‘Indian history was distorted by the British’

[Joe Shearer]

Can you present some Aryan Invasion theory proofs in this thread???

Can you explain why the skeletons seen in IVC are also matching with the todays people residing there and traditions like bangle wearing girls are still matching with the current Gujarat and Rajasthni traditions.

Problem is there are vast differences between the european thinking and India culture and the problem lies when we look into the history through the perspective of these europeans.

The simple fact that there is no evidence of Aryans (not a race but language speaking people who integrated into native India society) invading native Indians will disprove the theory as a hoax.

I sometimes enter into discussions with the ignorant. I rarely enter into discussions with the grossly ignorant. Consider yourself lucky that this is one of those rare occasions.

These are issues relating to pre-history, that period of time when historical records do not exist. As a result, almost all of Indian pre-history apart from the Indus Valley Civilisation, and the archaeological findings of the material culture prevailing in India around the period of the middle of the second millennium BC happens to be based on linguistics.

Would you understand a linguistic argument?

Further, are you aware that there was no difference between Indians living in any part of India and other Indians living in any other part, after around 10,000 BC? All those who came in, including those whose incursions were recorded historically, have not succeeded in making a difference to the genetic make-up of Indians. Considering the entry of Aryan-language speaking migrants of mixed ethnicity as an issue to be dealt with separately, we have the Persians, the Greeks, the Scythians, the Pahlavans, the Kushana, the Ephthalite Huns, the Tibetans, the Arabs, the Turks, the Afghans....none of them changed the genetic make-up of Indians.

That being the case, it is not surprising that the skeletons found in the ruins are similar to the body types of today's population; they were bound to be, in keeping with the genetic finding that there has been no genetic change since 10,000 BC.

Bangle-wearing girls in that region is as significant as the occurrence of bangle-wearing in our southern or eastern regions. The Gujaratis and Rajasthanis (except the Meenas) are mainly descendants of the Scythians, the Pahlavis and perhaps the Kushana. They hadn't much connection with the IVC.

As far as looking through Indian history not through the eyes of foreigners is concerned, that is the usual complaint of the vastly ignorant: the merely ignorant know that this is an egregious error. Indian historians have proliferated, and an Indian point of view has evolved, several points of view in fact

 

[Srinivas]

I sometimes enter into discussions with the ignorant. I rarely enter into discussions with the grossly ignorant. Consider yourself lucky that this is one of those rare occasions.

These are issues relating to pre-history, that period of time when historical records do not exist. As a result, almost all of Indian pre-history apart from the Indus Valley Civilisation, and the archaeological findings of the material culture prevailing in India around the period of the middle of the second millennium BC happens to be based on linguistics.

Would you understand a linguistic argument?

Further, are you aware that there was no difference between Indians living in any part of India and other Indians living in any other part, after around 10,000 BC? All those who came in, including those whose incursions were recorded historically, have not succeeded in making a difference to the genetic make-up of Indians. Considering the entry of Aryan-language speaking migrants of mixed ethnicity as an issue to be dealt with separately, we have the Persians, the Greeks, the Scythians, the Pahlavans, the Kushana, the Ephthalite Huns, the Tibetans, the Arabs, the Turks, the Afghans....none of them changed the genetic make-up of Indians.

That being the case, it is not surprising that the skeletons found in the ruins are similar to the body types of today's population; they were bound to be, in keeping with the genetic finding that there has been no genetic change since 10,000 BC.

Bangle-wearing girls in that region is as significant as the occurrence of bangle-wearing in our southern or eastern regions. The Gujaratis and Rajasthanis (except the Meenas) are mainly descendants of the Scythians, the Pahlavis and perhaps the Kushana. They hadn't much connection with the IVC.

As far as looking through Indian history not through the eyes of foreigners is concerned, that is the usual complaint of the vastly ignorant: the merely ignorant know that this is an egregious error. Indian historians have proliferated, and an Indian point of view has evolved, several points of view in fact

Regarding the bold part I have no interest in argument with you, nor I entertain the theories with out any proofs.

regarding the bangles thing I am from south nobody in south wears the way bangles like in Gujarat and Rajasthan

 

[scorpionx]

http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol87No1/temp/jgen08-00038.pdf

 

[neehar]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Kolkata/Indian-history-was-distorted-by-the-British/Article1-1004972.aspx

no advent of aryans..but it was mentioned in the worlds most oldest books of zend avestha and also cproved through rig veda.. there are many teories but its thought that they came all the way from scandinavian steppe lands to persia and then to india..

 

[KS]

no advent of aryans..but it was mentioned in the worlds most oldest books of zend avestha and rig veda.. there are many teories but its thought that they came all the way from scandinavian steppe lands to persia and then to india..

NO where in the Rig Veda its mentioned that they came from outside the Indian subcontinent.

