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.

The Portuguese had their Eastern Empire whose capital was Goa. The English trading community too, had their presence around 1600. The British managed to snatch Surat from the Portuguese in 1690, and establish a trading post (English Factory) there. The Jesuits and other Christian missionaries were there too.

The Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal was formed in 1784 with a committee of 30 European members, under the Patronage of Governor General Sir Warren Hastings and the first president Sir Wm Jones. The President clearly expressed the intentions of this organization to be 'to achieve the general extension of our pure faith in Hindustan'. Thus, the ground work was already laid when Lord Macaulay visited India around 1835 to study the educational needs of the Indians. Upon returning to England, he addressed the British Parliament on February 2nd, 1835 as follows:

'I have traveled through the length and breadth of India, and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief, such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think, we would ever conquer this country, unless WE BREAK THE VERY BACKBONE OF THIS NATION, WHICH IS HER SPIRITUAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE'.

Further, he proposed that, 'we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that, if all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will loose their self-esteem, and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation'.

The East India Company specially recruited people of such caliber as Max Muller (1847) and Pandit Taranath (1866), to make such translations that would be detrimental to Hindu culture.

Colonel Coke of Morodabad gave a very practical advice to the then Governor in a letter as follows: 'Our endeavor should be to uphold in full force, the separation which exists between different religions and races, not to endeavor to amalgamate them. Divide et Impera should be the principle of the Indian government.

All of them put their heads together and created a truly Indian Wild West story - From the West came the fair-skinned Aryans, riding in their chariots, whipping the dark-skinned Dravidians, pushing them further South, and occupying the vacant land.

The Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) was part of the Divide & Rule Policy, which was carried out very successfully.

Dr Ambedkar's researches into Rigveda conclusively proved that the race of Aryans did not come from outside India. The word 'arya' was part of the words, e.g. Aryavrita, Aryadesh, Aryalok, Aryasamaj and Aryarit. Thus,every aspect of the human life, that is considered beneficial to the human society, was qualified by the word 'arya'. Therefore, every person of the Aryadesh had a right to be an arya person.

A very interesting story about Agatsya Muni would explain the meaning of the word 'dravid'.

Once, it was decided among the wise and the learned that, as it has become necessary, Agatsya Muni should be authorized to locate an area where educational activities can be carried out, in safety and in peace. Agatsya Muni was all set, ready to go with his work-force and equipment. It was decided that the area south of the Vindhya would be suitable.

The journey was going on smoothly, suddenly they came across an obstacle - a competion was on between Mount Vindhya and Mount Meru - who is the tallest? It was impossible to cross, however, Vindhya had great respect for the Muni, he agreed to lower its heights to allow them to cross, and further agreed that he would stay at that height to allow them to return when the task is completed. The Muni never returned!

Great Gurukuls were established in the South, and for that reason, the South is often addressed as Dravid-desh, and the teachers and the gurus as 'dravid' (dra - drasta and vid - vidya), a knower of knowledge.

It is as simple as that!

Bhikhubhai, great stuff. Thanks for sharing.

Thank you, Mr Shah, for appreciating. I hope, there are many more like you and who also share. I always thought that the historians are intellectuals who understood the saying, 'A lie repeated often, becomes the truth, and a lie altered often becomes a noose'. The outcome at the last Cal. Text-book Revision, where the historians agreed to call, 'migration' in place of 'invasion' of/by the Aryans, amply justified the above saying.

The classic case is where Mc Neill (A World History - 1967) states that 'the war-like invaders destroyed the Indus cities around 1500 BC, inaugurated a dark and barbarous age in India', where as, just a decade after, Hownslar and Smart (People and our World - A study of World History - 1977), states that 'Mohenjo-daro and Harappa had been abandoned by 1500 BC' and that 'they might have been destroyed by a series of floods of the Indus river'.

No one, in fact, no historian has a right to indulge in guess-work about the country, to which they do not belong. Such indulgence has nothing to do with the freedom of speech nor expression of any-one. One of the series of lies, was concerning the cultural shock - those invaders provided scriptures, language and the caste system.

David Frawley, a historian, too, expressed his amazement at the 'changing scenario' in the following words: 'There is a vast literature without archeology or even geography (home) for the Vedic Aryans, where as, vast archeology without literature for the literate Harrappans! This expression is now come to be known as Frawley's Paradox'.

