Aryan invasion debate

[Samar Abbas]

On Sat, 4 Sep 1999, Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
> [M]y research over the last half decade and new discoveries now
> make me completely doubt any 'Aryan' invasion,

Your change is a remarkable turnaround. I respond to your points below.

> There are different groups present in India, but not all got there
> via invasion.

What about the Thakurs (Tokharians), the Gujaratis & Gujars (Khazars), the
Abhiras (Avars), the Huns (Hoon Rajputs), the Saurasthrians (Saura Matii),
the Sessodia Rajputs (Sassanians), the Jats (Getae), the Trigarttas (Tyri
Getae), the Arabs (Shaikhs), the Pathans (Pashto) and the Mughals (Turks +
Mongols) ? Did they not all `invade' India ? Even if the Aryans and
Dravidians are `native', the bulk of the population of the North is still
`immigrant'.

> The arguments of Risley that one could distinguish castes by complexion
> and nasal indice have been refuted with the possible exception of the
> northwest region.

 I consider 19th century anthropologists to have been much better than
present-day scientists in the classification of peoples. I have yet to see
the `refutation' of Risley's theories. Who did so ? Did that person obtain
different nasal indices ? How large was his sample size ?

> Natural back and forth flow could have resulted in the establishment of
> population centers between India and regions to the West and Northwest.

There is only one `back' flow - that of the gypsies. Compare that to more
than 20-30 waves of invaders (excluding the controversial Aryans) from the
north-west. How many `back' flows have there been from America to Europe ?

> As an example, I might point to the case of Nepal.  How does one account
> for the dizzying array of ethnic groups in that country?  How often does
> an invasion scenario arise in such explanations?

It is established that the various groups in Nepal have immigrated from
outside - whether Tibeto-Burman or IE. They are not indigenous. And there
have been conflicts in Nepal between `Hindu' Aryans and Tibeto-Burman
Buddhists.

> Is the Dravidian, Indo-European, Himalayan, Austric and other presence
> there always to be ascribed to military incursion?

The various language groups spoken in Nepal did not originate in Nepal -
for the sake of `communal harmony' one need not invent a `Nepali origin of
Dravidian, Austric and IE languages'. Even if the process occurred was
through immigration, there will be a conflict sooner or later once the
preceding populations realise they are in a minority.

Samar