamagadhi. That's why they had given their teachings in that languages of common man and immediately got connected with them. That time Sanskrit was not language of common man but only literate people. Sanskrit's position that time was like English's current position in India which is language of Higher Education. Today only 5% of Indian population knows English. So, Sanskrit ( which literally means artificially created , perfected ) had died as common language and Prakrit languages had already started flourishing as language of people.

This means that,

(1) Sanskrit from 1000 BC ( starting of Epic period as described in the West) to 600-500 BC was language of people. But here we require some gestation period for Pali and Ardhamaghadhi language development of 100-200 years minimum as similar period is given for Sanskrit from 1500 BC to 1000 BC. And, then it means Sanskrit was the language of people only for 200 odd years.

                                           OR

(2) Migrating Aryans were already having Sanskrit language imported from Central asia. But then they must be possessing ability of Perfecting any language with complex but logical grammer.But Rig-Vedic Aryans were nomadic type people who had just come from central asia. Then , they were having sophisticated astronomical nomaclature also. Truely, remarkable advancement in it's type compared to vast Indus valley civilization's foolish people ( because then only this vast population can adopt the nomadic language which is only of it's kind postulated example in the world ) .

(c) There are hundreds of Pre-buddhist kinglists waiting to be dated (stories of these kings still form a part of daily culture): how can we make one part of our history disappear?

(d) How can such a theory reconcile with the timeline of the drying up of the River Saraswathi? How does it explain references in the Rig Veda to the vastness of the River Saraswathi? (This was a was river till 3000 BC and dried up completely by 1900 BC.

(e) In the recent past, the History of the Aryan kingdoms of the Gangetic plains has been painstakingly reconstructed all the way to before 1900 BC. How can such a theory reconcile with this?

(f) How does it reconcile with the fact that Indo-Aryan Kings Sudyumma, Turvasa, Drhuya established three independent cities on the banks of the river Saraswathi (<1900 BC) accoriding to Sanskrit literature? There are several cities mentioned in Sansktit literature-many remain undiscovered

(g) How could Aryans have destroyed ten million Harappans overnight? The Harappan civilization is now simply too big for us to even consider such a simplistic model. If this is so, how do we assume that Indo-Aryans had arrived at the same time that the Harappan civilization declined?

(h) Why would anyone compose 10000 verses of Hymns overnight? The Rig Veda was an oral record of people, their culture, their triumphs and tribulations over the centuries. Of course, It perhaps did not become a rigid tradition till 1500 BC

(i) Why did the Aryans have to compose the Vedas the moment they landed in India ? The date for the Rig Veda doesn’t rule out the Aryans having existed in India earlier (Why did nomads develop philosophical instincts overnight?) The Rig Veda itself talks about several periods in History all based in India.

(j) How does the Aryan Invasion theory explain certain similarities between Vedic and Harappan cultures especially in the newer excavations (> 2300 BC)? This means that they had interected with each other over a period of time

(k) How does AIT explain the Aryan political process as described in Sanskrit literature which took place slowly and in stages?

(l) The Rig Veda describes the Geography of India in very great detail and at best mentions an ancient homeland in passing. How does the Aryan Invasion Theory explain this?

(m) There is no record of Sanskrit existing in the same form anywhere outside India. Therefore Sanskrit may have evolved in India (though perhaps from an earlier common source).How can the AIT explain this? Sanskrit and Persian languages were related to one another but not similar

(n) How could the “battle” of 1500 BC be fought using chariots? How did chariots evolve from a nomadic culture overnight? Therefore, this must have been a conflict within the Indian subcontinent and not an alien invasion. Barbarians or pastoral people don’t ride chariots!

(o) How can the Boghaz Kuei inscription be explained? Also references to Indian kings in Persia in 1800 BC? Indian names could be differentiated from Persian names by 1800 BC. By 1800 BC, Aryans had already begun to rule from India.

(p) How does it explain the references to the river Saraswathi in the epic Mahabharata i.e 1500 BC? How could the “Aryan” epic age replete with kingdoms and chariots have begun before the Vedic age?

(q) How does this theory explain the fact that Aryan and Non-Aryan kingdoms i.e Gandhara, Chedi, Khamboja were already existing at the time of the Rig Veda?

(r) The general pattern of Vedic influences in Harappan culture suggests that Vedic speakers had trickled in from the North-east and not the North-west as previously assumed. How can this be explained?

(s) How can it explain the fact that The Bet Dwarka site contains many Harappan elements and at the same time could be associated by many historians with a Sanskrit epic? This site has already been dated to 1800 BC – 1900 BC. That means the Indo-Aryans were already building cities by this time.