Many genetecists and other scientists including Inians deny the theory of Aryan invasion in India.The author opinion is based on 19 century tradition of British imperial science.Read Out of eaden by Oppenheimer.

Ben, thank you for pointing out that the intellectuals have rejected the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT), and I do hope that is the case. However, the negotiations carried out with the CDE in respect of the Text-book Revision, would amply explain, that hard work lies ahead of the negotiators. All these negotiations are in respect of stories that these '19th century British Imperial science', and historians have created to demean the people and derogate their culture.

"Out of Eden' by Stephen Oppenheimer is in respect of spread of humanity many many millions of years ago, when even the earth's plates may be in different positions.

AIT refers to a period of few thousand years, written up in the last two centuries.

The historians toiled for decades now,to locate their own ancestors, who could be the supposed owners of a Mother Tongue, that became a basis for, at least, all the Indo-European languages. In this, they have failed miserably to locate a single European country that could provide the required qualifications - culture and language.

If the historians had stopped at creating the invaders, it would have been accepted as normal event, as there were other intruders into India as well. However, these invaders (AIT), in addition to carrying out destruction and creating slavery, have provided Vedic history and culture and Vedic language Sanskrit, with a Caste System as the 'Jewel in the Crown'.

At the time of Lord Macaulay's address to the British Parliament in 1835, the population of India was around 200 million (Times Almanac - 182 million in the year 1804). The present population is over 1000 million. The present population is greatly affected by the D & R Policy, the main basis being the AIT.

I must inform you, Ben, that Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT), has become part of the subject 'history', and is being taught to children all over the world. Should not the history books be corrected as soon as possible?

It was a bold step taken by the committee of the Cal. Dept. of Education, to accept a major change, such as calling 'Aryan invasion' a migration into India. Prof. M Witzel has shown great courage in agreeing this change. It was the first step. Now he must show to the world that Europeans can correct the history, too.

I am, perhaps, missing the point, Ben, that you are trying to make, please clarify.

The formation of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal took place in 1784, that was followed by Socitie Asiatique of Paris in 1822, Royal Asiatic Society of G.B. and Ireland in 1823, and its branches in Bombay, Ceylon, China and Malaysia, American Oriental Society in 1842, and German Oriental society in 1844.

Whatever the purpose of these societies, the universities were not to be left behind. Institute of Indology in Berlin and Bonn Uni in Germany, Edinburgh, Oxford, Cambridge and London unis in G.B., Yale, John Hopkins, and Columbia Unis in the U.S.A. and College de France.

For all these Unis, the hot subject was the 'Comparative Philology'.

The Europeans observed that many of the Sanskrit words had uncanny resemblance to the words in many of the European languages. Thus, every European country was racing to justify that there's is the one, the provider of the Mother Tongue'.

However, their position was not dis-similar to that of the great king Akbar, who had a surprise waiting for him, when he saw one of his ministers, Birbal, cooking Khichdi, in a pot hung 6 ft. high above the fire! Birbal's reaction was in response to the King's decision not to reward a person who stood the whole night in a cold water-pool, finding an excuse that a candle was burning in a far-away window, and that he was getting heat from that light!

The Europeans have been looking for a Mother-Tongue in a far-away places instead of at the source.

Bhikhu Bhai,

This is very valuable material. I need more time to read and comment.

Thanks,

Hari

Hari, it was a search for a Mother Language from which all the Indo-European languages were born, including Sanskrit. All these societies and universities spent years in studying various languages of the world to determine the Mother Language as well as the place of its origin. Tens of thousands of hand-written Sanskrit scripts were collected from all over India and sent to various European locations for study.

There is no past record of such effort being made by world nations to study the origin of the culture and language of one occupied nation! They failed miserably in this task. The Europeans, because of their attitude - had no respect for Indian culture and treated the natives as slaves (Hownslar & Smart -A World History - 1977) -could not imagine that such people could be the creators of a Mother Language.

But, now, the termite infested cupboard was falling apart.

In 1856, while the first rail-road through the Indus River Valley was being built, two brothers found the ruins of ancient cities in a jungle area. The work-men used the stones from these ruins to provide coarse gravel for the rail-road bed. Alexander Cunningham, then Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India, saw characters written on seals that had been found in the rubble'. He had no intention nor interest to take any further steps. 66 years passed by.

