Indo-Aryan Invasion

[Palaniappa]

In a message dated 98-03-12 14:17:17 EST, ebryant at FAS.HARVARD.EDU writes:

<< There is no good comprehensive statement on the Indig. Aryan point of view
 (a distinction needs to be made between an out-of-India view, and an
 Indig. Aryan view as I noted in a previous posting).  Challenges to the
 theory go back at least to Dayananda, Vivekanada and Aurobindo (and I
 am sure that there is a plethora of reactions even earlier in Bengali
 and other non-English sources).  Statements may be in the form of passages
 inserted here and there in literature dedicated to other topics,
 or of articles or complete books focused on some aspect of this specific
 problem. >>

The views of late Candrasekaraendra Sarasvati (ZankarAcArya) of Kanchi should
also be considered here. According to him, the racial connotation of the terms
Arya and Dravida was due to the Divide and Rule policy of the Whites.
(teyvattin2 kural, vol.2, 35). In a discussion of the 'research of the Whites:
good and bad' ("veLLaiyar ArAycci:nallatum keTTatum" teyvattn2 kural, vol. 2,
p. 234-244), he discusses the work of Indologists and Orientalists (Max
Mueller, William Jones, Arthur Avalon) and their approach to Vedic studies and
Vedic chronology.

He also has a short discussion on Indo-European in pages 469-470. Based on the
word "danta"/dental he concludes Sanskrit is the mother of English, French,
Latin, etc.

In a discussion of Vedic religion he says that it was the religion which was
prevalent all over the world. (As evidence he gives the Hittite treaty, a
Mexican festival he calls "rAmacItA", etc.) Nobody migrated from one place to
another to spread the religion. (teyvattin2 kural, vol. 1, 167-175)

By the way, is there any reason why the IA experts do not seem to consider
Kuiper's book (in which he discusses Deshpande's thesis) as worthwhile to
include in their discussion, Indo-Aryan Invasion "focussed discussion"?

Regards

S. Palaniappan