(t) Indo-Aryan Gods like Brahma and Vishnu and many other beliefs described in the Vedas were already different from those of other “Aryans”(though the earliest and long forgotten God Dyaus Pitar may have been similar to the Greeks). That means the Indo-Aryans evolved slowly, over a period of time

(u) The Indian and Persian Gods estranged from each other very, very slowly and in phases. All different phases were already captured in the Rig Veda. This too suggests that the Indo-Aryans evolved slowly.

(v) How does it explain the fact that the words Brahmin, Kshatriya etc were already being used at the time of Indo-Aryan king Yayati – who lived when the Saraswathi was still flowing. (<1900 BC)

(w) DNA tests have confirmed a cosmopolitan set of people already existing by 2200 BC in India. ____________________________________________________________

The western `so called' Sanskrit scholars interpreted some sanskrit verse in their advantage to say that aryan are white & south indian people ( dravid people )are black.But in any ancient Indian text there is no mention of Arya as race or different people. Arya in those texts like Ved ( which means knowledge in Sanskrit ), Ramayan , Mahabharat etc. is mentioned as respect gesture in speaking like it's said in English Respected Sir or Madam OR `My Lord' in courts. Arya means one whose is noble in character and this is not said to any person who is Non-virtueous in nature.This is true for virtueous mother like Gandhari who was Duryodhan's mother but the same is not called for Duryodhan who was very non-virtueous person. So, coining `Arya' term as separate race only proved to be disastrous not only on Germans but also on Jews,Gypsies etc.Germany whose Max Muller initially called Arya as separate race but when Hitler's Aryan madness started affecting Germans negatively , after many years gulped the same words and said that by Arya he does not mean any person or race but purely language and not carriars of language.But it was very late and the world saw Second World War.

Arya word is also found in Old Pesian texts, Rock enscripts by kings to mention that they are `Arya' means noble and not any special race. Avesta by Zorostrians will show that there are words which start with `S' in Sanskrit but it's starting with `H' which is very common `apabhransh' ( in Sanskrit it means degraded form )word speaking. Similar types of Apabhransh is found in Modern Indian languages which derives heavily from Sanskrit. (Like `V' becoming `B' in Bangla language ) And these Apabhransh is more nearer than any Non-Indian language word.

In ancient India Dravid term was used to mention south beyond Vindhya Mountain range in central India which roughly divides North & South. But Maharahtra and Gujarat people are also called Dravida in that sense by South Indian texts but there languages means Marathi & Gujarati are called as IE one. Now let me ask you all, is Italic - Greek and Norway - finnish person is not different in look and skin tone wise. Norway is in extreme North and Italy - Greece in South getting Mediteranian sun shine. So clearly more darker then Finnish poeple. So, can we say them as different racially ? ( As same logic is implied on India ). Do you know Lithuanian & Latvian has very much similarity in Grammer & structure wise with Sanskrit. Why these `so called Baltic' group is showing much more similarity with Sanskrit. If you know Sanskrit then it can called very much scientific language. Do you feel that any nomad people in central asia can produce such a scientific language ? Right or wrong ? If right then Why after many milleniums Central Asia is not advanced in language & science wise if same people who have migrated in India in form of `Aryan Migration Theory'. The Aryan Invasion becomes Migration theory ( ya, it's only theory without any proof. Right? ) And what about finding of ancient Saraswati river in NW India with all types of proofs.This same Saraswati river is cherished in Rigveda with naming her Mother River and Greatest River. This river totally stopped flowing Indian soil around 1900 BC and then in 1500 BC ( date given by Max Muller ) so called Aryans migrates to India and writes poems in praise of Saraswati river. Really they have great feeling for the dead river then their `original' central asian homeland river that they are saying verses to praise that river whose width was 3 to 10 Km in width during her hay day. Secondly, I want to quate that when Alexander came to NW India then they were amazed to see big rivers of NW India which is written as very much bigger than any European,Persian or Nile in Egypt.

I say that a great culture like Indus valley civilization ( which had common weights & measurements, planned towns with waste water underground pipelines, very advanced astrology and mathamatics, having area much bigger than ancient Greek , Mesopotamia , Egypt civilizations all combined ) ; very very civilized than central asian nomad wonderers can only produce very logical, phonetical and very structural language like Sanskrit and not nomad people of Steppes. Phonetic's separate understanding is not required ( unlike in English ) in Sanskrit and other Indian languages which is writtern exactly in the same way letters are pronounced. This was biggest feat of Devnagari script in which this became possible.