In History of the World, W N Weech follows it up. He says that, 'u ntil 1922, we had few records of human life in India older than the days of the Aryan-speaking invaders apart from a handful of scattered relics of the Stone Age. NOW, excavations has shown that great towns flourished as long ago as 3000 BC'. In Streams of Civilizations, Stanton & Hyma, goes even further and states that, 'in fact, there is so much evidence now to show that, very ancient people were highly skilled, that some people have jumped to the conclusion that they must have come by space-ship from some more civilized planet out in space'.

They were certainly not the Aryans the Conquistadores of the 'A World History' nor the Dravidians, docile little brown men of Van Loon.

Stupid me, they were from a planet out in space! The dilema of the historians continue.

Thus, the blue-eyed people of Major Yeats-Brown, turned into groups of different blood, all speaking a common tongue, the Mother of all Indo-European languages.

These people were Home-less, made transit stops before entering India.

These people, who invaded India and destroyed cities, now turned out to be a simple migratory one, settling down peacefully, in fact, what seemed to be destruction by the invading Aryans, turned out to be a simple act of nature - flooding.

The mounds of earth, that covered bones and skeletons of the indigenous, now unearthed highly developed cities with all the facilities for the residents. It was the people from outer world to come down and create this magical cities as the indigenous had no capacities.

What do you think we are? Yes, that's what we are! And you are quite right, it is the innocent that needed to prove that he is not Aryan the Barbarian nor Aryan the Illiterate!

It was those seals that Alexander Cunningham had found in the rubble in 1856, started to multiply in thousands in the archaeological digs that were carried out since 1922. They had figures of humans and animals and a very short inscription of a few letters each, in an UNKNOWN script, which has been called the Indus or Harappan script. The figure of Lord Shiva appeared on some, therefore the assumption was made that the Indus script could be the basis for Dravid languages.The positive outcome would provide great relief to the supporters of AIT.

The linguists of the world tried every possible which way to justify their assumption but failed to connect the Indus script with Dravidian origin.

The last time the linguists went to work to decipher a script was in respect of the Egyptian hieroglyphic script, i.e. a pictographic and linear script, as far back as 1556. The linguists did not achieve success until Napoleon Bonaparte came along and conquered Egypt in 1779, brought home, a Rosetta Stone, that enabled the linguists to decipher the Egyptian script.

Rosetta Stone is a large slab of stone found at a village by the same name in Egypt. It has a Priestly Decree, issued in 197 BC, inscribed in three scripts in two languages, one Greek and two Egyptian scripts. The Egyptian priests used the Hieratic script, where as the common men used Demotic script. The Coptics adopted Greek script and language.

The French Egyptologist, Jean Francois Champollion, armed with the long inscription in three scripts, one of them being known - Greek - he managed to decipher the hieroglyphic script of Egypt.

In the case of the Indus script, all the above factors were unavailable to the linguists, and they could not think of any other way, until the arrival of Dr. S R Rao, N Jha, and Rajaram on the scene after the independence.

Dr S R Rao, formerly the head of the Archaeological Survey of India, was free of the narrow vision of the past Indo-logists. He collected all the possible different signs on the seals - separated them between simple signs and letters with additional signs. He then went on to separate them age-wise. He looked at the sound system of South Arabic and Old Aramaic age-wise, compared with the Indus script, and bingo, Dr Rao managed to decipher the Indus Script, and the outcome has been accepted, among others, by the University of California, Berkeley, in 1986.

Rao's decipherment of the Indus script also proved that, the South Arabic and the Old Aramaic alphabets, as well as the Indian Brahmi, all are derived from the Indus script. Between the three of them, they have produced world's alphabets, excluding the Chinese and the related ones.

Thus, my arya friends, you are not only the provider of zero-based decimal system, but also, the alphabets of the world.

The framers of the fiction of the Aryans still had some way to go. The Aryans shepherded the cattle as well as used horses to move around. Who ever came from the West is being given the credit for introducing cattle and horses in India.

You may have seen the Indian cattle moving around in the streets, you must have noticed the large hump on its back. Such cattle are named Zebu (Bos Indicus).

The cattle from Eurasia, popular names being Longhorn and Hereford, have more or less plain back. The European breed is known as Taurine (Bos Taurus).

