Aryan invasion debate

[nanda chandran]

Sameer Abbas writes :
>The continuing
>racial wars between Arya and Sudra (Sri Lanka: Sinhalese vs. Tamil, >Bihar:
>Aryan Ranvir Sena vs. Dalit Maoists) shows that the Vedic race wars
>continue today and are the final nail in the coffin of the soft AIT.

In the first place how sure are we that the Sinhalese and Ranvir Sena truly
represent the 'Arya'.

As you've yourself said the big bulk of the population up north are of
invading stock (Scythians, Parthians, Huns, Greeks, Moslems etc). So the
current 'warrior' clans up North are more likely from the above stock than
from the ancient 'Arya'.

As for the Sinhala-tamil clash in Srilanka, it's more religious, cultural
and economic, than racial.

If you want a comparison why not take the ideal equation - the Tamil
'dravidians' Vs the Tamil brAhmanas in present day Tamil Nadu. After the
heavy social, economic discrimination and sometimes even physical violence
meted out to the brAhmanas, which followed the rise of dravidian
nationalism, was there any kind of violent retaliation by the brAhmanas?
They just stepped out of the picture, bore all the discrimination patiently
and have actually managed to stay afloat and retain their cultural values as
well.

Probably other from other regions of the subcontinent which experienced
anti-brAhmana sentiment can shed more light on the nature of the reaction
from the brAhmanas. AFAIK, in the Southern states (Kerala, Andhra, Karnataka
and Maharashtra) there was never any violence.

So does this in anyway support to your theory of 'violent' Aryans who
subdued the 'helpless' dravidians by force?

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