From Vedic times , great Rishis had put great emphasis on right pronunciation of Sanskrit words as Sanskrit words are derived from some particular word root and so the word should be properly pronounced. That's why all Vedas,Upnishads etc. are available today in the same proper words without any deviation from last atleast 5,000 years. This Vedic Rishis have always believed that Good teachings passed on to future generations is more important and will be more remembered than any Strucure which can / will be destroyed by passing ages. Vedas are written in Poetic forms with Superb mathematical type joining of words ( found only in Sanskrit & it's daughter Indian languages).This makes remembering them much easier. (What do you remember your childhood poems or pros in better way ? Naturally poems, right ! This is the simple logic of composing Vedas, Upnishads, Ramayan, Mahabharat in verse form so that they are perfectly remembered. That's why Vedas are the first ancient literature available in the world. There are unique mathematical links available in Rig Veda. Also it mentions some unique astronomical observations from which one can get the time of creation of that verse.All this is ignored by Max Muller and his followers and said that they are absurds or written much after than actually happened. If that is possible to write down that unique astronomical situations then it means that ancient Indians were having very highly computer type mind as back dating observations can be known only by today's complicated computer softwares as to do mathematically is impossible. All this to give credit to nomads of steppes is like attributing USA's current achivements to Eskimos by some `Max Muller' after some milleniums in future.

If `so called Aryans' are Non-Indian origin then why major Hindu gods like Vishnu,Ram,Krishna,Shiva are portrayed as Dark Bluish / Black in skin colour for which `so called white aryans' should have allergy.( Color racism was till recently official in South Africa )

Secondly, Tamil people attribute their language to Sage Agatsya who was ancient great sage ( Rishi ) from `so called Aryan world'. Just explain these riddle please !

In Mahabharat it is mentioned that during that time Saraswati was not perennial river and instead of ending in sea , it is ending in land area. If Mahabharat is thought to be during around 3300 BC then it means that from 3300 BC to 1900 BC ( when Saraswati was almost totally stopped flowing ) the river was flowing and ending in land area. ( Note that Dr. Vartak has scientifically decoded the dating mystery associated with it by using deep knowledge of Indian astonomy and extracting some unique time indiacating verses and told us that Mahabharat actually happened on 16 th October 5561 BC with exact dates and proof of arriving at the date. This available on the net but to understand it you require knowledge of Indian astronomic terms which are from Vedic times and still in use very actively )

In Mahabharat also Saraswati is thought to be ceasing continuously. That means the reason because of which Saraswati river got affected and Satluj & Yamuna stopped of being it's tributory ( this is said on proofs and is not theory ) is much older phenomenon then Mahabharat. Also, Krishna was born in Mathura & spent childhood in Gokul which is on the banks of Yamuna. So, Yamuna diverting from Saraswati to Ganga is very older than Mahabharat itself.

Secondly, Mahabharat is some what urben type and many kingdoms mentioning saga. In it Ganga is prominent.

Indians say that Prayag ( Allahabad in U.P. state ) as Triveni Sangam ( confluence ) of Ganga, Yamuna & Saraswati rivers. `Saraswati is thought to be flowing underground & meeting here'. This is though a myth gives idea that Yamuna which was meeting Saraswati in the past , is now meeting Ganga and by underground of Saraswati mentions vanishing of Saraswati in Land area & thinking that it's going underground to meet sea ( which it was previously ).

This is combination of thought based on some real history.

Secondly, in dry Saraswati river area like Pushkar in Rajasthan or Sidhpur in North Gujarat there still small river named saraswati. In Sidhpur, there is also old temple after Saraswati. Both area are found to on dry river bed of ancient saraswati river. Indians seem to be remembering very ancient things very nicely. ONLY THEY FORGOT ARYAN INVASION OR MIGRATION THEORY. Really sad for Western so called scholars !

If any thing is required to defend that then write it pure logical manner.

The AIT theory was inspired by British political people to say about its legitimacy of its occupation of India,to get some answer of then found similarity between Sanskrit & other European languages and to facilitate Christian Missionery which were facing hard times to convert Hindu. This will be their agenda of `Divide & Rule' which Britishers used ( I don't have any bad feeling for current Brits ). The details are available on the net. India was the richest country in the world before Britishers rule on India ( like US is today ) and the current situation of poor Indians will give shock to those Western people who are not aware about where India lies geographically ( forget about their knowledge of India's past which is seen with the false fabrication & misrepresented stories). If you want to know about Britishers policy then just know that even though India was highest producer of Cotton crop but then also it was not allowed to make cloth on machine ( to make England rich ).Everything was to be imported from Briton and it was one major reason because of which Briton's economy was steaming ahead.