In the last century or two, cross-breeding has taken place in the West. Thus, Zebu or Bos Indicus cattle did not come from the West, if anything, it is related to the cattle East of the Indus.

The details about the horse is very interesting, too. The finding of the horse bones at Harappa, nor the picture of the horse on the seals, were sufficient to the Indo-logists to accept the existence of horses in India.

Just as the so-called First Book of the Aryans, the Rigveda, helped out Dr Ambedkarji, the Rigved now helped to solve the doubts of the Indo-logists.

Rig-veda, Book 1, Hymn 162, Verse 18 - Ashwamedh Yagna, to honor a horse, after serving the ruler, was being carried out. The reasons could be to retire a horse because of old age or due to some injury while serving his master. In this particular case, the horse was injured in the rib-cage, and the instructions are being given to the expert - vaidya, to treat the 34 ribs with care for its recovery.

The importance of the above is that Equus Sivalensis, the South-East Asian breed have 17 pairs of ribs, where as, the Central Asian and European horses, called Equus Przevaalskii, have 18 pairs of ribs.

The Rigveda was the so-called First Book of the Aryans. It has praised profusely, the river Sarasvati. (Ref: Rigveda, Book ii, Hymn 41, Verses 16/17; Bk vii, 36/6; 95/1 to 6, 96/1). According to Max Muller, the Rigveda was written up in 1000 BC (Sacrosanct).

It is now a general knowledge that the river did exist, supported by the scientific researches, satellite photography and carbon dating etc that have been carried out. Thus, the river is no longer a mythical river. The width, in some parts of the course of the river was so wide, that the name Sarasvati-Sindhaive Sagar has been in use in the scriptures.

The obvious questions would be, whether the river was live and flowing as described in the Rigveda in 1000 BC, or even when the Aryans descended upon India in 1500 BC?

The river had dried up even before the arrival of the Illiterates. The historians wanted to create knowledge credibility for these Illiterates (Frawley's Paradox). Max Muller and the historians were tied up in knots with the Christian chronology.

The river had dried up around 1800 BC, where as it was in its full glory as far back as 3000 BC and earlier. Thus when the Aryans the Invisibles, sorry, the Invincible, came to India, the river did not exist.

Of course, the British Raj was the culprit, and as the proverb goes, 'Ruler writes history'. The British and the historians had interests, to rule India, as well as, to convert the Indians to Christianity. What interests do the people of India have, to continue with the British policy after the Independence?

Why is it that no steps have been taken to correct the history of India since Independence? It must be, because we are Aryans the Barbarians, and Dravidians the Squat Creatures! We don't know any better! We don't demand any better! Look at us - we are up to our necks into the Caste System, and our own government takes the advantage of the divided society.

There were good reasons, for the Biblical Great Flood in 2350 BC, as well as the submergence of the Dwarica due to rise in the sea level around 3050 BC, and even the Ram Setu (Adam's Bridge) being under water for the same reasons.

The last Ice-Age commenced to recede 10000 years ago (8000 BC). The melting of the ice created lakes and filled the rivers, in turn, the water was emptied in the sea, raising the sea level.

The population of the world then was estimated at 5 million (The Economist - Dec 24, 2005), mostly settled around river deltas. One such place was India, protected from the chilling Arctic winds by the Himalayas, that also acted as a large reservoir of water.

During the Ice-Age, northern half of the Northern Hemisphere was under ice, including inland seas and lakes. As we approach 15oo BC(3500 years ago), the world population increased to 170 million. This is the time when, according to the historians, waves of invading/migrating Aryans arrived in India. Whether, one considered the area of origin around the Caspian Sea, or the foothills of the Caucasus, or any part of Russia or Europe, most of the areas were depopulated because of ice.

There was always to and fro movement of people. Gandhari was from Gandhar (Afghanistan), Madri was from Madrid (Spain); Muni Pulestin went to the area now known as Palestine and Rishi Tamas settled on the banks of the river Thames; Russia was Rishi-alaya, and America was Amarice-puri; the river Mekong was Ma Ganga, and river Nile was Nil Ganga; the scriptures clearly, have indicated that the Sapt-Rishis went to every corner of the world to transmit knowledge and help the communities.

Should it make any difference to anyone, if there were some gene transfer amongst semitic, japhatic, hamitic and whoever Indians were?

