BBC accepts that AIT is flawed

[Joe Shearer]

There are too many problems with the AIT staring with the very name. Is it the Aryan Invasion Theory or Aryan Immigration theory?

It never changed from the Aryan Invasion Theory, for two reasons. It is useful to retain that name, if for no other reason than to measure the distance traversed since the first outlines were published. Second, it simply does not attract sufficient interest among historians any longer, and, just to set the record straight, it was a linguists' subject matter in the first place. That many 'eminent' historians are supposed to be in support of it is due to the fact that there is nothing better to put in its place. Look upon it as a place-marker, if you will. It will do until something better supported comes along.

While we are told that there are eminent historians backing this theory and that those opposing it can barely muster up a decent "historian", the reality is that eminent or not, there is simply no real proof of the theory.

Don't take anyone else's word for it, and report it sceptically. Why not dig in, and get your hands dirty? It might be an interesting exercise for you to check for yourself, not about historians, but about academic opinion in any field connected. Even the archaeologists don't support the alternatives, while agreeing that there is no link between the archaeology and the linguistics.

The theory, as has been argued has been forced to change so many times in the face of overwhelming evidence against parts of it and yet somehow manages to retain the "eminent" historians support.

And what would you have 'eminent' historians do in the absence of even half-baked alternatives? Keeping in mind that it seemingly is a futile effort convincing the lay public that there is in fact some difference between pre-history, proto-history and history itself, and that pre-history and proto-history are perforce subjected to more relaxed rules of evidence than history proper?

The proponents of the theory have used different arguments at different points, sometimes contradicting each other, to explain various parts of the Rg veda.

So did theories of the relative positions of the Sun and the Earth. I take it that you have no difficulties with astronomical views today, considering that there were contradictory views yesterday.

Sarasvati has been a serious problem for the theory. In parts of the Rg veda it is very clear that the river being spoken about flowed in Haryana, yet some eminent historians insist that the river being spoken of in another mandala refers to a river in Afghanistan, not because there is definite proof of that but merely because there is no agreed direct direct reference to put it in the same place that other references to the river show. Common sense would suggest that unless there is definite proof that the river mentioned is a different one, it should be taken as the one being referred to elsewhere for which there are geographic references. However since Sarasvati's drying out & the dates now being assigned to it probably kills any theory of an "Aryan" immigration/Invasion because it severely messes up the dates that can worked with, obfuscation is required. Not this river, something else. In some places, the passages of the Rg veda are read as being indicative of a violent campaign against the "local" population, yet the general argument is that there no one now believes in any invasion but what happened was merely a slow immigration.

First, why a river name should not indicate different rivers at different points of time, and during different geographical surroundings has to be explained. Assuming for a moment that there was an incursion of Indo-Aryan speaking individuals, groups or tribes, and assuming that the Andronovo complex was a possible starting point, which were the likely routes that they might have taken into the sub-continent?

The extreme northern, following today's alignment of the Karakorum Highway? That would bring them to Swat, and there are burial sites and excavated sites in Swat that point to a possible way-point for incoming elements.

The north-west, through the Khaibar? This has been everybody's subsequent favourite passage, but is not the only aperture in the Hindu Kush. This would need some preliminary travel through the mountains of Afghanistan. Now, if these imagined immigrants were not going from place A to place B, in the shortest route possible without loss of life, it might be argued that there would be no time to inspect the vicinity or to pause to name geographical points of interest. If, on the other hand, they were settling down wherever they could, moving on whenever they had to, due to weather, harsh environment, hostile opposition or a surplus of population, presumably they traversed a route in an irregular way, not in a straight line, but moving from one destination to another, without any clear idea of where they were heading.

The Helmand might have come their way during this kind of interrupted travel, or it might have been a river crossed on their way across the Bolan. There is nothing that bars knowledge of Afghanistan, even of features within Afghanistan. And, considering that the name Sindhu itself was thought to designate a large water body, either the Caspian or either of the Oxus or Jaxartes, in older passages, it seems strange that the name Saraswati should be held in reserve for one and only one of the rivers that they passed

Some of these "eminent" historians seem to have no problem with a bit of intellectual dishonesty. Maybe they figure that it is okay because the other side does not have the same "eminent" historians.

