Indo-Aryan Invasion (focussed discussion)
Vaidix at AOL.COM
Tue Mar 3 07:20:22 EST 1998
Prof. Jan E.M. Houben's suggestion of sociolinguistics and anthropological
linguistics is a winning stroke. I buy it with a premium.
IAT has become the literary equivalent of cosmological "Big bang theory".
Every genuine scientist agrees that a lot of money and effort (and newprint)
are spent on proving or disproving the big-bang, squandering scarce resources
which could be more fruitfully used to study origins of universe in general or
many other subjects. It is a clear case of mismanagement. On the same lines
studying the origins of Indology is a much needed area, but arguing for or
against AIT is worthless in the long run. The major drawbacks or fallacies of
IAT are not lack of quality of linguistic arguments. The definition of IAT is
itself narrow in that it specifically refers to an invasion. Secondly it
refuses to research into the origins of the invaded people calling them
aborigins. Thirdly IAT fails the quantity test.
Invasion is only between equals. Invadors may impose their culture, but
society never takes it whole heartedly. The red Indians of US are still
holding off against the invadors and even winning court cases against US govt
for their lost lands. I bet Urdu and English, let alone Islam and Christianity
would not become nationallly accepted by 100% of the population in India.
(The only exception to this rule is Japanese society which can make 180 degree
turns.) The continued use of the irrelevant word "invasion" only insults the
lingustic accuracy of this group.
Intrusion is more probable on the lines of what happened in Americas when
local population of red Indians were displaced from their native lands.
Moreover, the red Indians themselves have learnt the use of arms when they
were themselves recruited by some European gangs. But then, considering the
highly developed moral standing of the so called "recent aryan settlers", the
illegal acquisition of native lands or massacring of Dravidians and Dasyus is
most improbable. If it is argued that the massacre did inded happen, then it
must have happened many thousands of years before the morality on the basis of
Dharma is established.
Dravid: Someone suggested that the word Dravid itself is of Sanskrit origin
meaning "drava" or fluid. Being fluid, they were willing to travel long
distances and therefore have settled in the southern most regions of India.
Or it could mean their Veda recitation style is fluent, as compared to the
broken style of North Indian scholars.
There are other questions as well. Did anyone look into why in Tamil there is
no distinction between k, kh, g and gh? Is it because the Dravians have
started moving away from the mainstream while the new innovations in
seggregation of vowels and consonents is still in progress? Did the tamils
leave the mainstream with the half knowledge of the new system? Or did they
drop the extra letters because they thought they were not needed? I believe
in the former, because with the hot climate down south, there would be no
physiological forces that can prevent development of a clear pronunciation as
compared to chilly north (another assumption that needs further research). If
it is argued that the local kings in India have managed to impose the new
cultures and lingustic system why didn't they homogenise Tamil alphabet?
Also if the aryans were of recent IE origin (less than 4000 years BC), then
why dont we find any traces of A, B C, Ds, alpha betas, or alif, be etc?
Being so democratic and adoptive as we are, (jokes apart) India would love to
have its version of a, ba, ka, da, e, fa etc?
Quantity test: Even after a millenium of adopting words from other languages
English is still English. Then how do western linguists argue that some
Indian languages were born in 900BC when there is no recorded history of
movement of people from one state to another within India exept in cases of
natural catastrophes or draughts? All we hear of, are conquests by local
Other questions in this regard are: How many hundreds or thousands of years
are needed for an immigrant population's skin color to harmoniously merge with
the Indiginous population through intermixing of races? Did the skin color of
Europeans who travelled to South America (which has equally hot climate as
India) turn drak in the last 300 years to any degree? If so how many more
hundreds of years are needed for them to look like Asian Indians? Numbers
play an important role in addition to quality of argements. This is where we
need help of anthropologists.
I suggest the subject be changed to Aryan-Dravidian Migration to India Theory
(ADMIT) or the more funny overtone - Dravidian-Aryan Migration to Nation of
India Theory (DAMN IT, that is what my opponents might be thinking!).
More information about the INDOLOGY