HOW WILL YOU REACT IF YOUR RULER BREAKS THE CHURCH AND CONSTRUCTS THE MOSQUE ON THE SAME SITE. FOR YOU SPAIN IS EXAMPLE. THE SAME IS WITH INDIA. WHEN IT WAS FOR SPAIN THEN IT IS CHERISHED CHRISTIAN REACTION BUT WHEN IT COMES TO INDIA THEN IT'S HINDU FASICSTS. WHY CHURCH IS RIGHT AND TEMPLE OF RAM ON HIS BIRTHPLACE IS WRONG ? For this even historical records speak that there was Ram Temple which Babar broke and made Mosque on it ( like thousands of beautiful temples were broken and that's why you find few temples before Muslim invasion. It's good that Angkor Wat is in Camodia & not in India ). If you have visited Qutab Minar in Delhi then that complex is made from previous Hindu & Jain temples there. Yes, India was so advanced that more than 1600 years old Iron Pillar is not rusted. To make such a long pillar now is also engineering problem or puzzle by Modern Iron makers. Read about it on the net and you will understand India had not only made advanced progress in other subjects but also in Chemistry, Metallurgy. You can say that for almost all subjects which Europeans says sign of culture, you can find lots of systematic written work. Sanskrit written work ( even after huge losts ) is much more than all combined work till 17 - 18 century. Even Indian dance & music has scientific & mathematical basis ( unlike Pop & Disco dance & music. But today's majority Indian youth find hard to understand the science behind Indian Music & Classical dances which not only gives pleasure to body but also mind. That's why they do not require any Heroin,Escatcy type drugs or alcohol to get temporary high which is very bad for youths in every way )

Indians are having very ancient traditions that the first civilization spunge up on Indian soil. It was concepulised by Vedic Rishis ( Sages ) who developed very high standards & virtues. For them Knowledge was very much sought after. This also made Ayurveda to develop. Still today their concepts are true. Ancient Indians have observed their land, sky, plants to that deep level that they were having better knowledge about human body better than few centuries before Europeans.

To go extreme deep in their knowledge about undestanding this world which led them to develop Ancient Indians to develop major treaties of science, maths , language, arts , music etc. Their systematic development was such that India was sought after by Non-Indian Students in ancient days for Knowledge to Columbus ( who left to search Indian sea route as land route was blocked by Turks by capturing Istambul ), Vasco-Da-Gama to Britishers for HUGE PROFIT etc.

`Femine of Bengal' in 19th century under British Rule which caused millions of people to die. But why this femine occured. It was not at all due to lack of rain. Bengal region ( current West Bangal + Bangladesh which is highly populated but very poor ) is such that it will alway receive very good rains ( If it does not rain in Bangal or Konkan then whole India will not get any rain - due to Monsoon winds mechanism ). Also , Bengal region is fully mouth area of Ganga & Bramhaputra rivers which will never have problem of water ). IT WAS DUE TO INDIGO CROPS THAT WAS TAKEN FOR SOME YEARS CONTINUOUSLY AS IT WAS FORCED BY THEN BRITISH RULERS WHICH WAS PROVIDING HUGE PROFIT TO THEM. But this Indigo crop which was only source of Blue colour before advent of Artificial Chemical Dyes should not be taken continuously from the same land as it extracts all fertile power of land. Due to this continuous Indigo crops , the land became non-productive for their staple Rice crop. Due to this Rice crop for some years could not happen and millions of Bengalis died. BUT THE WHOLE STORY IS NAMED AS `FEMINE OF BENGAL' AS IF THAT RICE CROP FAILED DUE TO LACK OF WATER. THIS IS SAME MISGUIDING LIKE `FIRE OF SAN FRANSISCO'. THE FIRE WAS DUE TO TERRIBLE EARTHQUAKE BUT IT WAS MISQUOTED AS DURING S.F. WAS PROSEPROUS CITY IN USA AND IF EARTHQUAKE GHOST WILL REMAIN IN OTHER US PEOPLE THEN IT WOULD BAD FOR SF'S ECONOMY.

THE SAME WAY `ARYAN INVASION THEORY' WAS FABRICATED TO MISGUIDE THE WORLD BY THEN THEIR `GOBBLE'S ' PROPOGANDA. The reasons are well adressed on the internet which I will not repeat again here.

_________________________________________________________________________

For some folks it is not enough to censor the main article in a one-sided manner, they also are busy deleting valid points raised on discussion pages! I think the only solution is that Indians (where English is also OFFICIAL language) need to open another English-wikipedia article on the AIT/MIT. Because the current page has only room for only one point of view and that is "western-centric" or "euriocentric" version.

