Aryan invasion debate

[Samar Abbas]

> Koenraad Elst:"I say the AIT school fails to come up with Vedic
> astronomical terms borrowed from Dravidian "

It is exactly the lack of astronomical terms in Rig Vedic that supports
the non-Aryan nature of the Harappan civilization -

 " The star-calendar used by the Vedic ritualists was adopted by the
  Aryans in India, for there are no references to it in the Avesta or in
  the oldest books of the Rgveda. On the other hand, astronomical
  evidence dates the compilation of this calendar at around the 23rd
  century B.C., when the Indus civilisation flourished at its peak"

  [Asko Parpola, http://www.harappa.com/script/parpola9.html]

 " The rope-like hanging aerial roots are characteristic of the Indian
  fig tree; indeed, it seems that one of the Sanskrit names for this tree,
  vata, is of Dravidian origin."

  [ A.Parpola, http://www.harappa.com/script/parpola11.html]

Whether `vata' occurs in the RigVeda ia a question which I leave to the
Sanskritists on this list. How do OIT followers counter this evidence ?

> Paul K. Manansala:"The...hard evidence of [AIT] is entirely lacking."

What would you class as `hard' evidence ? There are thick ash layers at
the top of the IVC cities, and fractured skulls. You can counter the
anthropological date only by citing counter-measurements of nasal index,
lip width, genetics, etc., not by `I saw a dark aryan, so all aryans are
of dravidian origin'. There are dark Anglos in the US South, in fact many
negroes `pass' or become Anglo during their lifetime. So what ?

> P.K.Manansala :"... are different ethno-linguistic groups
> present in India. How they got there and the specific historical
> circumstances remain a mystery ... "

The Saka Rajputs, Tibeto-Burmic Nagas, Mughal Muslims, Khazar Gujaratis
all came from the NW. There is no mystery in how they came (through the
NW) and when (to within a few centuries). We think we also know where the
Aryans and Dravidians came from, but we're not 100 % sure. Basically, all
this `negative' research of showing up the faults of the established
theory whilst not providing a suitable alternative just makes more Indians
confused about what they are.

> Nanda Chandran:"...the 'civilizational' ardour of the brAhmanas brought
> them together as one, with the dravidian culture itself peaking with
> Aryan influence (Buddhism, Janism, Shaivism and Vaishnavism)."

Your theory of a Brahmanic origin of South Indian civilization is
interesting. Yes, all the disciples of Mahavir were Brahmins, as were many
Mahayana Buddhists. But what about the Dravidian temple architecture,
which is so different from Nagari temples in the North ? Could you
elaborate on this theory ?

> Nanda Chandran:"..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).

OK, Bihari Ranvir Sena Brahmins may be of Sakadvipi (Parthian) immigrant
stock, hence they are not `arya' as per your definition. I agree with you
that most of the conflict in the Northern Indian subcontitnent are between
immigrant Scythians, Moslems, Greeks, etc. rather than arya-anarya. I'll
admit the Brahmins showed considerable courage in not retaliating with
violence. All I meant in citing the examples of conflict was to refute the
pseudo-secular theory that `English colonialists invented all conflicts in
India'. I have not passed judgement on who is `right' and who is `wrong'.

Samar