Aryans vs Dravidians?

[INDIC]

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.

Oral tradition of Mahabharata dates back to 11-8th century BC and people were aware of the word Bharatvarsha by the time Nanda-Maurya period in 4th century BC. It didn't come in 1st century unlike you are suggesting.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

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.

The Indo-Aryans migrated alongside the Indo-Iranians, & consisted of multiple tribes. The Persians & Medians too migrated from Andronovo, the difference is that they were influenced by Semites. The Vedic Aryans were greatly influenced by the Harappans. The whole Sub-Continent does not descend from the Vedic Aryans, their concentrations remained towards the north western regions & to an extent the northern regions of the Sub-Continent. Some migrations did take place to other regions but those individuals generally mixed with other races thus wiping them out. It was essentially their cultural dominance & some might even say their technological superiority that led to the spread of their language & culture. During the era the Vedic Aryans remained in the north western region, they were a politically separate entity from the rest of the Sub-Continent & their closest genetic & cultural ties remained with the Indo-Iranians towards the West. There may have been a slight clash of civilization but it certainly did not lead to any enslavement. Anyway, I am done with this discussion. You are aware that similar topics have been discussed here recently & they require way too much repetition with little to no results whatsoever. Let the ignorant believe whatever they want.

 

[farhan_9909]

Indian And Pakistanis share similar genes.

if pakistanis call them dravidians.than indirectly Pakistanis are dravidians aswell

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Gandhara included Pothohar Plateau, Peshawar Valley and Kabul river valley. Part of Afghanistan and North Pakistan constituted the ancient Gandhara. Gandhari wasn't a foreigner. Indic people lived there in ancient time, but in modern time these areas are inhabited by non-Indic people.

Can you backup your claim, at least this one? which "indic" people lived there in those times?

 

[INDIC]

Can you backup your claim, at least this one? which "indic" people lived there in those times?

The ancient people of Gandhara.

 

[INDIC]

Can you backup your claim, at least this one? which "indic" people lived there in those times?

Can you backup that it wasn't.

 

[Nassr]

The Indo-Aryans migrated alongside the Indo-Iranians, & consisted of multiple tribes. The Persians & Medians too migrated from Andronovo, the difference is that they were influenced by Semites. The Vedic Aryans were greatly influenced by the Harappans. The whole Sub-Continent does not descend from the Vedic Aryans, their concentrations remained towards the north western regions & to an extent the northern regions of the Sub-Continent. Some migrations did take place to other regions but those individuals generally mixed with other races thus wiping them out. It was essentially their cultural dominance & some might even say their technological superiority that led to the spread of their language & culture. During the era the Vedic Aryans remained in the north western region, they were a politically separate entity from the rest of the Sub-Continent & their closest genetic & cultural ties remained with the Indo-Iranians towards the West. There may have been a slight clash of civilization but it certainly did not lead to any enslavement. Anyway, I am done with this discussion. You are aware that similar topics have been discussed here recently & they require way too much repetition with little to no results whatsoever. Let the ignorant believe whatever they want.

Interestingly, the genetic studies show that majority of Pakistanis are genetically closer to the people of Middle East, Southern Europe, Georgia and Central Asia. Whereas, there have been migrations from east to west into the areas populated by the Melluhas, these migrations did not play a major part in the genetic admix of the original people of the IVC.

Whatever I have read does not indicate that there is any evidence that the migrating Aryans, if at all, had any worthwhile connection with the people of IVC and I can prove it with archeological evidence. Probably, because by the time they arrived and certainly not in any large number as it were, the IVC had faded out. If we consider the timelines of the BMAC or the Oxus Civilization as some call it and compare these with IVC, majority of the archeologists and historians confirm that though there is a probability that BMAC people did migrate to Iran, there is no evidence that they migrated to the IVC. And if they did, at a later stage from Iran to Meluhha landmass, this would most certainly be after the fading out of the IVC.

The Rig Veda, despite mention by some Indians, did not assign Arya to any race or caste or tribe. It was just mentioned for those who were the noble ones and nothing more. I personally do not think that there were any Vedic Aryans as some of the Indians have started proclaiming of-late.

Actually these are also matters of belief, therefore for those who have not read the Rig Veda and Mahabharat or Puranas etc themselves, the response may always be coloured in belief and it certainly is not their fault.

There is a massive effort underway in India since some time now, to prove that the Rig Veda and certain other scriptures are much older than the IVC. The reason, IVC represents an urban civilization and the Rig Veda outlines a rural environment and therefore, the Rig Veda has to be older than the IVC and should pre-date it to prove that the IVC was in fact a continuation of the Vedic civilization logically progressing from rural environment to urban environment. And many renowned Indian historians and archeologists have said this openly. Naming of Ghagar-Hakra as Saraswati is also a part of this revisionism. Initially, in their effort to prove the Aryan Invasion Theory wrong, the Indians de-bunked that there ever were any Aryan invasion. Then came the counter to Aryan Migration Theory and now Out of India Theory is being propagated. In doing so, they have written so much self contradictory archeological and historical narrations that it is now difficult for them to un-justify what they justified in the first place, when all this was initiated.

The problem is that, as many of such theories are proven wrong, new one emerge. Lets see as to where does this charade ends, if at all.

 

[Nassr]

What was India called during the era of Mauryan Empire.

 

[INDIC]

What was India called during the era of Mauryan Empire.

Chanakya knew about Bharatvarsha and he had a vision to unite it as single entity of Akhand Bharat.

 

[Tikolo]

Indian And Pakistanis share similar genes.

if pakistanis call them dravidians.than indirectly Pakistanis are dravidians aswell

they share genes, but pakistanis are definatly more west eurasian then most Indians in terms of genetics, the highest ANI is found in Pakistan, obviously pashtuns, kalash and other northerners are the most non south asian population, but even many punjabi/sindhi groups show very high ANI

in terms of aryans, we really dont know what their genetic makeup was, so we can't say for sure how much they effected the genes of south asians

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

The ancient people of Gandhara.

And they were? Dravidians right?

 

[INDIC]

And they were? Dravidians right?

You have to prove it if they weren't indic.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

You have to prove it if they weren't indic.

I dont need to prove anything, its you who said they were dravidians from jungles of India.

 

[scorpionx]

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

Common belief says Asuras were the ancient Assyrians (the master architecture class in Puranas),a sub branch of the Indo-Iranian group.

 

[INDIC]

I dont need to prove anything, its you who said they were dravidians from jungles of India.

Hey snowwhite show me where I wrote that. You also need to prove your claim.