This page is for discussion of the content of the article, not for endless ranting and rambling. However, state what "valid points" have been deleted from this page. Paul B 18:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed text

I removed the following text. It seems poorly sourced (a blog?) and POV. If others feel that it should be included, please put it back in (or rewrite it.) Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Later N.S.Rajaram explained that there was no computer distortion. Any unprejudiced person looking at the whole episode feels sorry that a low resolution scan image published as line drawing has been called a 'computer distortion' by a Harvard professor. This example of hoaxing a hoax, is another example of howmuch political vested interests are involved in safeguarding the Aryan race/invasion theory even by supposedly objective scholars. For a detailed study of the so-called Harappan Horse hoax see the blog entry : "The Curious Case of a Broken Seal or Did a Wales Prof. of Sanskrit stoop down to hoax a hoax?" at [2] Dr.Edwin F.Byrant specializing in early Indian history makes the following observations: ...Anyway, there is no evidence of a West to East trail of horse bones into the subcontinent in the period assigned to Aryan intrusions nor any innovations in the archaeological record whatsoever that can be correlated with an Aryan immigration. If the indigenous Aryan school is held accountable for the paucity of horse bones, their detractors must, likewise be held accountable for the complete absence of any archaeological indicator whatsoever of the Aryan presence."

and

There are however problems with these views also. For example, how the Vedic Rudra, Wild God Cerrunos and Indus Valley 'proto-siva' seal have common elements noticed even by someone like Joseph Campbell who accepted AIT. Genetic data seems to favor no aryan invasion/migration model.

Removed text, sectnpov

The section about the Michael Witzel attack on Rajaram is pov, because it claims that it was a fraud while this is disputed (e.g. [3]), and if the Witzel attack can be mentioned, it would be fair to also mention one of Witzel's mistakes (such as his mistranslation of a verse of the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra. I'm however not adding it, because currently everything that is critical of Witzel will get deleted immediately.

But either both should be allowed to be criticized, or the attack on Rajaram (which is not very notable) should be removed. --Machaon 15:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The whole section of Rajaram is of only very marginal relevance, so should be deleted. Anyone can discuss mistakes attributed to Witzel as long as they are fairly presented. Koenraad Elst, a writer saturated with Hindutva ideology, is anything but neutral. Paul B 21:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say in this case he was more "neutral" than Witzel. Elst may have discovered the mistake, but the mistake was confirmed by George Cardona, Hans Hock, Kalyanaraman and other Indologists. This mistranslation was called "the most explicit statement of immigration into the Subcontinent". After the mistranslation was pointed out by Elst, Witzel should have admitted the error on his part, but instead he said things like it was a printing error, although it was printed in three different works over eight years (Witzel 1987, 1989, 1995). --Machaon 22:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following text, it belongs to Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia:

Recent Genetic research by renowned genetist Stephen Oppenheimer has invalidated the Aryan Invasion Theory. In his latest book The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey Out of Africa, he has argued that based on Genetic research of Y Chromosome and mtDNA that entire non-african population came out of single group from Africa. They followed a coastal route through Yemen and finally to India. From India after a brief halt they populated entire planet. Root of all Genes was the M168 in the paternal side and L3 in the maternal side. By taking statistically valid DNA samples Oppenheimer came to the following conclusions.[4]

On the maternal side the mtDNA strain L3 split into two daughters which Oppenheimer labels Nasreen and Manju. While Manju was definitely born in India the birthplace of Nasreen is uncertain tentatively placed by Oppenheimer in southern Iran or Baluchistan. Manju and Rohani (should be Rohini), Nasreen's most prolific daughter both born in India are the progenitors of all non African peoples.

The story on the paternal side is a lot more complex. M168 had three sons, of which Seth was the most important one. Seth had five sons named by Oppenheimer as Jahangir, H, I, G and Krishnna. Krishnna born in India turned out to be the most prolific of Seth's sons. Krishnna through his son Ho, grandson Ruslan through Polo, and great grandson M17 through Ruslan, played a major role in the peopling of South Asian, East Asia, Central Asia, Oceania and West Eurasia.

In summary migration happened but it happened in the reverse. He makes a point that all physiological changes in people are all environmental. Coastal people from Tamil Nadu as they moved north became lighter in color and thier complexion changed. That is why North Indians are of lighter complexion. As these same people moved further north into the frozen tundra they became white with blonde hair and blue eyes. This is a ground breaking work.

