Is the Aryan Invasion Theory true?
Your anachronistic reference to this ‘theory’, and particularly its supposed consequences for the representation of Indian culture and its origins, would be hard for anyone in the world today to take seriously. To claim as you do that it is even taught ‘all over the world’ is patently false. If anything, the common and recurrent theme throughout the literature on Indian history, language, and religion is the search for a better understanding of the ways the older, established cultures were ultimately reconciled with those of the successive waves of new-comers. I have been reading about Indian religious history and linguistics in the scholarly journals for over twenty-five years, and I have taken courses in both areas with teachers of greatly divergent views, but have not once heard anything like your zinger about India as ‘an empty, barren receptacle’, nor have I ever heard the suggestion that no original ‘Indian’ contribution is behind the current state of Indian languages, religions,
Dravidian language is found in South India and in pockets here and there in North India, in Pakistan and in Afghanistan leading to the conclusion by linguists that Dravidian language had once been all over India and beyond. The grammar and sentence structure of North Indian languages are different from Sanskrit. In South East Asian languages including North and South Indian languages and Japanese the sentence structure is Subject –Object –Verb as in Aswathama the elephant killed. Aswathama hathiko mar diya. But in Indo-European languages including Sanskrit it would be Subject –Verb–Object Aswathama killed the elephant Aswathama hatha kujaraha Linguists have no doubts that Sankrit is an Indo-European language and they trace it to steppes around Caucus and Ural mountains in the southern part of Russia. Also, the horse is not indigenous to India. Indian animals other than the horse are shown in the stone tablets found in the cities and towns (covering from Pakistan to Gujarat) of the
The aryan invasion theory has been one of the most controversial historical topics for well over a century. However, it should be pointed out that it remains just that – a theory. To date no hard evidence has proven the aryan invasion theory to be fact. In this essay we will explain the roots of this hypothesis and how, due to recent emergence of new evidence over the last couple of decades, the validity of the aryan invasion theory has been seriously challenged. British intellectuals were particularly nonplussed by this apparent link between the languages of the conquerors and the conquered. In the earliest phases of British rule in India, the East India Company proceeded largely unconsciously – without moral dilemmas and without overt recourse to ideological or racial superiority. But as the rule of the East India Company expanded, and battles became more hard fought and the resistance to British occupation in India grew, the ideology of European racial superiority became almost esse
***** cat I would like to answer this question and also for the comments you have posted in another question with regard to Hinduism. Moreover this question can only be answered by the people who have read both Sanskrit and Tamil literatures. We don’t know exactly whether Aryans invaded and massacred Dravidians or not, as we were not there physically and also because of lack of concrete evidence. We don’t have to argue in these grounds. But culturally and linguistically South Indians and North Indians do differ, which we have to accept. We don’t have to believe British if they have given us the Aryan invasion theory, but from time Immemorial, Tamil Saints have refuted the supremacy of the Vedas and have condemned Sanskrit Vedas for its blabbering. The great Tamil Saint Ovaiyar indicates that Vedas were originally written in Tamil and unfortunately Tamil people did not get it. So we can conclude that the Sanskrit Vedas are mere a shadow of the original Vedas. Brahmin priests concealed g
