Indo-Aryan Invasion (focussed discussion)

S Krishna mahadevasiva at HOTMAIL.COM
Wed Mar 4 04:39:41 UTC 1998

Vaidix at writes:

>Invasion is only between equals.  Invadors may impose their culture,
but society never takes it whole heartedly.  The red Indians of US are
stillholding 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.>>

 I'm not sure of what you mean by saying "Invasion is between equals"
and that society never takes it whole this token, England
should preserve a strong tradition of the way England worked before the
Norman far as this American Indian thing is concerned(Red
Indian, I believe is politically incorrect), this winning of cases and
what have you is recent. Well into the 60s, it
was always how the "West was WON", only subsequently have people talked
about "HOW THE WEST WAS LOST" ( from the Indian pov). Also,
how many American Indians ( including those who live on the rez)
can speak their native language? I am unconvinced by your saying that
people always hold onto their own culture even when invaded.

<<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.>>

It is a question of what you mean by "moral standing", in the Islamic
invasions of countries, thousands used to be put to the sword on the
basis of a *religious* and *moralistic* statement that people who
didn't follow the *truth* and Allah could be killed. There are
interpretations of ayats in the Quran by ISlamic scholars which make
this very clear...all this morality thing is the POV of the person
making up the rules...The Arabs for example destroyed much writing
in Persia under the *morlaistic* stand that the books didn't deserve
to exist because they talked about things not mentioned by the Quran
and were therefore false...How can it be said that the Aryans didn't
take the same stand and supress what existed before them...

<<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.>>

On the other hand, irt can also be claimed that the word is actually
from "drOha" i.e. "drOhI" became drAvI which became "drAviDa"( They
were betrayers who had to flee because of their betraying the Aryans who
employed them in menial jobs...Such etymologists must remember
that all this jargon doesn't go back all that long..

>it is argued that the local kings in India have managed to impose the
>cultures and lingustic system why didn't they homogenise Tamil

A clear example of assimilation-cum-distinct identity retention is
that of the Parsi community who retained some features of their Persian
past i.e. religion and lost others i.e. language...the same thing could
have happened in Tamil NAdu also...

>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

How about calling it "Aryan Green Card Tactics" i.e. did these guys
get green cards legitimately, or did they smuggle in themselves
illegally and then put in refugee claims?:-)


>Bhadraiah Mallampalli

Get Your Private, Free Email at

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list