Indo-Aryan Invasion

[S Krishna]

Dear List members,

  I know some of you don't like discussions which are not based on
"research" i.e. field work/scholarly research etc..obviously this whole
business of attributing motives to indologists is based completely on
speculation and I beg pardon for starting the whole business...if it
gets a little too boring/un-academic, please let me know....

Bhadriah Mallampalli writes:



<<Dravidians were supposed to be barbarian Dasyus!  When did they change
from being barbarians to meek good cultured sheep?  There is no answer
because the proposal is false.  Dasyus are an ancient European tribe,
and according to RGveda they are particularly feroceous and hateful.
The aryans were so fed up fighting with them that they finally found the
Indian subcontinent a peacefulplace to live.  This fact was covered up
and the Dasyu qualities were imposedon Dravidians who are actually a
peaceloving lot.


<<That was a double trick
which established European origins of Indian arts and dividing India
into North and South.>>

This sentence is exactly what I was questioning...In light of the fact
that there was no political activity in the south, what was the point
i.e. what was the British gain by division into Aryan and Dasyu races?
In other words, what was the point in dividing things into North and
South India?

I also am not sure of what you mean by "European Origins of Indian
Arts"? Was it ever claimed that "Indian Arts were derived from Europe?
If so, may I request for the source of information?

 If this is what the Europeans wanted to prove, TRUST ME, they didn't
have to come up with such an elaborate story. In the 19th century,
there was enough borrowing from European art, music and literature into
various Indian languages/cultures, in music, for example, in
music,Muttusvami Dikshitar wrote what he called "nOTTusvaram"( a samskrt
lyric for a borrowed band/Suropean tunes) as did Tyagaraja( his "sara
sara" in kuntalavarali was based on a band song); bAlusvAmi dIkshitar
ad(o/a)pted the violin into  Carnatic music. In Bengal, Tagore used many
western tunes for his songs and Atul Prosad Sen used
ITalian Gondolier songs( The patriotic song "Utthogo Bharata Lokkhi"
for e.g.). In painting, the Bengal school of art was very much
influenced by European painting. In literature, works in different
Indian languages were also inspired by the west e.g. in Telugu,
"rAjasEkhara caritamu" was inspired by the "Vicar of Wakefield",in
marATHI, "zunzar rAv" was inspired by "Macbeth" being two random
examples. The point I'm trying to make is that they had lots of DIRECT
evidence for proving this influence business instead of looking for such
nebulous and long-drawn out theories.

<<The postulate that Aryans moved to India would never have hurt the
then white rulers because it was also argued that the Aryans who
migrated to India had racially mixed up with the black Dravidians
(implying the migrated Aryans losttheir racial purity, and so they are
no more Aryans in the correct sense of the word). >>


I'm afraid that this argument is completely incorrect. As support,
please read about the case of "Vishnu Sakharam Pandit vs the United
States Immigration Service" circa 1920. This V.S.Pandit, the first
Indian to legally settle down in the US, based his case on the fact
that he was a pure blooded Aryan and was therefore not inferior to
the West Europeans who were allowed to migrate to the USA in the 1920s
. He managed to convince an American judge in the 1920s( date emphasized
because of the very strong anti-Asian bias that these people had) of his
argument by quoting texts and papers; I therefore
am at a loss to understand how you concluded that the Europeans argued
that "purity had been lost"?( since there had to be irrefutable evidence
for this gentleman to win his case against the INS)

Regards,
Krishna










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