Aryans vs Dravidians?

[Shinigami]

on the contrary i believe in Aryans vs Dravidians, which was recorded in the mahabharata. what i dont believe is associating the dravidians with the shudras (untouchables) which everyone seems to be doing

 

[Ayush]

on the contrary i believe in Aryans vs Dravidians, which was recorded in the mahabharata. what i dont believe is associating the dravidians with the shudras (untouchables) which everyone seems to be doing

really?? who says that??

 

[Jackdaws]

Does anyone know any historical details of the battles that took place between Aryans and Dravidians? were there any battles to begin with?

How did Indo aryan culture, language, religions spread in the northern subcontinent so easily?

Also has anyone ever made a movie on this subject? it would be nice if hollywood makes a movie on Aryans vs Dravidians

I can see it already - Brad Pitt with a little tan playing the Aryan leader and Denzel Washington with some fair and lovely playing the Dravidian leader - Jackie Chan thrown in to play the Mongolian. I can see why Hollywood would be interested in this sure fire summer hit.

 

[Gold1010]

Wouldn't mind seeing a big movie on Hannibal.

 

[eastwatch]

on the contrary i believe in Aryans vs Dravidians, which was recorded in the mahabharata. what i dont believe is associating the dravidians with the shudras (untouchables) which everyone seems to be doing

As I have read, the Aryan immigrants imposed their will on the local populace. After a few thousand years of mixed unions/marriages, the Aryan leaders divided the society and imposed a caste system. People at the lowest rungs were Achyuts who were renamed Dalits.

There were many other strata in between the highest and lowest castes. All people of Hindu society know about this, but many low caste Hindus in PDF try to deny the existence of Aryans and Dravidian in India because it hurts their own ego.

Many Nazis deny there were any Jew killing in WWll. But can this denial change the history? Can the denial of Aryan immigration to India erase the history written in the very physical features of Indians living in the North, NW and (partially) NE and those in South?

One does not have to be racial to discuss an issue, but denying race issue will only help the caste system to stay longer in India.

 

[Shinigami]

really?? who says that??

pretty much everyone. everywhere you read "Aryans subjugated the dravidians and made them slaves"
i feel the aryans deep down respected them after all that epic battles.
stay in south india for a while and you see a clear difference between the dark caucasoids (dravidians) and the lowercastes/untouchables.

 

[INDIC]

pretty much everyone. everywhere you read "Aryans subjugated the dravidians and made them slaves"

That's the main motive behind starting this thread.

Genetic studies however put two categories - Ancestral North Indian(ANI) and Ancestral South Indian(ASI).

 

[Iggy]

on the contrary i believe in Aryans vs Dravidians, which was recorded in the mahabharata. what i dont believe is associating the dravidians with the shudras (untouchables) which everyone seems to be doing

I dont think anyone relate Dravidian to Shudras.. May be some one with better knowledge can contribute.. But I do like Dravidians be associated with Asuras though .. I kind of having a soft spot for them

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

Does anyone know any historical details of the battles that took place between Aryans and Dravidians? were there any battles to begin with?

How did Indo aryan culture, language, religions spread in the northern subcontinent so easily?

Also has anyone ever made a movie on this subject? it would be nice if hollywood makes a movie on Aryans vs Dravidians

If you are referring to the Aryan Invasion Theory, then you should know that Max Mueller's theory has long been discredited. If you are referring to an Aryan migration, then that is supported by genetic evidence. The Indo-Aryans lived alongside the Harappans according to some sources, & gained power steadily as the Harappan civilization declined. Could there have been some clashes? Possibly yes, but there was no large scale subjugation or enslavement of the indigenous as some people may imply. I also suggest that you read up on the Kurgan hypothesis. The caste system according to some sources was developed so that the Vedic Aryans may consolidate their power. However, I think the caste system is unfair to every caste, because no body deserves to be bound to a particular occupation by birth. Anyway, this topic has been discussed many times in the past few weeks, I suggest you check out those threads. A thread on the IVC & Sarasvati river is running as we speak.

 

[Ayush]

pretty much everyone. everywhere you read "Aryans subjugated the dravidians and made them slaves"
i feel the aryans deep down respected them after all that epic battles.
stay in south india for a while and you see a clear difference between the dark caucasoids (dravidians) and the lowercastes/untouchables.

yep,i am in karnataka right now...

 

[turbo charged]

Arya means noble.. Unlike some Arabic or African tribal religion, Indian religion don't appreciate inbreeding. Inter-cultural marriage was common in India. Color of skin doens't define race. India is place of mixed race where Queen of Afghanistan was married to King of Hastinapur.

Where princes of Greece married to king of Patliputra and so on..


