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.