A surprising statement, least expected from you. Perhaps if you re-visit the issue, and view it in terms of the Vedas not having been representative of all the migrants but of some tribes among them, and having been composed by the bards of those tribes, glorifying the exploits of their war-bands and their war-chiefs alone, you might think less unkindly about the grave scholar occasionally being taken over by a fit of speculation!

Archaeologists who have opposed this theory because there is absolutely no proof of it are barely mentioned when in fact, it is they who should be in the forefront of any such assertion. The AIT has evolved so much in the face of evidence developed against it that almost anything goes, depending on the argument raised, the quality of the opponent involved etc. Eminent historians or not, the AIT has become something of a Chimera. The unexplained linguistic connection has now become the sole hanger on which to hang the rest of the Chimera carcass.

And what would you hang the linguistic connections on, in their turn?

 

[Random Boy]

Uh, oh. Wrong cue.

Are you opposed to the AIT because there is insufficient evidence to prove it beyond doubt, or are you opposed to the AIT because white men thought of it, and some other white men made a racist case out of it?

Two entirely different things. What you say is in context if you are responding to the first question, it is irrelevant if you are addressing the second, for in that case, no explanation, no theory, no facts matter: it is enough that white men have come out with it to condemn it, and we need to build our own pre-history, our own proto-history, and our own methods of research and analysis to put against the conspiracy of the white man.

because of both. because it is racist and made by racist Whites and because it lacks the evidence to prove it, it Looks like speculation to me. not proven beyond doubt.

 

[Joe Shearer]

because of both. because it is racist and made by racist Whites and because it lacks the evidence to prove it, it Looks like speculation to me. not proven beyond doubt.

Not in the case of the person asked. His point is exclusively to do with the completeness of the link of evidence, and as far as I know, he has no unseemly fear of the white man, so he does not disguise that fear as a desire to seek re-examination.

Rejecting knowledge which is thought to have been gathered by a member of a disliked skin pigmentation is, you will not fail to notice, racism of a marked degree.

 

[Vinod2070]

Indian history needs to have primarily an Indian narrative.

Any country that allows others to define it's history, sense of identity and values is doomed to failure and insignificance and digestion.

We need to be objective for sure, but not slave to a narrative just because it is coming from people who happen to control the narrative at this point.

 

[Bang Galore]

It never changed from the Aryan Invasion Theory, for two reasons. It is useful to retain that name, if for no other reason than to measure the distance traversed since the first outlines were published. Second, it simply does not attract sufficient interest among historians any longer, and, just to set the record straight, it was a linguists' subject matter in the first place. That many 'eminent' historians are supposed to be in support of it is due to the fact that there is nothing better to put in its place. Look upon it as a place-marker, if you will. It will do until something better supported comes along.

The linguist's support I get, I would just expect historians to be more rigorous in completely accepting that argument in the absence of archaeological support.

Even the archaeologists don't support the alternatives, while agreeing that there is no link between the archaeology and the linguistics.

I'm aware that archaeologists do not agree with any other theory and I don't have an alternate theory that I'm inclined to accept, it is more the fact that the theory widely propounded has more holes than theory which is of interest to me. Please do not misconstrue my scepticism in the AIT as support for any other.

And what would you have 'eminent' historians do in the absence of even half-baked alternatives? Keeping in mind that it seemingly is a futile effort convincing the lay public that there is in fact some difference between pre-history, proto-history and history itself, and that pre-history and proto-history are perforce subjected to more relaxed rules of evidence than history proper?

Err...I don't know. Wag a finger sternly in my face while giving the above lecture would be a possibility . You are the historian, you tell me. Just that I would have much preferred that people question a theory with so much baggage & actually not go ballistic when other incredible alternatives are proposed. The fact that some of those opposing seems have the support of right wing Hindu nationalists should not be the sole reason to completely dismiss all opposition. It tends to polarise the debate unnecessarily. Background of a person or his political inclinations need not necessarily be a bar for the relevance of a theory proposed if an attempt is made to actually present evidence. Especially in a case like this where evidence for the dominant theory too runs very thin.

So did theories of the relative positions of the Sun and the Earth. I take it that you have no difficulties with astronomical views today, considering that there were contradictory views yesterday.