There was no war as TS suggetsed.

these people look to you tribal?

or these people look to you tribal?

hindustan kai bherway sach sach batai

 

[Nassr]

If you are referring to the Aryan Invasion Theory, then you should know that Max Mueller's theory has long been discredited. If you are referring to an Aryan migration, then that is supported by genetic evidence. The Indo-Aryans lived alongside the Harappans according to some sources, & gained power steadily as the Harappan civilization declined. Could there have been some clashes? Possibly yes, but there was no large scale subjugation or enslavement of the indigenous as some people may imply. I also suggest that you read up on the Kurgan hypothesis. The caste system according to some sources was developed so that the Vedic Aryans may consolidate their power. However, I think the caste system is unfair to every caste, because no body deserves to be bound to a particular occupation by birth. Anyway, this topic has been discussed many times in the past few weeks, I suggest you check out those threads. A thread on the IVC & Sarasvati river is running as we speak.

The term Indo Aryans has been interpreted differently over a period of time by different scholars. Various scholars have explained that the Indo-Europeans were originally a people in South Russia. One branch of these Indo-Europeans, the Indo-Iranians, migrated towards the east and settled down in Central Asia. Much later, one branch of these Indo-Iranians, the Indo-Aryans, migrated southeastwards into the northwestern parts of India and thus commenced the story of the Aryans in India. Later, the Indo Aryans were called Vedic Aryans since it was propagated that they composed the hymns of the Rig Veda during the period of their earliest settlements in the northwest and the Punjab, before they came into contact with other parts of India.

However, Indian Hindus of a particular hue, while interpreting the Rig Veda highlight a different theory. They propagate that the Vedic Aryans were not the ancestors of all Indian Hindus and were in fact ancestors of just one of the tribes. It is claimed rather dubiously, that the Vedic Aryans have a definite historical identity and that they were the Purus (a tribe) of the ancient scriptures. And, the particular Vedic Aryans of the Rig Veda were only one section amongst the Purus, who called themselves Bharatas.

The word Arya is explained in Rig Veda as the Noble Ones. The explanation given by the Hindutva hued Indians tend to align the Bharatas as the only noble ones from the tribe of Purus as referred in the Rig Veda, which as explained earlier is a rather dubious reference.

The figure underneath amply explains that out of the total 1028 hymns, only 34 hymns in Rig Veda mention the word Arya. The column on the left highlights the names of these tribes/sub-tribes and the next two columns indicate the percentages of total hymns and Arya hymns. The rest is all self explanatory and does not need much explanation except that the Rig Veda identifies Aryas with Bharatas only in 3% of the 34 Arya hymns. And with only 1.8% mention of Bharatas in all the Rig Veda hymns, India named itself Bharat, as if the remaining 80% Hindus in India are not noble enough.

 

[Hellraiser007]

Bharat was the name derived from a king called Bharata who ruled Ancient India according to India epic. Not based on Vedas.

The term Indo Aryans has been interpreted differently over a period of time by different scholars. Various scholars have explained that the Indo-Europeans were originally a people in South Russia. One branch of these Indo-Europeans, the Indo-Iranians, migrated towards the east and settled down in Central Asia. Much later, one branch of these Indo-Iranians, the Indo-Aryans, migrated southeastwards into the northwestern parts of India and thus commenced the story of the Aryans in India. Later, the Indo Aryans were called Vedic Aryans since it was propagated that they composed the hymns of the Rig Veda during the period of their earliest settlements in the northwest and the Punjab, before they came into contact with other parts of India.

However, Indian Hindus of a particular hue, while interpreting the Rig Veda highlight a different theory. They propagate that the Vedic Aryans were not the ancestors of all Indian Hindus and were in fact ancestors of just one of the tribes. It is claimed rather dubiously, that the Vedic Aryans have a definite historical identity and that they were the Purus (a tribe) of the ancient scriptures. And, the particular Vedic Aryans of the Rig Veda were only one section amongst the Purus, who called themselves Bharatas.

The word Arya is explained in Rig Veda as the Noble Ones. The explanation given by the Hindutva hued Indians tend to align the Bharatas as the only noble ones from the tribe of Purus as referred in the Rig Veda, which as explained earlier is a rather dubious reference.

The figure underneath amply explains that out of the total 1028 hymns, only 34 hymns in Rig Veda mention the word Arya. The column on the left highlights the names of these tribes/sub-tribes and the next two columns indicate the percentages of total hymns and Arya hymns. The rest is all self explanatory and does not need much explanation except that the Rig Veda identifies Aryas with Bharatas only in 3% of the 34 Arya hymns. And with only 1.8% mention of Bharatas in all the Rig Veda hymns, India named itself Bharat, as if the remaining 80% Hindus in India are not noble enough.

 

[Nassr]

Bharat was the name derived from a king called Bharata who ruled Ancient India according to India epic. Not based on Vedas.

I posted this elsewhere also. Let me post again.

The Rig Veda knows of Bharata only as an ancestor of contemporary dynasties, tribes and clans. There is nothing in the Rig Veda about Bharata the person, let alone Bharata the emperor. There is absolutely no mention of any wars that he may have fought, enemies that he vanquished or territories annexed, not even the wealth he may have amassed or gifted.

This clearly indicates that in the primary Vedic scripture the Rig Veda, there is no mention of a country known as Bharat or Bharata or Bharatversha.

