Aryan vs. Dravidian

The meaning of the word Arya is given as 'noble' in English dictionaries. It has always been used as an adjective in the Hindu books and scriptures. At the most,the word refers to group of people who have similar societal way of living, in contrast to the opponents, who were called 'Anarya'.

The word Arya had great attraction for the Europeans, who used the word to create, one of the greatest fictional race of this world, the Aryans', with none of the arya qualities and complete illiterates with no script of there own. The most interesting part of this fiction is when did the Aryans come to India?

It was one learned Irishman, Bishop James Ussher, formulated in the 17th century, the chronology of God's creation.The God created the world in 4004BC. His followers, upon misbehaving, became the victims of God's anger, resulting in the Great Flood of 2350BC. He provided The Ark to his beloved Noah. The Ark landed itself on to Mt. Ararat. Upon subsidence of The Great Flood, Noah came down to the plains and busied himself tending a vineyard. One day,working in the vineyard, he got very tired, had a few wine drinks, went to his tent and slept, naked. He was seen naked by his son Ham, who became the victim of his father's curse - all his progeny would be as dark as night and serve the descendants of Shem and Japhet. There was one language and unity and happiness. Now the people decided to express gratitude to God, and started to build the Tower of Babel. As we know, the God was concerned about the intentions of the humans, now gave them different speeches, made them quarrel with each other, and The Great Dispersion took place in 2000BC.

Some of the dark-skinned descendants of Ham went to India, later in 1500BC, were followed by fair-skinned descendants of Shem and Japhet. According to Max Muller, the Mahabharat war took place in 1200BC. The centuries were awaiting the arrival of Lords Buddha and Mahavir, however missing Lord Krishna.

Isn't this similar to Aryan Invasion Theory!

that is " they come from south russia through iran" not "from iran", persians are a semitic people, original aryans were probabely an Ural-Altaic people since if u study the history u will see that almost every white immigration has begun from that vicinity, the mahabratara (or what ever is its name!) does not say aryans came from persia it says they came from that direction, please be extra accurate with this matter because persians use this little fault to prove themselves as aryans while they are very semitic, they even use pictures of iranian azeri turks to prove themselves as whites!

Khorne is quite right in stating the ethnicity of the Iranians. The historians treated Persia as one of the transit points to India.

The article seems to be a consequence of erroneous scholariness and faulty research. The author misses out on the tribal factor for reasons better known to him. India was chiefly aboriginal prior to the Aryanisation of India. There are evidences that many rituals which may seem Hindu today has been loaned from a prior tribal source. There may not be any archaeological proofs (none what so ever)which testifies the historicity of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana but that India was completely a tribal country can be easily be proved by the remains of the numerous prehistoric tribal megaliths that is scattered all over the country.

Many of these primitive megaliths are NOT sepulchral but has been found to have been created with mathematical and astronomical perfection.

The megaliths of Hanamsagar, Vibhulitihalli in Karnataka, Asota in Pakistan, Pankri Barwadih and Rola in Jharkhand confirm that on contrary to popular notions these sciences were known to the tribals thousand of years prior to the Brahmin astronomers who built these primitive megalithic observatories to observe the transits of the celestial bodies as the sun much in the line of the World Heritage megaliths of Stonehenge, Newgrange and Callanish in UK (these too were erected for the same purpose).

Most of the names of hills, rivers, villages and towns particularly in North India are austric (Mundaric/tribal)in origin and not in Indo-Aryan languages. As these tribals may have moved away from the concerned places thousands of years earlier or may have been Hinduised by adopting HIndu religion and names, the phenomenon is barely understood today.

Das probably is aware of the 6-yearly text-books revision that was carried out by Cal Dept of Education (CDE) in the last quarter of 2005, when it was agreed by many, including the historian, Michael Witzel, that the so-called Aryan invasion be now called a migration.

Thus, by a simple stroke of the pen, the invasion by the Aryans (AIT) and ensuing destruction of property, killings of the indigenous, and imposition of slavery, all changed to peaceful migration and assimilation.

People from the sub-continent have been going to far-away lands all the time, as well as the people of other lands have come to India for variety of reasons. Even in the last 2000 years, the Jews, Christians, Parsis, Agakhanis, and recently, the Tibetans have come to India to settle.

Das needs to clarify what he means by 'Aryanisation of India'.

The historian, Hendrik Van Loon,in his book 'The Story of Mankind', published 1921, provides an interesting meaning, even though incorrect in my opinion, of the word 'Aryan'. These are his exact words:

'A new and more energetic race appeared upon the horizon - Indo-European race - made itself the ruling class in the country, which is now known as British India'.

'These were white men like Semites, but they spoke a different language, which is regarded as the common ancestor of all European languages with some exceptions'.

'Living along the shores of Caspian Sea for many centuries - wandered forth in search of a new home - for many centuries lived among the peaks which surround the plateau of Iran, and that is why we call them Aryans. The native Indians had been conquered without great difficulty by the war-like Aryans, and there-after, the Aryans had been the rulers and masters of tens of millions of docile little brown men'.

I thought, if at all, the word is related to the word Iran, the correct word should have been Iranian, meaning the people coming from Ira-n, i.e. land without rivers. Ira-q means land of rivers, and also, we have a name for a river, Iravati.

Van Loon, like any other historians, avoided to answer any questions regarding their original home, nor about the language they spoke. The only matter, these historians are sure of, is that they belong to their race.

One of the events mentioned in the Mahabharat is Lord Krishna's instructions to his Sarthi, to go to Dwarika to inform the citizens, of the imminent submergence of the city due to rise in sea-level. One cannot have a better example of the historicity of the event that occurred few years after, as well as the scientific knowledge to be able to forecast an event with such accuracy. A large section of the submerged city has been located only few years ago and reported by the Archaeological Dept of India.