I was talking about contradictions not across time but presently being used . Witzel himself is guilty of that. As are many more. An example would be to read some passages of the Rg veda in the old style, as a direct conflict between invading Aryans & the local population and yet call that a discredited position when arguing on the basis of the current version of the AIT

First, why a river name should not indicate different rivers at different points of time, and during different geographical surroundings has to be explained. Assuming for a moment that there was an incursion of Indo-Aryan speaking individuals, groups or tribes, and assuming that the Andronovo complex was a possible starting point, which were the likely routes that they might have taken into the sub-continent?

No reason at all. My point was more direct & narrow. Some references to the Sarasvati are clear in the geography mentioned. No arguments are usually made against it. However in other mandalas where the geographic position is not clear (not clear, not that it clearly mentions Afghanistan), it is automatically assumed that it probably refers to Helmand & not to the Indian Sarasvati. There is no logical reason to make that argument except in support of a theory of migration/invasion, i.e. the theory driving the conclusion.

The extreme northern, following today's alignment of the Karakorum Highway? That would bring them to Swat, and there are burial sites and excavated sites in Swat that point to a possible way-point for incoming elements.

The north-west, through the Khaibar? This has been everybody's subsequent favourite passage, but is not the only aperture in the Hindu Kush. This would need some preliminary travel through the mountains of Afghanistan. Now, if these imagined immigrants were not going from place A to place B, in the shortest route possible without loss of life, it might be argued that there would be no time to inspect the vicinity or to pause to name geographical points of interest. If, on the other hand, they were settling down wherever they could, moving on whenever they had to, due to weather, harsh environment, hostile opposition or a surplus of population, presumably they traversed a route in an irregular way, not in a straight line, but moving from one destination to another, without any clear idea of where they were heading.

The Helmand might have come their way during this kind of interrupted travel, or it might have been a river crossed on their way across the Bolan. There is nothing that bars knowledge of Afghanistan, even of features within Afghanistan. And, considering that the name Sindhu itself was thought to designate a large water body, either the Caspian or either of the Oxus or Jaxartes, in older passages, it seems strange that the name Saraswati should be held in reserve for one and only one of the rivers that they passed

My point as mentioned earlier. The theory driving the conclusion, not the evidence. If anything, the name Haraxvati is clearly derived from Sarasvati (S becoming H, not the other way around). Yet the argument is that it was originally called Sarasvati but as the Indo-Aryans moved on & the Iranians took their place they changed it to Haraxvati. Other than basing the idea on the theory propounded(which necessitates that conclusion), it could be argued that a simpler argument would have been to assume they carried the name westward. After all from what is known, the Sarasvati was by all accounts(and not just of the Rg veda) a much mightier & more important river.

A surprising statement, least expected from you. Perhaps if you re-visit the issue, and view it in terms of the Vedas not having been representative of all the migrants but of some tribes among them, and having been composed by the bards of those tribes, glorifying the exploits of their war-bands and their war-chiefs alone, you might think less unkindly about the grave scholar occasionally being taken over by a fit of speculation!

Certainly is referring to some tribes (the Purus of the Bharatas mainly) but the assumption of who their enemies were has been based on the theory of invasion & subjugation of the local tribes & not just a reference to "intra-migrant" warfare. My point about intellectual dishonesty that has been made above does refer to this.

And what would you hang the linguistic connections on, in their turn?

..and if I actually knew the answer to that, would I be engaging in this debate? That remains the billion dollar question. It is why I never rule out some possibility of a migration, contact etc. My opposition is simply to a theory being regarded as a certainty without rigorous testing, not in support of some other theory for which evidence is also lacking.

 

[Bang Galore]

Uh, oh. Wrong cue.

Are you opposed to the AIT because there is insufficient evidence to prove it beyond doubt, or are you opposed to the AIT because white men thought of it, and some other white men made a racist case out of it?

Two entirely different things. What you say is in context if you are responding to the first question, it is irrelevant if you are addressing the second, for in that case, no explanation, no theory, no facts matter: it is enough that white men have come out with it to condemn it, and we need to build our own pre-history, our own proto-history, and our own methods of research and analysis to put against the conspiracy of the white man.

Only the former. I don't simply buy this diatribe that is now very much favoured against the "evil white man". With what they knew, I'm simply not convinced that the AIT was not a reasonable case. What other conclusion could have possible been drawn with the evidence, facts then available? Sure racism might have played a part ( as it does in some Indian counter arguments) but that by itself does not render the argument invalid. I have spent a better part of my earlier post arguing against drawing any inferences from the backgrounds, other leanings of anyone proposing a theory. It would be churlish to limit that argument only for people proposing a particular theory. That proposition (of the racist white man) is largely self defeating since it guarantees that the only audience interested in such arguments are those already predisposed to holding that opinion in the first place.