History may lie..but genetics dont. And genetics say there have been no appreciable mixup/invasion/migration for the last 40000 years in the subcontinent.

We are the same people genetically and racially.

The different races theory was propagated by British and carried on by their chamchas for their divide and rule policy.

 

[neehar]

NO where in the Rig Veda its mentioned that they came from outside the Indian subcontinent.

History may lie..but genetics dont. And genetics say there have been no appreciable mixup/invasion/migration for the last 40000 years in the subcontinent.

We are the same people genetically and racially.

The different races theory was propagated by British and carried on by their chamchas for their divide and rule policy.

after mixing up of 3000 years thats bound to happen but im interested prior to that..i've never read rig veda..but we know that it was written by them.and their stay in persia was testified by szend avestha so according to the time frames it was thought that they migrated from the great steppe land(1800) to mesopotemia then to persia to afghanistan and finally india (1500) according to guiels and brandinstiene..however people have many theories..but the artifacts and written sources and times establish the migration pattern

 

[KS]

after mixing up of 3000 years thats bound to happen but im interested prior to that..i've never read rig veda..but we know that it was written by them.and their stay in persia was testified by szend avestha so according to the time frames it was thought that they migrated from the great steppe land(1800) to mesopotemia then to persia to afghanistan and finally india (1500) according to guiels and brandinstiene..however people have many theories..but the artifacts and written sources and times establish the migration pattern

No artifacts establish that pattern. And I repeat, afaik Rig Veda does not mention even once from where they came from.

Dude I repeat, genetic and scientific studies prove there has been no appreciable mixup/invasion/migration for the last 40,000 years in the subcontinent.

Aryan Invasion Theory where supposedly an Aryan race came in conquering and displacing the native Dravidians has long been consigned to the trash bin of history.

 

[neehar]

No artifacts establish that pattern. And I repeat, afaik Rig Veda does not mention even once from where they came from.

Dude I repeat, genetic and scientific studies prove there has been no appreciable mixup/invasion/migration for the last 40,000 years in the subcontinent.

Aryan Invasion Theory where supposedly an Aryan race came in conquering and displacing the native Dravidians has long been consigned to the trash bin of history.

i never said that they came and conqured the lands i said they migrated..i did not said that rig veda mentioned it i said that it was written by them..please read my prior post before commenting..im sry dnt knw whether ur a historian..but i said people have mixed opinions and none were proved ..zend avestha which is a persian book present iran quoted the presence of aryans.scholers like jha aurgived that they were indians from saptha sindhava region but some like max muller and guiels belived otherwise
http://books.google.co.in/books/abo...ne_As_Contai.html?id=SvVri3ja0SUC&redir_esc=y

 

[Android]

no mughal king ever forced anybody to convert not even aurangzeb.....

lol go read about sambhaji maharaj

 

[Joe Shearer]

Regarding the bold part I have no interest in argument with you, nor I entertain the theories with out any proofs.

regarding the bangles thing I am from south nobody in south wears the way bangles like in Gujarat and Rajasthan

Oh, really, genius?

What about this Lambada woman from Andhra Pradesh? Or is Andhra Pradesh not from the south according to you?

Come back when you have something useful to say.

 

[user1]

The east ward shift of culture happened inside India when Saraswathi dried up and the "Saraswat Brahmins" who composed Vedas shifted to Ganga Yamuna Basin and South towards Kerala.

Mountains also present in India.

If you observe the terrain of Indian subcontinent the terrain stretches from Bengal to Balouchistan in one continuous plain, and the civilization also the same. Any one out side this sub continent is considered as Maleccha.


Saraswathi river was shifted from Gujarat to Ganga Yamuna basin (dried up and tributaries joined Yamuna).


Only significant river that was mentioned more times any is Saraswathi river and recent studies showed that it has flowed in India and dried up due to Monsoons and tectonic plate shift.

Regarding "Horse" people do use horses in those days People might have traded horses (Indian subcontinent and Central asia) using barter system.

Horse mentioned in Vedas means it is not mandatory that it must be indigenous.

There are lot of animals mentioned in vedas Horse is one animal.

In Mahabharata North west India (pakistan) also mentioned.

You donot see the rich traditions and culture in central asia, which also doubts the AIT.

It is near river banks civilizations rise and evolve not in Mountains.

Rich traditions and culture in Central Asia are due to results of invasions of Mongoloid populations from the East - Avars in 6th century and then Mongols in 12th century which not only changed the ethnic/genetic pool of the region; it also imposed the culture of conquerors on the conquered, then, there were later incursion from Middle East etc. The AIT propounds the time of Aryan arrival more than two thousand years ago.

Secondly, the current form of Hinduism was developed even later as the gangetic civilisation developed in the alluvial plains.

