Against Aryan Invasions

[Bapa Rao]

The Indology list charter says that the list is for discussions among
practicing indology scholars, and others are welcome to read, but are
definitely discouraged from posting. I read the list mainly to add to my
knowledge of indology, but there is also an important side-effect of
fostering meta-impressions of the state and quality of the field in
general.

With that background, I would like to understand if the recent postings
of Samar Abbas are thought to represent serious professional
"Indological" opinions. I find it astonishing that a serious researcher
(assuming Abbas is one) would take unbaked opinions like those
purportedly of Ved Acharya below and pass them off as a "good summary"
of a position on a controversial research issue. Talk of knocking down
strawmen and shooting fish in a barrel. Both amusing activities, no
doubt, but they are not research.

Also, re Samir Abbas's crude revisionst theories about the linguistic
history of Urdu: I would certainly hope, for the sake of integrity of
the field of indology, that, if a graduate student of indology came up
with such a purported historical chart, his advisor would do the student
the kindness of telling him that "crappy" and "bogus" aren't
inappropriate terms to describe his thesis and his methodology.

Samir Abbas, if you consider yourself a researcher, be kind enough to
provide the name of the institution you work for, so that I can take
appropriate precautions.

Bapa Rao

>Date:         Fri, 4 Dec 1998 15:41:12 -0500
>Reply-To:     Indology <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
>From:         Samar Abbas <abbas at IOPB.RES.IN>
>Subject:      Against Aryan Invasions
>To:           INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK
>
> Re. the recent debate on Aryan invasions, I think this is a good
summary
>of the points that are raised against the idea. It was posted by
>Ved Acharya to Usenet.
>   _________________________________________________________________
>
>   Author:   Ved Acharya
>   Email: ved_acharya at vedas.bharat.org    Date: 1998/12/04
>   Forums: soc.culture.indian, soc.culture.tamil,
>           sci.anthropology, alt.religion.hindu
>
>                      AGAINST ARYAN INVASIONS
>
> The fallacious concept of Aryan Invasions is now wholly discarded by
the
>most sacred acharyas and sannyasis. These august persons have declared
>that the Aryan invasion was a theory proposed by the crafty British who
>wished to divide and rule. We have amassed a wealth of evidence in
their
>favour:
>
>1. HORSE BONES - The horse bones found in the Indus cities were wrongly
>claimed to belong to Aryan invaders. Instead they could equally well
have
>been due to large scale ashvamedhas (horse-sacrifices) by the pious
Vedic
>Aryans. Charred horse bones substantiate this view.
>
>2. FRACTURED SKULLS - The fractured skulls that the biased Europeans
said
>were those of Dravidians slaughtered by invading Aryans were in fact
the bones
>of pious volunteers sacrificed during purushamedhas (Vedic human
>sacrifices).
>
>3. THICH ASH LAYERS - The mischievious Europeans proposed that the
thick
>ash layers found in the Indus cities were due to Aryans burning down
the
>Dravidian Indus cities. In fact these could have well been the ashes of
>the pious Vedic Aryan ladies performing sati and jauhar. Some fragments
of
>charred bones substantiate this fact, and many bangles have been found
in
>the IVC.
>
>4. FALL OF THE INDUS - The Europeans have always claimed that the Indus
>Valley civilization was destroyed by the nomad Ayrans. In fact, it was
>destroyed by the Dravidians who invaded from the sea, and the Muslims,
who
>invaded from the north. Europeans have always tried to portray Islam as
>a young religion, when in fact Abraham and all the Jews and Christians
>were in fact Muslim. So Muslims existed in the centuries BC, and the
>concept of Muslims having destroyed the Indus is confirmed by the
numerous
>temples (like the Rama mandir at Ayodhya ) being destroyed by Muslims.
>References to Yavana invasions in the sacred Poorans also confirm this
>fact.
>
>5. SUDROID RACE - The Imperialist scholars tried to propagate the
notion
>of the Sudroid race to divide the Hindus. These were supposed to be the
>black aboriginals enslaved by the Aryans. This is all falsehood, as
will
>be shown point-by point below:
>
>  - The sage Vivekanada has declared that this theory is false. So how
can
>    it be right ?
>  - Some Dravida chauvinists claim that Dravidian is older than
Sanskrit.
>    These are deluded, since these languages have no independant
history;
>    they are merely degraded forms of Sanskrit. The recent
`purification'
>    of Tamil by the removal of Sanskrit words is merely delusion spread
by
>    the Europeans. Both shall be reborn as cockroaches in their next
life.
>  - Moreover, the sacred Poorans declare that the Dravidians are
>    degraded Kshatriyas, and so they are the Aryans. The Sudras were
>    created from the foot of Brahma. Since this could have happened
when
>    Brahma stood in a puddle of mud, the Sudras became black.
