3 ms·

Many Indian scholars don't accept the Aryan Invasion theory. Are they "nationalist bloggers" just because they don't concur with their Western counterparts? Or

Many Indian scholars don't accept the Aryan Invasion theory. Are they "nationalist bloggers" just because they don't concur with their Western counterparts? Or maybe, the all-knowing West knows more about Hindu culture than Hindus themselves. EDIT: Here is a good article written by Dr. Madan Lal Goel (Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Florida) on "Myth of Aryan Invasion theory": http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/AMythofAryanInvasionsofIndia.pdf http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/AMythofAryanInvasionsofIndia.... Read the article and come to your own conclusions. Some quotes for your convenience: "Hindus collectively have no memory of an Aryan invasion of India that supposedly took place around 1,500 B.C. Hindu epics do not mention any such invasion. Surely, the extensive Hindu literature would describe the Aryan invasions if such had indeed taken place. Swami Vivekananda remarked: “As for the truth of these theories, there is not one word in our scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryan ever came from anywhere outside of India, and in ancient India was included Afghanistan. There it ends.” (Collected Works, Vol. 3). " "The recent discovery of the dried-up Saraswati River further negates the Aryan invasion theory. Satellite photography from outer space shows the existence of a dried-up river bed in Northern India. The archeological evidence indicates that the river dried up completely about 1900 B.C., much before 1,500 B.C., the date ascribed to Aryan invasions. Saraswati is mentioned numerous times in the Vedic scriptures of the Aryans, indicating that these people lived in India during very ancient times." "Recent DNA evidence further negates the Aryan invasion theory. Advances in genetics make it possible to show ancient migrations. It is generally accepted that modern man arose in East Africa about 200,000 years ago. From there, they spread to India about 90,000 years ago taking the southern route to Yemen, Sindh and the Indus region. In India they multiplied and spread to other parts of Asia and Europe. The research is reported in Stephen Oppenheimer, The Real Eve."

vinay427 10y ago
There's clear linguistic evidence that Sanskrit (as well as Avestan/Persian, Latin, etc.) is derived from the Indo-European family. This is apparent even today by comparing modern languages such as Hindi and English. This, as you probably know, does not apply to South Indian languages that appear to be linguistically distinct. However, this of course does not say anything about the ethnicity. In any case, Iranians today identify as Aryans (Iran effectively means the land of Aryans in old Persian, as I understand) and the general western consensus these days seems to deem Indo-Iranians as Aryans especially due to obvious recent historical connotations during which many in the west dissociated from the term.
- shripadk 10y ago
  No. Sanskrit is not derived from Indo-European family. There is absolutely no evidence for that. Nor do South Indian languages appear linguistically distinct. I'm a Kannadiga and many Kannada words are directly derived from Sanskrit. My mother is a Tamilian and a lot of Tamil words are also derived from Sanskrit. This falsehood was spread by the British. > In any case, Iranians today identify as Aryans (Iran effectively means the land of Aryans in old Persian, as I understand) and the general western consensus these days seems to deem Indo-Iranians as Aryans especially due to obvious recent historical connotations during which many in the west dissociated from the term. It doesn't matter because India was also called Āryāvarta (Abode of the Aryans) in the Ancient days. This was way before Iran got it's name (possibly in the 3rd century A.D). Iran was called Persia in the olden days. The word Aryan itself has multiple meanings. The definition of Proto-European Aryan is different from Indo-Aryans of India.
  - vinay427 10y ago
    You are confusing loanwords with actual linguistic relationships. I understand Kannada fluently and it's quite plausible that the commonalities with Sanskrit are loanwords compared to more structural or fundamental similarities between Sanskrit and Persian, Latin, etc. Consider the basic articles (I, you, etc.) or many fundamental verbs, for instance, which at least modern Kannada almost surely does not share. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_copula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_copula
- shripadk 10y ago
  > There's clear linguistic evidence that Sanskrit (as well as Avestan/Persian, Latin, etc.) is derived from the Indo-European family Infact the article I linked to suggests otherwise (http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/AMythofAryanInvasionsofIndia.pdf http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/AMythofAryanInvasionsofIndia....): "An invasion of India from the outside around 1,500 B. C. did not occur. Recent scholarship does not deny that the people in India had relations with other Indo-European people in Asia and Europe. There was a belt stretching from India to the Mediterranean inhabited by a people who spoke related languages, known as the Indo-European languages. Sanskrit is the oldest known language in this family and may appropriately be called as the Mother of Indo-European languages. English is an Indo-European language." How can Sanskrit be called as the "Mother of Indo-European languages" and still be "derived" from the Indo-European family? > This is apparent even today by comparing modern languages such as Hindi and English. This, as you probably know, does not apply to South Indian languages that appear to be linguistically distinct. Again the article I linked to clearly explains this falsehood/whitewashing done by the West: "Sri Aurobindo (1872-1950), a scholar of Latin and Greek as well as of Sanskrit, debunked this theory of the North-South racial divide in India. He disagreed with the theory that the languages of North and South India are unrelated. Sri Aurobindo’s study of the Tamil led him to discover that the original connection between the Sanskrit and Tamil languages was “far closer and more extensive than is usually supposed.” These languages are “two divergent families derived from one lost primitive tongue.” And, “My first study of Tamil words had brought me to what seemed a clue to the very origins and structure of the ancient Sanskrit tongue.” –See The Secret of the Veda, V 10, the Centenary Edition, p 36, 46. Sri Aurobindo also noted that a large part of the vocabulary of the South Indian languages (Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam) is common with Sanskrit."