 

[Random Boy]

Not in the case of the person asked. His point is exclusively to do with the completeness of the link of evidence, and as far as I know, he has no unseemly fear of the white man, so he does not disguise that fear as a desire to seek re-examination.

Rejecting knowledge which is thought to have been gathered by a member of a disliked skin pigmentation is, you will not fail to notice, racism of a marked degree.

no it is not racist because i dont dislike White People because of their Skin or whatever reason. It is more a anti-Imperialist stance and keeping ones self-integrity. How would White People react if a bunch of Indian, Chinese and African Experts wrote their history about Vikings, Romans, Greeks, Medieval Knighthood, and Industrial Revolution in Europe and all that. Somehow it is widely accepted that Indians cant write their own history because they would be biased but western People are the only non-biased People entitled to study all ethnologies on the planet. It is the "White mans Burden". The entitlement of White civilisation to bring "light" to other parts of the world and civilise the "savages". That is racist. And im against The White Man's Burden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Joe Shearer]

The linguist's support I get, I would just expect historians to be more rigorous in completely accepting that argument in the absence of archaeological support.

Would it be worth the trouble? The linguists have a theory, nobody else has one, enough people are raising a song and dance about this theory, so why should an historian stick his neck out?

I'm aware that archaeologists do not agree with any other theory and I don't have an alternate theory that I'm inclined to accept, it is more the fact that the theory widely propounded has more holes than theory which is of interest to me. Please do not misconstrue my scepticism in the AIT as support for any other.

There is no misconstruction. That is why, for instance, the post which you replied in your own next post, #66.

Err...I don't know. Wag a finger sternly in my face while giving the above lecture would be a possibility . You are the historian, you tell me. Just that I would have much preferred that people question a theory with so much baggage & actually not go ballistic when other incredible alternatives are proposed. The fact that some of those opposing seems have the support of right wing Hindu nationalists should not be the sole reason to completely dismiss all opposition. It tends to polarise the debate unnecessarily. Background of a person or his political inclinations need not necessarily be a bar for the relevance of a theory proposed if an attempt is made to actually present evidence. Especially in a case like this where evidence for the dominant theory too runs very thin.

You have a point, and much of the sometimes excessive anger and resentment is due to the shallow sermonising of the revisionists. If you have read the terrible paper forwarded by @Random Boy on a re-look at linguistics, it might explain some of the general hypertension floating around. In effect, it is the incredulous anger of an ivory-tower professor challenged with a very flimsy set of arguments by people who have an evident political agenda.

However, to deviate slightly, considering the formation of the state and the slow conversion of tribes to castes that ocurred, in historical times, in south India, it is tempting to conjecture that something similar may have happened, millennia ago, in north India[/quote]

Let us end it here, as the place where I am has abrupt interruptions. More later.





I was talking about contradictions not across time but presently being used . Witzel himself is guilty of that. As are many more. An example would be to read some passages of the Rg veda in the old style, as a direct conflict between invading Aryans & the local population and yet call that a discredited position when arguing on the basis of the current version of the AIT



No reason at all. My point was more direct & narrow. Some references to the Sarasvati are clear in the geography mentioned. No arguments are usually made against it. However in other mandalas where the geographic position is not clear (not clear, not that it clearly mentions Afghanistan), it is automatically assumed that it probably refers to Helmand & not to the Indian Sarasvati. There is no logical reason to make that argument except in support of a theory of migration/invasion, i.e. the theory driving the conclusion.





My point as mentioned earlier. The theory driving the conclusion, not the evidence. If anything, the name Haraxvati is clearly derived from Sarasvati (S becoming H, not the other way around). Yet the argument is that it was originally called Sarasvati but as the Indo-Aryans moved on & the Iranians took their place they changed it to Haraxvati. Other than basing the idea on the theory propounded(which necessitates that conclusion), it could be argued that a simpler argument would have been to assume they carried the name westward. After all from what is known, the Sarasvati was by all accounts(and not just of the Rg veda) a much mightier & more important river.




Certainly is referring to some tribes (the Purus of the Bharatas mainly) but the assumption of who their enemies were has been based on the theory of invasion & subjugation of the local tribes & not just a reference to "intra-migrant" warfare. My point about intellectual dishonesty that has been made above does refer to this.