I have readded certain sections which only pertain to AIT. I have taken all the genetiical explanations out with just the summary. --Jay74 18:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

None of the material above has any connection at all to AIT, nor is it especially new. When humans first migrated from Africa Europe was in the grip of the ice age, so homo sapiens initially remained in warmer southern regions, such as the Indian subcontinent. Arguments about postulated migrations of stone age hunter-gatherers in the paleolithic era do not have any relevance to arguments about postulated migrations 20.000 years later of chariot-riding Indo-Aryans in the late bronze age. Paul B 21:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul, for your kind information , Chariots can not be ridden in Mountain Passes of Hindukush. Secondly, chariots are vehicle riding is possible in plains and not in Afghan mountains area.

Chariots were not new for Indus valley people as wheels diagrams are found from excavations. But what above your same aryans saying in Rig-Ved about River Saraswati and her vastness. Flowing from mountains and reaching ocean.

Then, your same aryans saying in Mahabharat about river saraswati drying in desert and not reaching sea.

Rig-vedic mention of Seventeen pair of ribs horse (in Ashwamegha ritual ) which is purely Indian breed of Horse and unlike Eighteen pair of rib Horse which is purely Central asian breed. So, your aryans are speaking of Indian horse and not central asian one. So, your aryans' all central asian horses must have died while coming or after coming to India. Then , only they have to use Indian horses for their sacred rituals.

In Kalibangan & other excavated IV sites, vedic rituals carrying fire-altars ( as mentioned in Rig-Ved and latter scriptures ) are found. So, your aryans must have adopted some forms of previous Indus valley people's religion. But fire altars are central to all vedic rituals. So, if this basic thing of aryan belief is adopted from Indus valley people then how come these migrating aryans can impose their language ( Sanskrit ) + culture + religion ( as told to us ) on vast cultured Indus valley people.

This is little bit illlogical to digest.

WIN 09:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Chariots can not be ridden in Mountain Passes of Hindukush" Really? And how is this relevant? The Indo-Aryans rode chariots. We all know that. Chariots are mentioned in the Rig-Veda, and repeatedly in later I-A literature. If you mean they didn't "invade" India in some sudden mass chariot-riding attack from Afghanistan, of course they didn't. No-one of any significance has ever claimed anything so silly. Straw man. There is no evidence of chariots in the IVC. Of course they did have wheels, as no-one denies. You are referring to some imaginative attempts to see spokes in portrayals of wheels. Nice to you repeating Frawley's "seventeen ribed" horse nonsense, a fantasy that has been debunked many times. There is no evidence for a distinction between seventeen ribbed and eighteen ribbed varieties of horse. Even if there were, I'm not sure why it would be relevant, unless you imagine that proponents of "invasion" believe that Aryans are supposed to have got on their chariots in Central Asia and then ridden straight into India without changing the horses. The so-called "fire altars" are also very questionable. Paul B 13:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"No-one of any significance has ever claimed anything so silly." --- You are talking about current prevailing theory about Aryan Migration but before that Aryan Invasion was the theory believed in by the Western Indologists. So, your above writing is not true in it's sense. And, wheels, seventeen ribs paired horse, fire altars ... every thing which gives any logical, scientific and proof based explanation against AMT will be some kind of non-sense to AMT supporters. If you can not give any point against it then wholesomely discard it. That's what you can do. Because it's seriously affects your notion of Aryan Migration.

Can you tell me how so called nomadic Aryans could have attained the status which you and all AMT supporters are claiming ? Have you got any point in your support for River Saraswati ? No. But Aryans had come to India and their language + culture + religion was accepted by Indus Valley civilization people. Previously Invasion and now migration but we will always believe in this notion. WIN 16:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between AIT and AMT is largely imaginary. Most nineteenth century writers assumed a slow process of migration with sporadic conflicts. Muller envisaged a migration of farmers, as did Morris in 1888. There were also many quite varied timelines. The emphasis placed on chariots arose later, from theories about the origins of horse domestication. A military invasion model had a vogue at time when it was believed that the Indo-Aryans took advantage of the decline of the IVC to "fill the gap", but even then there was never any assumption of some blitzkrieg-like surprise attack. The horse thing is a fact. Look it up. Can you find a source other than one copied from Frawley - preferably in literature on horse biology? The arguments about wheels don't have any relevance for the reason I gave. Just calling assertions "scientific" doesn't make them so. I don't know why you find it hard to believe that Indo-Aryan peoples could evolve intellectually sophisticated ideas over time. Many other ancient peoples did so too. I don't know you mean by "support for River Saraswati". Paul B 17:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"The distinction between AIT and AMT is largely imaginary." How gulp your own wrong words is very well known in Aryan Theory supporter. Aryan Invasion Theory was proposed by Europeans and said that Advanced Civilized Horse riding `Aryans' invaded India ( like Muslim Invasions ). But now theory holds no ground ( after many new findings & proofings ). So, it is now modified as `Aryans' who were nomadic tribes slowly migrated to India. So, there is this clear distinction between AIT and AMT.