It would have made a big difference to the promoters of the AIT, if the geneticists had confirmed the existence of Aryan (European) genes among the Indians. In the first para of the subject for comparison, it is stated that 'Aryans have mingled with the authentic Indian population, so no one can be characterized as a pure Dravidian or as a pure Aryan'. Thus, the geneticists went to work.

The word Aryan has been related to 'white men like Semites' by Van Loon, 'Nordics" by Bouquet and 'people of different blood' by Weech. What meaning would you derive from these information? Wouldn't you say that the Indians are a mix of white, black, red and yellow!

Weech (History of the World) opines that 'the negro type ssems early to have passed from Africa to South India', where as Bouquet (Comparative Religion) has not ruled out 'sea-borne invasion'. In support of the above, Spencer Wells, in his book, The Journey of Man - A Genetic Odyssey (2002), tried to establish that the source of the human gene was in Africa.

The above information was completely negated by two teams of researchers, American and Indian, stating that , 'the South Indians possesses a distinct genetic pattern not found anywhere else in the world' (India West - Oct 30, 2009). Thus, the statement that we stated off with is not applicable to the people of South India.

South India is surrounded by sea on three sides, where as North India has always been more accessible to the adjoining countries, to and fro movement of the people was continuously taking place. People came from far off countries for education at institutions, such as Taksha-shila and Nalanda. Thus, there has to be some genetic relationships, however, the statement from the researchers was that, 'they could not discern the geographic origin of that population from their data' (India West).

Thus, Aryans the Conquistadors, the Barbarians, the Illiterates, enter India, lined up the women, and injected the genes, however forgot to maintain records, and now cannot trace it back!

The object of the AIT was to demean the Indians. To-date, as the proverb goes - Truth is one, lies are many - not a single story has turned out with any substance.

Just as the Europeans were attracted by the word 'Arya' (nobleness), so were the Indians, as the word indicated the character and behavior of a person. This designation is not restricted by the shade of the skin, knowledge, wisdom, wealth, profession nor ****.

The word 'Dravid" implies to a person who is the knower(drasta) of knowledge (Vidya), or a person from whom the knowledge flows. The people of India, only 200 million in 1835, fully justified both words, and so confirmed by Lord Macaulay's statement to the British Parliament on Feb 2, 1835 (see elsewhere). It is the truth, when the praise comes from an enemy.

To-day, the population of India has reached a billion mark. Arya-Dravid status has disappeared, replaced by provincialism, caste and corruption. Wouldn't you wonder how did this mega change occur in just 175 years? The changes were made to the education system - to replace the old and ancient system of education and her culture, thus break the very backbone of this nation as Lord Macaulay predicted.

How can we blame anyone but ourselves, for the present situation, prevailing in the Indian societies - provincialism, caste and corruption? One should be proud of one's province and be respectful to the people of other provinces. The corruption is an outright mismanagement of the nation's business. The word 'caste' needs to be explained further.

The word 'caste' has Portuguese, Spanish and Italian origin - casto, casta, castus, and castaway - happen to describe divisions of the society into four main classes, followed by sub-divisions. Even though, the the system originally was flexible, based upon one's inclinations (varna), it has in the last 175 years, crystallized into an inflexible system (by birth).

The Brahmins (7% of the Hindu population), Kshatriya and Vaishyas (23%) and the Shudras (70%), all had tasks allocated to them. What tasks were allocated to the Shudras? All that the other three did not do! i.e. community services, construction services, building of palaces and temples and art-work, etc. All of them are equally important, therefore, no one is higher or lower than the other.

The changing conditions for survival in the last 175 years, brought self-interest in the fore-front, in turn created protective societies, that came to be known as 'caste system, which is a sickness in the body 'Hinduism'.

