SV: SV: Closing remarks to Dr. Vassilkov (& Mr. Agarwal) (II)

[Bharat Gupt]

Lars Martin Fosse wrote:

> Much of the indigenist critique - as far as I can see - claims precisely that
> the "invasion" theory is politically motivated. I would therefore like to point
> out that both the Aryans and their geographical displacements have been
> conspicuously absent from public debates in the West since the end of the
> second world war.

Because the West does not need to reiterate it anymore. It has been "accepted" and is
part of text -books (even in India) it need not be repeated. As you admit," Western
politicians do not need the Aryans and their origins to justify anything."
But that does not make the "accepted", any less political.

> It is not my impression that the history of Greece is regarded as unoriginal...the West owes the foundations of its intellectual
> culture to the combined efforts of Greeks, Romans and Hebrews.

It is the "post Aryan invasion" culture of Greece and not its Egyptian and Minoan
content that has been regarded by the West as the most valuable. My remarks about making
Greeks "unorignal" were made about the supposed victory of the patriarchal Aryan gods of
Greece over the indigenous matriarchal goddesses.  The Aryan as the conqueror has been
the underlying theme in the writing of Greek history as well of India. The premium on
the Apollonian (Aryan) element of Greek culture was so well highlighted by Nietzsche.
Was its use by Hitler anything else than political?

It is strange that after a blatant and horrible use of Aryanism by the West, it can now
be pretended that while "the political motives of indigenists are for everyone to see"
as they are trying to contain Aryan-Dravidian conflict in India, the Western proponents
of a Caucasian home ( supposedly reconfirmed by South Russian excavations) for Aryans
are only stating the facts.

> However, the movements of the Indo-Iranians
> and Indo-Aryans must be fitted into the general picture of Indo-European
> dispersal, and so far the indigenists have not been  able to do this. The
> reason why western scholars tend to hang on to the Eurasian origin of the I-E
> is that the probability mass - all things considered - rests in favour of such
> a solution.

How is the dispersal from supposed Caucasian homeland any more credible than from India?
The only veritable reason for the existence of a Indo-European culture so far is
linguistic and  certain religious, aestheic and cultural beliefs, the spread of which
need not be only through invasion or  migration from  North to South but the opposite
also.  To insist that OIT is politics  is politics no less.
Bharat Gupt.