This event occurred some 5000 years ago, just after Lord Krishna left this world as well as the commencement of the Kali Era.

The historian, Van Loon,wasn't the only one to have indulged in tracing the journey of this magical race, who in the end got the name Aryan.

A C Bouquet, in his book, Comparative Religion (Pub. 1941), states that 'the first wave of Nordics believed to have passed into India somewhere about 1700 BC, others followed in succession'.

He further states that 'these were people very much the type of our Scandinavian fore-fathers, hard-fighting, heavy-drinking folk, with a certain contempt for the short dark races they conquered, since they called them Dasus or Dasyus - squat creatures, very much as Hitler spoke of those dwarfs of Prague.

Major Yeats-Brown, in his book Pageant of India, states in a literary fashion as follows : The budding was in the unknown mother-land, somewhere in the uplands of central Asia, whence these tall, blue-eyed people sallied forth in search of grazing lands.

But now the historians had second thoughts and exercised their birth-right to make alterations in historical details.

In History of the World, edited by W N Weech (Odhams Press- Pub. 1942), it is stated that 'it is important to remember that Aryan denotes the primary language, from which many different ancient and modern languages are descended'. It is then stressed that 'it does not mean a common racial stock' and further explains that 'they were of different blood'.

It goes on to explain that,for a long time, after their arrival in India, they were in many ways less civilized than the citizens of Mohenjo-daro had been. They built no towns, their agriculture was primitive, the art of writing was unknown to them'.

A question would naturally arise in your mind - when did the Aryans developed the language Sanskrit and gifted it to the people of India?

In Sanskrit, the word 'arya' means noble. If the word 'Aryan' is related to 'arya', the meaning of Aryan would be 'a person of noble character'. What do the historians say about the ancestors of the Aryans?

A C Bouquet in Comparative Religion - They were people very much the type of our Scandinavian fore-fathers, hard-fighting, heavy-drinking folk.

Mary Stanton & Albert Hyma in Streams of Civilization (1976) - They were nomads, lived of the meat of their herds and what loot they could gather from pillaged and conquered cities. They were not builders. They were fond of horse-racing, chariot-racing, dancing, gambling and wrestling.

Allan O Hownslar & Terry L Smart in A Study of World History (1977) - The earliest Aryans had no interest in cities or trading. They destroyed the cities they entered and left the ruins to decay. These conquerors were not builders. The Aryans had no word for brick in their language. The Aryans had no respect for the Indian culture and treated the natives as slaves.

Did you notice any arya qualities?

Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar was an intellectual warrior. He was a law-maker, the Father of the Indian Constitution. He wanted Ghadhiji to under-take movement to abolish the caste system. Ghadhiji couldn't oblige, and that was a great disappointment for Ambedkarji. However, he was bent on finding the truth about the creators of the caste system - The Aryans.

Dr Ambedkarji examined the Rigveda - supposedly the First Book of the Aryans as per Max Muller, written in 1000 BC. This book should provide some information about the origin of the people, about their journey to the Promise Land, and about their deeds to uplift the dire situation of the indigenous people. Rigveda is a huge scripture, consisting of ten books.

After going trough the books thoroughly, his comments were as follows:

'As far as the Rigveda is concerned, there is not a particle of evidence suggesting the invasion of India by the Aryans from outside India'.

He also looked for the word 'arya' (Aryan), and possible meaning attached to it. He found the word ARYA used 33 times in the whole scripture, and in each case, the use did not refer to an ethnicity or a race.

I assume the ratio of 72% of the fair-skinned population of India, is based on the present population figures. Was there any fair-skinned population at the time of the Aryan arrival around 1500 BC? Or were they all dark-skinned people? Was the mingling with the 'war-like Aryans (Van Loon)' voluntary or forced?

The white race that entered India was called Aryan, because they came via Iran. What is the origin of the word Dravidian?

All the historians belonged to the white race, the Europeans. It is pointed out that 'the word Aryans was brutally used by Hitler during world war second to attain exclusion of Jews and other ethnicities (2nd para).

Kenneth C Davis, in his book, Don't Know Much About History (Pub 1990), points out the European behavior as follows: 'Although, Hitler's attempted extermination of the Jews of Europe was a calculated, methodical genocidal plan, the European destruction of the Indians (Amerindians) was just as ruthlessly efficiently killing off perhaps 90% of the native population it found, all in the name of progress,civilization and Christianity'.

Thus, today, Aztec, Inca and Mayan civilizations are in name only. He further states that, 'by the year 1619 AD, a million or more black slaves had already been brought to the Spanish and Portuguese colonies in the Caribbean and South America'. He clarifies that 'it was by no means did the Portuguese enjoy a monopoly. The Spanish, the English, the Dutch and the French were also caught up in the TRAFFIC IN MEN'. There was scarcity of white women, too, resulted in the traffic in women. In this sort of set-up, the indigenous women were required to warm up the beds, the mingling resulted in new races of Hispanic, Latino, Mulatto, Mestizo, Kriol etc.

The Europeans went to South Africa. The mingling among the people produced a community called Coloreds. In India, too, the mingling with the locals resulted in the population of Anglo-Indians.

Would the ancestors of these 16th, 17th century Europeans have any different characters?

The historians correctly worked out the qualities of character of their fore-fathers had.

The Portuguese already had a foot-hold in Goa, the Capital of their Eastern Empire. Under the guidance of St. Francis Xavier, Inquisition was carried out. The British had representation in India in the form of British East India Co. Now the British, around 1776, had to leave America, they desired to concentrate in India.

India was no Americas - India had to deal with invasion for centuries. The British adopted different tactics, resulted in the now famous policy of Divide and Rule. Has the British rule anything to do with the creation of Aryans and Dravidians? In my opinion, yes.