The Deva and Asura divide was between Indo-Aryans and Iranians relating to division of Indo-Iranian people in different cultural practices but the colonial historians faked it into the Aryan and Dravidian thing to create North-South divide. Moreover, if Ravana of Lanka was an asura, so was Jarasandha of Magadha and Kansa of Mathura. So, we can surely see what was done to our history by screwing it.
You must bring yourself to limit what you say and write in the interests of sanity, not least of it your own.
You draw a distinction above between the concept of a Deva and Asura divide between the Indo-Aryans and the Iranians, relating to division of Indo-Iranian people in different cultural practices, and that of the colonial historians.
First, you meant religious beliefs and bowdlerised that by an equivocation, 'different cultural practices'. That is all right; if you do not want to face up to the fact that there was a religious schism, and that the Zoroastrians were the dominant branch who retained their position and status, and sent away to exile elements of their kindred who believed in an opposite theology, that is up to you.
Second, it is irritating to see a shifting position taken, where at times, someone says that the AIT was nonsense, at other times, that same person cites the Indo-Iranian people and their division into Indo-Aryan and Iranian. What is that, pray, other than the classical AIT division and the classic AIT position of an invading mass re-stated without acknowledgement that it is being re-stated?
Third, who is it that you claim first explained this Indo-Iranian=>Iranian + Indo-Aryan structure, essentially today a linguistic structure, in opposition to those whom you call 'colonial historians'? Can you name an historian not from the Europeans' ranks who said this earlier than the Europeans, including Max Mueller? Why do you spread disinformation of this particularly disingenuous kind?
Fourth, which colonial historian mapped Devas onto Aryans and Asuras onto Dravidians? Was it not that the Dravidian language was thought, and is still thought to have been spoken throughout south Asia, superseding the Austric languages? Is not the Deva-Asura identification with Aryan and Dravidian an afterthought of uncertain origin, perhaps from one of those Internet sites that people keep expressing satisfaction about, as they are bringing in diverse views which we can absorb through our pores without being 'fed' our knowledge?
Fifth, why are you introducing the Ramayana as an historic source through the backdoor, by raising a straw man controversy about Ravana being an Asura being counterpoised by Jarasandha and Kansa also being Asuras? No sane historian claims the events of the Ramayana, or the characters of the Ramayana to be historical figures; raising the question of Ravana's Asura status is entirely your own concoction, and nothing to do with history, other than the history of the hedge scholars that have now become popular with the idiots of the Sangh Parivar. Raising his status is itself an injection of myth into history; raising two others as a triumphant vindication of the opposite camp, and a contradiction of theories based on his status is pure concoction, as nobody built any theories based on his status in the first place, and there was no opposite camp among historians as a direct consequence.
All that this intervention of yours shows is the dismal depth which historical analysis will reach once these Hindutvavadi clowns start manipulating the texts.
Please, on a personal note, get a grip on yourself. For every sane and sensible note or post, at least a half-dozen before and after ensue, which are completely ridiculous and seemingly the fantasies of a feverish mind. This is really not acceptable.
I am in no way a supporter of an such theories which are plainly based upon mythologies,ancient scripts or preoccupied ideological dogmas. In fact I am glad that genetics have proved Marxist historians wrong in terms of AIT. But this is what we all are demanding right? A methodological study based on scientific methods. Any distortion of history or resorting to wrong historiography to find what you want to find should not be applied by any block here, be it leftist or rightist.
If I may be critical of an otherwise balanced set of views, where is the connection between discarded mythologies, ancient scripts or preoccupied (did you mean pre-determined?) ideological dogmas and the Marxist school? The Marxist school wrote on mediaeval India; Irfan Habib wrote on that period. Which Marxist historian are you claiming to have addressed the ancient Indian historical period? And how do you call the theories of the AIT Marxist theories, when they had nothing to do with those theories, or with their opposites?
Whether the Marxists are right or wrong about their interpretation of mediaeval India, and their analysis of the structure of the nobility at court during the Sultanate or the Mughal empire is one thing; calling both historians who happen to be ethnic Europeans, and others who are Indian but have published their works in peer reviewed journals and got their work approved by peer groups through papers, conferences and seminars Marxist is a bizarre piece of labelling.
Particularly bizarre because the bone-heads who use these obtuse labels themselves draw all their inspiration and their adversarial energy from western historians, while continuing to accuse everybody not in agreement of being Marxists and of being missionary and of being of suspect western origin, all at once, all in one breath.
What effrontery. And how naive to fall for it.
, maybe that your way of being "consistent", okay good for you 