Finding of White `Aryan' and `Black' dravid people and their war etc. were interpreted by Max Muller and fellows only , right ( & not by any Indian in past ). But this is now ruled out as total mis-interpretation of Rig-Ved. This was done for Britishers `Divide & Rule' mantra. This type of same white and black thing is also done for African people during british rule.

I want you to comment on River Saraswati. Your same Aryans in Rig-Ved says that River Saraswati is mightiest of all Sapta Sindhu rivers and as Mother River flowing from Mountains to Ocean. Then, your same Aryans in Mahabharat ( around 1000BC to 500 BC as told by Max Muller & fellows ) says that River Saraswati is not flowing till ocean and ends in desert. So, that means that within some 500 - 800 years maximum River Saraswati changed totally in size and abundance of water. This is your `Aryan' observations which I am mentioning here.

But, in NW India there was a great river flowing and which TOTALLY dried up before 2500 BC or atleast latest by 1900 BC ( found by Geologists ). So, this dried river which can only be associated with Rig-Vedic Saraswati river and on this dry river area about 70% of till excavated Indus Valley civilizations sites are found. In Rig-Ved also, River Saraswati is cherished and not River Sindhu ( Indus ).

So, how come your `Aryans' were knowing about any dead river's abundance & vastness and then dying of that river Saraswati. I want Paul to answer that.

Avestan Iranian people started from their `Airynam Vaijah' which is mentioned in Early Avesta as their original homeland and from that area they came to Sapta Sindhu area of India and then they went to Gandhar ( Afghanistan ) and then they moved to East Iran area. Avestan people still do not speak of West Iran or Central asian area. Then in latter Avestan people mention nearby central asian area as the occupied area. Avestan people do not mention about far central asian areas and it says that they are very far off. So, now Paul you tell me that is this not proof that Avestan people did not come from Central asia.

220.224.50.133 05:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sapta Sindhu Argument

I dont think the Avesta mentioned Sapta Sindhu as their homeland. I'll have to read more about it for a better answer but I think it might have it was mentioned as a neighboring area. I might be wrong -[[Afghan Historian 21:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)]](I changed it to full user name now. Hope I'm not "vague" anymore)

:The Avesta says nothing about Sapta Sindhu. WIN is repeating speculation by Koenraad Elst. AFIK, it doesn't mention Afghanistan either, but that became a traditional Zoroastrian interpretation of the locale. Paul B 01:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul, and what about River Saraswati point mentioned above ? Have you got anything to say on it ? Who is this vague " Afghan Historian" ?

220.224.43.119 04:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What's to say? You don't even have the grace to acknowledge the fact that mainstream 19th C writers did not envisage any mass "invasion". "Sarasvati" is a name historically identified with rivers in Afghanistan and Iran. There is no direct evidence that the G-H river was ever called that, but of course it's possible, or that more than one river is meant. On a migrationist model, the timeline for the Vedic expansion into the Indus varies, and may or may not overlap with the drying up of the G-H, the date of which event is not known with any certainty. I don't know who "Afghan Historian" is, but his moniker is no more vague than "WIN". Paul B 07:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul, you are gulping previous AIT theory which was prevalent in western world. Your `Aryan' terminology becoming Indo-Aryan or Indo-Iranians is some what same. When `Aryan' word became taboo in western world due to Hitler then same world you AIT/AMT supporters modified to Indo-Aryan or Indo-Iranians. But this Aryan word never had bad rememberings of World War II and jews killings in India. So, when Indians are still using `Aryan' world , you accuse us with Nazism. ( same way for Swastika sign ).

Previously Aryan Invasion Model was prevalent and now are gulping that as if westerners never spoke of any invasion in the past and accusing me for any " grace". Previously it was thought in Western world that Rig-Ved was composed in Afghanistan area and not in India. ( How ridiculous ? When there are many evidences are available which screams that Rig-Ved geography corresponds to Sapta Sindu area which is naturally Punjab & Haryana. Then also to find it's origin in Central asia or Afghan which is away from main India is surely not scolarly work. And, to term that as something very acedamic is biggest pseudo thing.) It's similar when River Saraswati is clearly identified in India and G-H river is totally seasonal monsoon water channel and not full fledge river flowing round the year.