The shape of India is described in the 'Mahabharata' which is believed to be a text of around first century AD, as an equilateral triangle, which was divided into four smaller equal triangles. The apex of the triangle is Cape Comorin, and the base is formed by the line of the Himalaya mountains. No dimensions are given, and no places are mentioned.


Another description of India is that of the Nava-Khanda, or Nine-Divisions, which is first described by the astronomers Parasara and Varaha-Mihira, although it was probably older than their time and was later adopted by the authors of several of the Puranas. According to this arrangement, Pdnchdla was the chief district of the central division, Magadha of the east, Kalinga of the south-east, Avanta of the south, Anarta of the south-west, Sindhu-Sauvira of the west, Hdrahaura of the north-west, Madra of the north, and Kauninda of the north-east. But there is a discrepancy between this epitome of Varaha and his details, as Sindhu-Sauvira is assigned to the south-west, along with Anarta. There however is absolutely no agreement among the scholars with regard to deciphering the exact location of Sindhu-Sauvira and different scholar state different locations.


With regard to the detailed lists of the 'Brihat-Samhita' with those of the Brahmanda, Markandeya, Vishnu, Vayu, and Matsya Puranas; although there are sundry repetitions and displacements of names, as well as various readings, yet all the lists are substantially the same. Some of them, however, are differently arranged. All of the Puranas, for instance, mention the Nine Divisions and give their names, but only the Brahmanda and Markandeya state the names of the districts in each of the Nine Divisions; as the Vishnu, Vayu, and Matsya Puranas agree with the Mahabharata in describing only five Divisions in detail, namely, the middle Province and those of the four cardinal points. The names of the Nine Divisions given in the Mahabharata and the Puranas differ entirely from those of Yaraha-Mihira.

At times I really wonder as to why we the Pakistanis have to explain the details of Vedic or Hindu scriptures or epics to the Indians, who misquote the essence of what is said in their own books. It is a shame.

 

[Hellraiser007]

Mahabharata is a new version of Bharata a story which was told orally around 10 to 15th century B.C.

Vedas date is also debatable.

Considering that oral traditions date back to literary works, we can safely say Mahabharata dates earlier than Vedas.

Vedas are not stories or epics, they are knowledge embedded in Hyms.

Traditionally, the authorship of the Mahabharata is attributed to Vyasa. There have been many attempts to unravel its historical growth and compositional layers. The oldest preserved parts of the text are thought to be not much older than around 400 BCE, though the origins of the epic probably fall between the 8th and 9th centuries BCE.[2] The text probably reached its final form by the early Gupta period (c. 4th century).[3] The title may be translated as "the great tale of the Bhārata dynasty". According to the Mahabharata itself, the tale is extended from a shorter version of 24,000 verses called simply Bhārata.[4]

I posted this elsewhere also. Let me post again.

The Rig Veda knows of Bharata only as an ancestor of contemporary dynasties, tribes and clans. There is nothing in the Rig Veda about Bharata the person, let alone Bharata the emperor. There is absolutely no mention of any wars that he may have fought, enemies that he vanquished or territories annexed, not even the wealth he may have amassed or gifted.

This clearly indicates that in the primary Vedic scripture the Rig Veda, there is no mention of a country known as Bharat or Bharata or Bharatversha.

The shape of India is described in the 'Mahabharata' which is believed to be a text of around first century AD, as an equilateral triangle, which was divided into four smaller equal triangles. The apex of the triangle is Cape Comorin, and the base is formed by the line of the Himalaya mountains. No dimensions are given, and no places are mentioned.


Another description of India is that of the Nava-Khanda, or Nine-Divisions, which is first described by the astronomers Parasara and Varaha-Mihira, although it was probably older than their time and was later adopted by the authors of several of the Puranas. According to this arrangement, Pdnchdla was the chief district of the central division, Magadha of the east, Kalinga of the south-east, Avanta of the south, Anarta of the south-west, Sindhu-Sauvira of the west, Hdrahaura of the north-west, Madra of the north, and Kauninda of the north-east. But there is a discrepancy between this epitome of Varaha and his details, as Sindhu-Sauvira is assigned to the south-west, along with Anarta. There however is absolutely no agreement among the scholars with regard to deciphering the exact location of Sindhu-Sauvira and different scholar state different locations.


With regard to the detailed lists of the 'Brihat-Samhita' with those of the Brahmanda, Markandeya, Vishnu, Vayu, and Matsya Puranas; although there are sundry repetitions and displacements of names, as well as various readings, yet all the lists are substantially the same. Some of them, however, are differently arranged. All of the Puranas, for instance, mention the Nine Divisions and give their names, but only the Brahmanda and Markandeya state the names of the districts in each of the Nine Divisions; as the Vishnu, Vayu, and Matsya Puranas agree with the Mahabharata in describing only five Divisions in detail, namely, the middle Province and those of the four cardinal points. The names of the Nine Divisions given in the Mahabharata and the Puranas differ entirely from those of Yaraha-Mihira.

At times I really wonder as to why we the Pakistanis have to explain the details of Vedic or Hindu scriptures or epics to the Indians, who misquote the essence of what is said in their own books. It is a shame.