Aryan and Non-aryan ...

[J.B. Sharma]

 Let me preface this note by introducing myself to the list. I am a 
faculty member in Physics in a college in north Georgia. I grew up in 
India, and had my schooling there. Subsequently, I have lived most of 
my life in the U.S. I am not a formal scholar of Indology, and indeed 
most of my knowledge of the Vedic tradition comes from growing up in 
it. I learned Indian history in the Indian schools where the stock 
fare is this invasion theory in question. This theory is a major 
influence on the current Indian ethos and those who follow Indian 
polity, battlelines have been drawn with this theory as the basis.
If this view does not hold forth anymore, what is the revised view ? 
If the history of ancient India is so well known (even if some of it 
is "necessarily conjectural"...), my request to Dominik (or some 
other amenable sage) is to share the most current view briefly 
in the thoughtful manner of the Buddhist scholar from Japan (forgive 
me, I dont have the note handy for the name..). 
 I have read some works of Kak, Frawley, Fuerstien, Elst, (not Tilak) 
enough to shake my belief in the standard theory, but am not 
convinced that they are totally correct. I would like to see 
refutation of what they are saying. I hope that someone on the net 
will point out some serious flaws in their reasoning. Hopefully some 
literature will be spawned on the subject. Invective or cries of 
heresey are just not intellectually convincing.
 I would like to deride the insinuation of being labelled as 
advocating "anything goes, all is relative". My viewpoint is more 
like we cannot know ontological realities conclusively. However, 
having exchanged a couple of notes is insufficient evidence to 
announce such personal judgements in a debate, and really, 
are besides the point.
 I dont think that there is an either/or choice between schools of 
thought. It seems that the only way we can look at occurences in 
ancient Indian history is as a spectrum of possibilities, some more 
likely than others. At this point, neither school seems definitive, 
though I would lend greater weightage to the consensual domain of 
folks who have spent a lifetime looking into these things. I have not 
however seen the Frawley/Kak school demolished by dialectic 
engagement which perhaps will close the debate, and rid us of the 
seething acrimony which has no place in rational discourse. 
 The sociological analysis involving reactions to scholarly 
colonialism, and conspiracies etc serve to demean anyone who 
questions "the accepted view", instead of clearly pointing out why 
they are wrong. It is a roundabout way of crying sacrelige and 
killing debate.
 Different schools of thought are inevitable in the social sciences, 
as models to explain occurences must be necessarily based on some 
assumptions (axioms). So it is more a matter of difference in shared 
assumptions which causes folks to diverge in views.  As more work is 
done on this interdisciplinary field, the assumptions (and hence the 
model) closer to whatever might be the "true" history  will 
be clearer. I do belive that ultimately there will emerge a resolution
as the process of historical science keeps crunching, and as always 
all gaurdians of rational truths are advised not to get attached to 
them (including myself). As a last hope, perhaps the love of fellow 
man will resolve this debate...;-)  
All the best,
J.B. Sharma