..and if I actually knew the answer to that, would I be engaging in this debate? That remains the billion dollar question. It is why I never rule out some possibility of a migration, contact etc. My opposition is simply to a theory being regarded as a certainty without rigorous testing, not in support of some other theory for which evidence is also lacking.[/QUOTE]

 

[Vinod2070]

no it is not racist because i dont dislike White People because of their Skin or whatever reason. It is more a anti-Imperialist stance and keeping ones self-integrity. How would White People react if a bunch of Indian, Chinese and African Experts wrote their history about Vikings, Romans, Greeks, Medieval Knighthood, and Industrial Revolution in Europe and all that. Somehow it is widely accepted that Indians cant write their own history because they would be biased but western People are the only non-biased People entitled to study all ethnologies on the planet. It is the "White mans Burden". The entitlement of White civilisation to bring "light" to other parts of the world and civilise the "savages". That is racist. And im against The White Man's Burden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Absolutely.

Sadly, some of our so called "scholars" and "historians" with official patronage have taken this line and anyone going against it is maligned, called names and abused.

The Congress has created a culture of patronage in this country that has killed originality and any critical thinking. The "official historians" and others who gain from this vast patronage network are slavishly trying to get a pat on the back from any Westerners and instantly they become famous and authoritative in India.

It is quite an unfortunate turn of events. There are some brave few who are trying to fight against the tide of this vast cozy network that is so intolerant and abusive of any contrary viewpoint.

PS: It is "widely accepted", only because we allow it to be accepted. The day we throw such notions to the dustbin, it will stay firmly there.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Only the former. I don't simply buy this diatribe that is now very much favoured against the "evil white man". With what they knew, I'm simply not convinced that the AIT was not a reasonable case. What other conclusion could have possible been drawn with the evidence, facts then available? Sure racism might have played a part ( as it does in some Indian counter arguments) but that by itself does not render the argument invalid. I have spent a better part of my earlier post arguing against drawing any inferences from the backgrounds, other leanings of anyone proposing a theory. It would be churlish to limit that argument only for people proposing a particular theory. That proposition (of the racist white man) is largely self defeating since it guarantees that the only audience interested in such arguments are those already predisposed to holding that opinion in the first place.

I was trying to point out that Random Boy wanted the AIT dumped because it was a white man's theory favouring an account of white man on horses bringing civilisation and culture to south Asia. It seemed appropriate to point out that you seemed to be agreeing with him.

 

[Bang Galore]

Would it be worth the trouble? The linguists have a theory, nobody else has one, enough people are raising a song and dance about this theory, so why should an historian stick his neck out?

The problem is that they do stick their necks out. They do so in support of a theory that has been withered down almost beyond recognition. They end up arguing against archaeologists, against readings of Rg veda, against dating of Sarasvati's decline ,ending up almost behaving like a cult where one is marked if he chooses to question their wisdom ( a bit like the dark ages in Europe ). People are labelled as crazy Hindu nationalists(Satanists?), their intelligence questioned with a particular opprobrium awaiting those who are seen as deserters of the faith (B.B. Lal etc). For what purpose exactly? Many eminent historians have been forced to move their positions by incontrovertible evidence & the genetic studies (crazy as they are) keep pushing them further & further to the precipice.

However, to deviate slightly, considering the formation of the state and the slow conversion of tribes to castes that ocurred, in historical times, in south India, it is tempting to conjecture that something similar may have happened, millennia ago, in north India

I would tend to agree. The only point is when exactly & in what context. Also one has to explain why close knit tribes seem not to have complete genetic integrity. While it may be explainable with tribes in geographic proximity to each other, the genetic studies seem to suggest a connect even with those in the deep south(ANI-ASI etc). What then is the connection between the populations & when & in what manner did tribes achieve caste integrity? Difficult questions.

A favourite example of mine is one often used by you. The Mahabharata has a small player, the Kambojas. The only reason for their involvement would have been the call of kinship. An Iranian tribe should have normally felt kinship with their Indian relations if no major dilution of tribal identity had taken place. Not only does this fly in the face of the current version of slow migration into India & absorption into local population theory but also should have shown up on genetic indicators since by the time of the Mahabharata, caste was firmly entrenched & genetic integrity would have largely held through the ages. A mystery, don't you think?