>    Unfortunately the Europeans do not accept the Vedas as
anthropological
>    texts, and so the holy Panditas have given anthropological
revelations
>    to convince the European mlecchas (barbarians).
>    Thus, the Sudras stayed in the sun, and so got black skin.
>    They took to eating pan leaf, so they developed thick lips.
>    They were employed as hunters, and so they
>    had to develop broad noses to smell better. Thus the concept of a
>    Sudra race is wrong.
>
>
>SUDROID NEGROES - Another concept propagated by the African
nationalists
>is the concept of the Sudras being Negroes, who built up the Indus
Valley
>civilization. These Sudric Negroes were then enslaved by the white
Aryans,
>just as Bantu Negroes were enslaved by the Anglo-Saxons. They do not
>realize that they are all Indian, and are hence all Aryans. The
>Sudras became the Sudanese, and the Gonds became the Kongos (whence
Congo
>river). Thus the Negroes are all Indian, just as the Anglo-Saxons are.
>
>As shown above
>the Sudroids degraded from Aryans, and these Sudroids then invaded
Africa,
>giving rise to the Negroes. This is proven by the fact that the genetic
>differences between Aryan and non-Aryan are very small.
>
>EVOLUTION - The theory of evolution of man from monkeys as proposed by
>Darwin is completely false. The acharyas have declared that the notion
of
>holy Brahmanas being descended from monkeys was merely proposed to cast
a
>slur on the Brahmans and to insult Hinduism. When the sacred revealed
>scriptures of Vedas and Mahabharat declare that the Brahmanas were
created
>from the head of Brahma, how can anything else be true? But Darwin's
false
>theory was jumped upon by the European scholars to prove their Aryan
>invasion theory.
>
>
>OUT OF AFRICA - The African nationalists have propagated the false
notion
>of all humans having come out of Africa. This was seized upon by the
>propagators of the Aryan invasion theory, who claimed that since the
>Aryans evolved from Negroes of Africa, they could not have originated
in
>India, and must have invaded from Africa. This sinister conspiracy has
now
>gained wide acceptance by anthropologists.
>
>1 MILLION YEAR OLD VEDAS
>Another fiction spread by the Christian scholars is that the Vedas date
to
>1500 BC. This was because they could not comprehend any date before
3000
>BC, when the Bible says the world was created by God in 7 days. So when
>they read of dates and eras millions of years old, they dismissed it as
>nonsense. But now it is accepted that the world existed before 3000 BC.
In
>fact, the Vedas are millions of years old, having been in existence
from
>the time of creation of the world itself in the yugas.
>
>GERMAN ARYANS
> Another lie propagated by the Europeans is that the Germans were the
>purest Aryans. This is evidently not so, since they speak a highly
>degraded form of Sanskrit and not the original pure devabhasha.
Moreover
>the Aryans in India have black hair, which due to snow falling on it
>became bleached in the north. So they are not the original Aryans.
>
>SIVA NON_ARYAN
> Another myth propagated by the Europeans is that Shiva was a Dravidian
>god. They cite the occurrence of obscene sculptures in the walls of
>temples as evidence that Shiva and many other ascpects of Hinduism were
of
>Dravidian origin. This has been shown to be false, and the sculptures
were
>made for the entertainment of the European visitors; hippies who came
to
>India in 100 BC. They are obviously not for the Aryans, who would never
>tolerated such things in their sacred shrines. The discovery of some
nude
>mother-goddess figurines is also cited as evidence that the Indus
people
>were the aboriginals. In fact these were imported by the European
hippies,
>who brought their obscene sculptures to India. These hippies were the
>Greeks, who brought their obscene Priapus cult (whence the phallic
nature
>of Shiva worship) and other vulgarities that corrupted the Aryans. As
>evidence such sculptures are only found after the Greeks invasded
India,
>introducing decadent Western culture and proto-AIDS (ancient venereal
>diseases) that killed the Aryas.
>
>SHAKEPEARE AND GREEK ART
> The Europeans have indulged in hero-worship of the Greeks (Homer etc.)
>and Latin poets. They have also eulogized Shakespeare as `the greatest
>writer of all times'. These are all bogus claims, since it has been
shown
>that these works were in fact renditions of original Sanskrit texts.
All
>these langauges, Greek, Latin and English, are merely degraded forms of
>Sanskrit. Also, their literature is almost wholly copies of Sanskrit
>originals. Tnus, Aesop copied the Ocean of Story, Shakespeare copied
the
>Pancatantra etc. The Trojan War is only a local re-enactment of the
>Mahabharat War. So these are merely the degraded Aryas. When the holy
>SIndhu river dried up in 1500 BC, they migrated to different parts of
the
>world, preserving only faint memories of their origins.
>
>So it is evident that the Arya invasion theory is wrong.
>
>VED ACHARYA
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com