What no one is talking about is the fact that Abraham was a Brahmin(Druid), no longer a Brahman(Hindu)... This was confirmed by CNN... Their are links that connect Druidism with Hinduism... What is interesting is that Noda(Noah)was the father of the Druids and He is the father of the Bharata's(India)(Vedic Aryans-Hindu's)as Manu which are both similar in every way... Could it be that Shem(Caucasoid) was the father of modern western Europe... Ham(Caucasoid) is the father of North Africa(where Indians(Aethiopian)live), Egypt, the Levant, Persia, and and into India, which is supported by Esther of the bible... Japheth(Caucasoid) is the father of some Indian's of India, the Medes, Turks, Ashkenazi Jews, and various Asiatic people's... The caste system falls right in line with the the curse of ham, servants to both Shem and Japheth... It is known that Celtic Scottish Ga-EL(God of IsraEL)-ic is/was spoken in India, specially in Ben-gal(Gaul,Gael) or, and by the Aniu of Japan... Celtic(Nordic)is in the Aryan or Semitic people who are called Syrians and Assyrians later... It is found that Western Europe and India share a mutual Cultural/Spiritual origin... Not only does that support the facts, but Geneticist have discovered that Western Europe, Eastern Europe, the russian Urals,and India share common DNA(Rb) or are genetically linked...

There probably always existed linkages among the people living in various parts of the world. The movements of the people have been taking place in the distant past, e.g. Vedic Sapt-Rishis going around the world with their troupe of helpers, or 20 tribes from the East, only 12 reached its destination, or the westward movements of the Jews, Christians, Parsis, Aghakhanis from persecution, as well as Greeks, Romans and the Chinese coming to Takshila and Nalanda, followed by the children of Japheth and Shem to rule, must have left behind some genetic imprint that can be matched with our friends from the West.

The subject for discussion -Aryan vs Dravidian- has special significance for the Europeans, that is further highlighted by the last Text Book Revision conducted by the CA Educational Authority. The participants being the Jews, Christians Muslims and the Hindus, it was decided, with the agreement of more than 50 well known historians, that the Aryan Invasion Theory be called the Aryan Migration Theory. The subject matter was, by a simple stroke of pen, changed from Annihilation to Assimilation. There is no bigger punishment for the Europeans and their hisptorians for creating such a FICTION to harm people of other race and their culture.

There are many interesting points raised in your letter, perhaps some others may help us with those.

White skinned people of the world are late comers. The dark skinned people are the pioneers of civilizations. Aryans are white skinned. Dravidians are dark skinned.The Aryans living in India are enjoying the fruits of the skills and knowledge of the Indus peuple who are Dravidians. Indian history has not yet been written by the original ionhabitants of India - the Dravidians. The Aryans are trying to rule the world thjrough their International Aryan League. Natural justice demands that the blacks of the world should unite, form an International Draviodian League and regain the rule of the world.

Aryan and Dravidian are English words, concocted by the British rulers and their historians, to describe the ancient people of India. It is now upto the people of the sub-continent, whether they should fight amongst each other making COLOR an issue, thus, supporting the Divide & Rule policy of their past rulers, indirecly, in your words, the International Aryan League.

Anybody can answer that the color of the skin has nothing to do with one's intelligence, nor with the goodness of their hearts. The SUN is the culprit providing darker skin to the people, living along the equatorial belt,to be able to tolerate the stronger rays. Perhaps, you may like to answer, presently, why people of the same color are fighting and killing each other in the Middle East, Africa and Eurasia? This would explain that the color of the skin is not necessarily the uniting factor.

Please, do not be unhappy about the darker skin, I have one. You probably have umpteen nice things in you.

I guess, the writers or speakers of the IVC script rode horses at the Indus. Or maybe the Sanskrit language originated in the modern civilization of the Indus. Perhaps, Revision as a subject should be introduced as a subject in Indian schools.

The information below may be of some help to understand better.

Re. IVC - Some historians have opined that people from OUTER SPACE have developed these advanced cities.

Re. Horses - Impressions upon thousands of SEALS have been found. RIGVEDA - bOOK 1 HYMN 162 VERSE 18 - Vaidya being instructed to attend the injury to the RIB-CAGE of a horse, consisting of 34 ribs. EQUUS SIVALENSIS, South East Asian breed has 17 pairs of ribs, where as Equus Przevaalskii, Central Asian and European breed have 18 pairs of ribs.

Re. Sanskrit language - HEAT is most where the FIRE is. Original Sanskrit scriptures are only found in India.

Re. Revision - Guess-work needs to be discarded and correct history needs to be taught in schools. Wouldn't you like to know that Indian cattle have HUMPS on their backs (ZEBU-BOS INDICUS), and the European cattle (Longhorn, Hereford, BOS TAURUS) have no humps on their backs!