The remains of domesticated horse appear first in central asia, then, in North West Pakistan and then moves towards the gangetic plains as if shifting with the moving populations. It's the chronology of the digs that counts.

The next big difference is the North South divide in Aryan and Dravidian languages which are completely mutually incomprehensible and don't even belong to same language family - everybody knows that Indo-Aryan linguistic group developed in Central Asia just like the domestication of common horse.

Saraswati only comes in the later years of Rig Veda. The lines that I have quoted about Sindhu river are directly from Rig Veda.

Then there is genetic disparity between the population of North and South India and links of North Indian populations with Central Asia. This is still an evolving field much is yet to be discovered and deciphered; so, lets go to another simpler biochemical characteristic: Human Blood Group System ABO.

If we look at blood group frequencies - especially regarding B blood group - we clearly see a North South divide.

B blood group has highest density in Pakistan and India while in the Southern India it reduces barely to half of that. The same B blood group is also present in Central Asia and on the top of the Map where people of Caucasian origins were able to evade themselves from Mongoloid invasions in the later centuries; Avars, Mongols and lastly The Golden Horde (Muslim Mongols). Here the thing to note is the difference in frequencies.

A quote from Wikipedia: Eastern Europeans and Russians had higher frequencies of group B, with people from India having the highest proportion.

Another quote from Wikipedia: Blood group B has its highest frequency in Northern India and neighboring Central Asia, and its incidence diminishes both towards the west and the east, falling to single digit percentages in Spain.

This also indicates that Aryans that came from Central Asia were most probably Slavic and not Germanic - this is quite interesting that Hitler had his contempt directed at same people (Slavs along with the Jews, Gypsies, African) whose designation - Aryans - and symbol - Swasika - he was using as a sign of superiority of his Germanic race.

 

[ghilzai]

A person with Turkish ancestry will tell us history of Indic people. By the way you sound more like that clown Zaid Hamid.

Educate yourself , you mean turkic ancestry and not Turkish as there is the difference between the two.

I am a Pakistani and am not telling you your history, you should know your history, if you did they you would know that land up to lahore has been only part of what is India twice.

You guys have no history so you try to steal pak history, religion has nothing to do with it, just because someone is a Hindu in west Bengal can't claim history of Indus valley civilisation.

 

[bronxbull]

No that Bengali Hindu can and you cannot,

because u destroyed it and he respects it.

 

[Bang Galore]

The next big difference is the North South divide in Aryan and Dravidian languages which are completely mutually incomprehensible and don't even belong to same language family - everybody knows that Indo-Aryan linguistic group developed in Central Asia just like the domestication of common horse.

Discredited. Languages change, would be foolish to connect genetics to language directly.

Saraswati only comes in the later years of Rig Veda. The lines that I have quoted about Sindhu river are directly from Rig Veda.

No, it does not. You might be shocked to know that the reverse is true. Sarasvati is found in the earliest mandalas & the Indus in the later mandalas.

Then there is genetic disparity between the population of North and South India and links of North Indian populations with Central Asia.

There is most certainly is no such clear divide, you obviously don't bother reading any other post here. Genetic studies conclusively prove that.

 

[indushek]

What would the the ancient people have thought if they could foresee the state of their 'present' being presented in future i.e. at present!!!

So many scholars so many theories. Every body with an objective for sure.

A country which heavily relied on the sruti and smriti for ages today finds itself devoid of authentic records because the ancestors thought education is the thing that cannot be stolen burnt or destroyed. They might have forgotten that it could be lost in the winds of time.

The problem with Indian history as i find it is that, there is no collective history for us as to speak of. Geographically we were various countries with boundaries. If culturally we want to speak also we are different but not to a great extent. The Dharmic principles being the sole binder here. The need for this history and its validity seems to stem as the geographically diversified countries have become one now. The problem with one school is that they think in the name of nationalism the history is being distorted. The other school of thought says that this is acceptance of western ideas inspite of coming out of colonial past. It is the individual's responsibility to decide what he wants believe in. In my humble opinion there are only few points that we should learn from our vast history told through stories the rest is dust settled already which is being raised now and then by the wind of propoganda.

1) Mahabharata tells how fight between brothers (reads citizens for present India) can be disastrous for the kingdom then and country now.

2) The invasions from beyond the vedic land, take whatever u want like hunas, yavanas, arabs etc etc succeeded only because though of homogenous culture the kings never thought of greater good of this vast land called Bharata Varsha. Today we need not worry as such because of being one, but this holds value for one thing at present. Never let an outsider in your backyard (read America and Pakistan, there could be different readings of this by different strategists)

3) The likes of mirzaffar and mansingh (i don't remember the name properly) the backstabbers within, how they can hurst us. So beware.

4) The british experience teaches us how an outsider amongst us if left unchecked can bring us down.