I was trying to point out that Random Boy wanted the AIT dumped because it was a white man's theory favouring an account of white man on horses bringing civilisation and culture to south Asia. It seemed appropriate to point out that you seemed to be agreeing with him.

Err.. wouldn't that make you a " running dog of Imperialist, white, racist man"?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Taking one point at a time.

The problem is that they do stick their necks out. They do so in support of a theory that has been withered down almost beyond recognition. They end up arguing against archaeologists, against readings of Rg veda, against dating of Sarasvati's decline ,ending up almost behaving like a cult where one is marked if he chooses to question their wisdom ( a bit like the dark ages in Europe ). People are labelled as crazy Hindu nationalists(Satanists?), their intelligence questioned with a particular opprobrium awaiting those who are seen as deserters of the faith (B.B. Lal etc). For what purpose exactly? Many eminent historians have been forced to move their positions by incontrovertible evidence & the genetic studies (crazy as they are) keep pushing them further & further to the precipice.

Most of what you read is not about the theory under siege or its quality, but about the methods used by its opponents. You need to understand that these are people who earn livings out of doing history. They have their methods of proof (through documentary and epigraphic evidence, wherever possible, through archaeological reinforcement), their methods of discounting bias (which has generated the whole field called historiography) and their methods of ensuring that no wild mistakes occur (peer review, publishing in credible academic journals, and the entire school of obtaining post-graduate qualifications). Now along comes a wild-eyed fanatic and pushes out a totally impossible theory, based not on synthesis of existing facts to form a cogent explanation of the past, but on opposition to whatever threatens the inherent but unwritten position that the fanatic subscribes to. Most of the counter-theorising is based on P. N. Oak kind of nonsense, and apart from B. B. Lal, Dilip Chakrabarti and S. R. Rao on the Indian side, and Elst on the international, nobody has anything serious to say.

What sort of reaction do you expect?

 

[Joe Shearer]

I would tend to agree. The only point is when exactly & in what context. Also one has to explain why close knit tribes seem not to have complete genetic integrity. While it may be explainable with tribes in geographic proximity to each other, the genetic studies seem to suggest a connect even with those in the deep south(ANI-ASI etc). What then is the connection between the populations & when & in what manner did tribes achieve caste integrity? Difficult questions.

Well, it is clear that this process took place in south India as late as the seventh century AD. That is not a fact any longer in dispute. Unfortunately, nothing on a similar scale has been done for north India, in part because north India lacks the kind of meticulous record-keeping that the Chola bureaucracy introduced to the south.

We find traces of conversions of tribes to castes as early as Boudhayan, but on the other hand, later than he, the Janapadas were heavily tribal in nature. Quite clearly, the issue had not been resolved in favour of caste as early as the sixth century BC. On the other hand, it was quite clearly in place by the Sen dynasty in Bengal, that is, around the 13th century. Considerable information about the conversion of the Kaivartas, for instance, and the Koch, or Rajbansis, exists, and the process is seen to have been going on on all fronts during this later period of 11th to 13th centuries. Therefore we have the situation that far from being a fixed arrangement from time immemorial, caste was a vibrant, live tool in the hands of the social and political hegemony throughout the period, ending in the 13th century - but possibly, considering the experience of the Gossains, not even then.

Regarding genetic integrity, that is what I have been trying to explain to a certain underprivileged-therefore-exempted-from-more-than-kid-glove-treatment imbecile through these passages. There was, in fact, little or no genetic integrity within a tribe, no more and no less than existed elsewhere in society. That was true of the skeletons in the Andronovo settlement, of the composition of the Scythians, who seem to have represented the horse-borne equivalent of the Indo-Europeans, and of the subsequent tribes, both those who came raiding and those who lived on in India as autochthones.

The tribe, therefore, emerges as a societal artefact, intended to group people together for mutual agricultural assistance, for social assistance, and for political domination.

I will come to the Kamboja question some other time, perhaps after whatever dinner I can scavenge. Running dogs too have to eat.

 

[bronxbull]

Indians just won't accept that the White Race, is indeed, superior to them.

haha

app ko kebab mein haddi banna hain.

paidaaish kebab mein haddi hain aap.

 

[truthseer]

haha

app ko kebab mein haddi banna hain.

paidaaish kebab mein haddi hain aap.

Better than being related to Ram Singh