vinay427 10y ago

There's clear linguistic evidence that Sanskrit (as well as Avestan/Persian, Latin, etc.) is derived from the Indo-European family. This is apparent even today by comparing modern languages such as Hindi and English. This, as you probably know, does not apply to South Indian languages that appear to be linguistically distinct. However, this of course does not say anything about the ethnicity. In any case, Iranians today identify as Aryans (Iran effectively means the land of Aryans in old Persian, as I understand) and the general western consensus these days seems to deem Indo-Iranians as Aryans especially due to obvious recent historical connotations during which many in the west dissociated from the term.

shripadk 10y ago
No. Sanskrit is not derived from Indo-European family. There is absolutely no evidence for that. Nor do South Indian languages appear linguistically distinct. I'm a Kannadiga and many Kannada words are directly derived from Sanskrit. My mother is a Tamilian and a lot of Tamil words are also derived from Sanskrit. This falsehood was spread by the British. > In any case, Iranians today identify as Aryans (Iran effectively means the land of Aryans in old Persian, as I understand) and the general western consensus these days seems to deem Indo-Iranians as Aryans especially due to obvious recent historical connotations during which many in the west dissociated from the term. It doesn't matter because India was also called Āryāvarta (Abode of the Aryans) in the Ancient days. This was way before Iran got it's name (possibly in the 3rd century A.D). Iran was called Persia in the olden days. The word Aryan itself has multiple meanings. The definition of Proto-European Aryan is different from Indo-Aryans of India.
- vinay427 10y ago
  You are confusing loanwords with actual linguistic relationships. I understand Kannada fluently and it's quite plausible that the commonalities with Sanskrit are loanwords compared to more structural or fundamental similarities between Sanskrit and Persian, Latin, etc. Consider the basic articles (I, you, etc.) or many fundamental verbs, for instance, which at least modern Kannada almost surely does not share. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_copula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_copula
shripadk 10y ago
> There's clear linguistic evidence that Sanskrit (as well as Avestan/Persian, Latin, etc.) is derived from the Indo-European family Infact the article I linked to suggests otherwise (http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/AMythofAryanInvasionsofIndia.pdf http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/AMythofAryanInvasionsofIndia....): "An invasion of India from the outside around 1,500 B. C. did not occur. Recent scholarship does not deny that the people in India had relations with other Indo-European people in Asia and Europe. There was a belt stretching from India to the Mediterranean inhabited by a people who spoke related languages, known as the Indo-European languages. Sanskrit is the oldest known language in this family and may appropriately be called as the Mother of Indo-European languages. English is an Indo-European language." How can Sanskrit be called as the "Mother of Indo-European languages" and still be "derived" from the Indo-European family? > This is apparent even today by comparing modern languages such as Hindi and English. This, as you probably know, does not apply to South Indian languages that appear to be linguistically distinct. Again the article I linked to clearly explains this falsehood/whitewashing done by the West: "Sri Aurobindo (1872-1950), a scholar of Latin and Greek as well as of Sanskrit, debunked this theory of the North-South racial divide in India. He disagreed with the theory that the languages of North and South India are unrelated. Sri Aurobindo’s study of the Tamil led him to discover that the original connection between the Sanskrit and Tamil languages was “far closer and more extensive than is usually supposed.” These languages are “two divergent families derived from one lost primitive tongue.” And, “My first study of Tamil words had brought me to what seemed a clue to the very origins and structure of the ancient Sanskrit tongue.” –See The Secret of the Veda, V 10, the Centenary Edition, p 36, 46. Sri Aurobindo also noted that a large part of the vocabulary of the South Indian languages (Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam) is common with Sanskrit."