And, why Afghan and Iran are also having Saraswati sounding river names ( Harahvaiti in Iran and Afghan )? Both these rivers do not meet ocean. This is same as Mahabharat time's Saraswati river's position. If Saraswati was never an Indian river then why Mahabharat mentions it ? Even, this is clear evidence that great River Saraswati was always associated with India and not Afghan, Iran or central asia. Then also there were many efforts to shift Rig-Ved in Afghan or Central Asia and was done to discredit India's past wholesomely by Western so called Indologists. How to fabricate the story is well known in Western world.

After Rig-Vedic time when two main confluencing rivers Satluj and Yamuna diverted it's path from Saraswati ( due to any geological reasons ), River Saraswati's water flow decreased. Also that time whether pattern in Rajasthan was changing which made Thar desert and less rain fall in that region. So, River Saraswati stopped flowing till ocean. The same is position during Mahabharat. And, Krishna was born in Mathura and spent childhood in Gokul, both on the banks of Yamuna. So, Yamuna diverting from Saraswati is older than Mahabharat time. ( Yamuna & Satluj were once meeting Saraswati is also mentioned in Rig-Ved and also now found by geologists ). So, Saraswati river's mother river saying vastness is during Rig-Ved time. Afterwards, when same river stopped meeting ocean, that time ( which is before & during Mahabharat time ), Indians who had moved to Western areas found similar non-ocean going rivers in Afghan & Iran and they termed them as Saraswati in memory of their original Indian Saraswati river.

That's why Rig-Ved time prominent gods like Agni,Usha,Vayu etc. were not so prominent during Mahabharat time. Even, Krishna ( in His childhood time ) had told to stop worshipping Indra for rains. This shows clear shifting of Vedic prominent gods' diminishing importance in Indian society.

Also, there are many points are questioned which says that "Several reasons why Migrations could not have happened after 3500-3000 BC "

"By the 1840s the distribution-pattern of the languages had led several scholars to conclude that India was an unlikely origin-point, since it was at the easternmost extension of the languages. Statements made in the Iranian sacred texts about a northern homeland, along with descriptions of battles in the Rig-Veda, led scholars to conclude that the original Aryans must have migrated into India. This theory is most associated with the linguist Friedrich Max Müller" ----- This is written in the main article. Wow ! what a logic to discard India as origin-point as it's Eastern most point. This was notion which was prevailing among so called Western Indologists that they could not accept India as origin point. Now, if these mis-interpretations of Rig-Ved ( which says about Aryan & Dravidian wars ) is basis for Aryan Invasion / Migration Theory then you can understand that AIT/AMT's foundation base are proved to be wrong but still this theory is like scientific invention of sort that their supporters are keeping any logic & understanding behind and always prove them right with old assertions and neglecting any points or findings.

WIN 01:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

                               BEST OF LUCK FOR 
                              EVERYTHING YOU DO
                                AND MAY ALL THE 
                              GOOD THINGS BLOOM 
                                    FOR YOU.

       EVERYONE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEMS WHEN THEY ARE LONELYNESS AND WHEN THEY ARE NOT HAVING FRIENDS WE SHOILD HELP THEM AND WE SHOULD HELP THEM IN STUDIES SOME ARE TRUE FRIENDS AND SOME FRIENDS WILL BE OUT SOMETHING AND INSIDE WILL BE SOMETHING WHAT THE OTHER FRIENDS WILL TELL THE SECRETS THEY WILL PASS TO OTHERS THE SECRET BUT THAT IS NOT CALLED AS A GOOD FRIEND THIS EVERYONE NOW'S THAT I ALSO NOW THAT U ALL KNNOWS THIS I AM JUST REMEMBRING U ALL BECAUSE  U SHOULD NOT LOSE U R FRIENDS THEY ARE ONLY HELPFUL EVERYONE U ALL THINK THAT FRIENDSHIP IS A BORROWING YOUR TIFFINS AND GOING TO CINEMA BUT A TRUE FRIENDSHIP WILL ALWAYS HELP THEM.

EVERYONE WILL HAVE PROBLEMS BUT WE ALL SHOULD CONTROL WHATEVER WE WILL DO IT WILL BE GOOD FOR US NOW THE POPULATION OF INDUSTRIES AND HOUSES ARE DECREASED AND AGRICULTURE IS DECREASED IF WE DONT CONTROL WHATEVER WE WILL DO WRONG I THINK EVERYONE SAW THE MOVIE OF LOVESTORY 2050 if we dont control WHATEVER WE WILL DO WRONG things the noise,smoking we can't bear that sounds and we even can't breath if it is really changed to 2050 it will be horrible in the whole world. bye my friends see u with the more information and see u very soon. good bye.......