Comment and Discuss on TeluguPeople.com Articles

invade the dravidian state and push the dravidians upto river Yamuna ___________________________________________________ They never invaded India and even the supporters of AIT like Romila Thapar and Mike Witzel said recently that they were no longer subscribing to tghe AIT - If you thik they were the invaders, why dont you show any evidence and proof? If Tamil was prevalant those days then as Ravi said, why arent there any North Indian references in Tamil or No Tamil Cities in North India?

Posted by: Malakpet Rowdy At: 9, Sep 2007 5:03:59 AM IST

To all my friends visiting this portal. All the four hindu vedas were interpreted by the Brahmin community ___________________________________________________ Poor guy - You dont have guts to fight and argue alone and asking for the support from others? LOLZ all the best - go ahead :)) Shall I give you a better idea? You can create multiple ids like 'Mr K' and try to post the same stuff in those ids - atleast you will have the satisfaction of seeing your posts multiple time sin multiple ids :))

Posted by: Malakpet Rowdy At: 9, Sep 2007 4:49:32 AM IST

Posted by: Mr. Devendra Verma Verma At: 8, Sep 2007 12:45:01 PM IST ___________________________________________________ Vedas re-wriiten? Wow this is news for me - Why dont yuou please paste the Original Version of the Vedas here? Please Please Please - I am dying to see them :)) And yes Dont waste your energies in trying to divert this topic by bringing castes into picture - This is a very old tactic andI will stick to this topic irrespective of your tactics. If you think you have reall stuff and evidence with you then continue with the discussion or else you will be proving your shallowness - For your info this Kakulavaram tried the same ploy but failed miserably :))

Posted by: Malakpet Rowdy At: 9, Sep 2007 4:46:02 AM IST

Posted by: Mr. Devendra Verma Verma At: 8, Sep 2007 12:38:20 PM IST ___________________________________________________ I dont care whether someone calls me a Brahmin or Sudra as long as he calls me by my identity. I am not a Caste bigot and dont get carried away by your propaganda. I have given counters to all of your arguments - You just dont have answers to any of the questions I posed and started attacking me personally just like that Kakulavaram guy :)) Not just me - No sensible person on thos portal is gonna be carried away by your false propaganda - I have given my logic, reasoning and references - If you think you have substantial evidence abotu whatever you are saying show the proof instead of letting out this Kakulavaram style air-talk :)) Balance of my crap tomorrow after you post yours :))

Posted by: Malakpet Rowdy At: 9, Sep 2007 4:41:24 AM IST

To all my friends visiting this portal. All the four hindu vedas were interpreted by the Brahmin community and were re-written by them suiting them in all respects and in all aspects and calling themselves as the first verna among the chaaturvarnas of hindu society. They preferred to be Ministers in the court of the Kshatriya king. See the community of Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Morarji Desai, Rajiv Gandhi, A B Vajpayee, P V Narasimharao, etc etc.

Posted by: Mr. Devendra Verma Verma At: 8, Sep 2007 12:45:01 PM IST

Malakpet Rowdy - you must know that you are also a shudra as said by Dr B R Ambedkar. All Aryans were rowdies only and hence they were able to invade the dravidian state and push the dravidians upto river Yamuna. Balance tomorrow. Regards. Verma.

Posted by: Mr. Devendra Verma Verma At: 8, Sep 2007 12:38:20 PM IST

Another interesting article from Ravi Lochanam _______________________________________________ Thursday, January 4, 2007 The Identity of IVC People Let me discuss briefly about the identity of IVC (Indus Valley Civilization) people. Are they ‘Dravidians’? The answer is a vehement ‘NO’. The ancient Tamil literature does not know about any land to the north in which there was any Tamil civilization nor do they say that the Tamils have migrated from North due to any invasion or other reasons. They claim that the Tamils had their dwellings in a land further south which was destroyed by sea. There are no huge cities belonging to the 2nd Millennium BCE in the Tamil country. It is certainly impossible to even think that the founders of IVC will give up their culture entirely and turn back to Stone Age living (as evidenced by the existing of Neolithic sites of this period). Also, it has to be noted that there is a continuity of IVC in the northern part of India in the form of Dwaraka (S.R.Rao – 1999), Hastinapura etc. This is not possible if the indigenous civilization was replaced by a foreign culture. Tamil has no local words for ‘Lion’, ‘Rhinoceros’ etc. If Tamils had lived in North India, they would have their own words for these common animals. The Tamil words are ‘Cingam / Singam’ (derived from ‘simha’) and ‘KAndAmirugam’ (derived from ‘Khadgamriga’). The next argument put forth is that Indo-Aryans brought horses which were unknown to IVC people. But the Tamil words for horse have local origins. The Tamil words for horse are ‘Kudirai’, ‘Pari’, ‘MA’ etc. Moreover horse figurines have been obtained in Lothal. Faunal remains have been found in Lothal and Surkotada. On the faunal remains from Surkotada, the renowned international authority on horse‑bones, Sandor Bokonyi, Hungary, states: ‘The occurrence of true horse (Equus Caballus L.) was evidenced by the enamel pattern of the upper and lower cheek and teeth and by the size and form of the incisors and phalanges (toe bones).’ In addition to these, Kalibangan and Rupnagar have also yielded faunal remains. Moreover, no river, city or mountain of North India has any Tamil name. This is important to note because the place names normally exhibit the early language of that place (e.g. ‘Mississippi’ in North America). There is no such place in the world where the invaders have completely changed the names of the rivers, places etc. This is something impossible. Moreover, the existence of fire altars in IVC (At Kalibangan) shows an Aryan connection. Fire is an integral part of Vedic rituals. The claims that Tamil words are found in Rg Veda have been proved wrong by Shrikant Talageri (1993). Are they ‘Austric’? No, because there is no proof for this hypothesis. The Austric people of India have not built any cities in the 1st Millennium BCE. The Austric languages have borrowed a lot from Indo-Aryan and very few Austric words have been loaned by Indo-Aryan languages. Moreover, the Sanskrit names for Indian plants and animals have local origins and have not been loaned from Austric/Dravidian languages. No place/river in the Indus Valley has any Austric name. Above all, mere hypothesis cannot be considered as a fact and no solid proof has been provided to establish that IVC is Austric. Are they ‘Indo- European’ (Aryan)? I know that most people will oppose this vociferously. They may call me as ‘Hindu chauvinist/fundamentalist’ (Marxist parlance) / ‘Brahmin terrorist’ (DK parlance) / ‘Hindu Nationalist’ (Witzel). Now, why is there such an aversion towards the idea itself? People will call IVC as anything but Aryan. Are there any strong archaeological reasons for this opposition? Or is it due to some unassailable evidence found in literature? Or is due to some invincible evidence put forward by Linguistics? First of all, B.B.Lal has clearly stated that there is no Archaeological evidence for Aryan Invasion/Migration Theories. After a thorough study of the human skeletal remains, Hemphill and his colleagues (1991) have shown that there was a biological continuity right from 4500 BCE to 800 BCE. (Cited by B.B.Lal) Then Sarasvati is mentioned in the Vedic literature. It is claimed that the Sarasvati of Vedic literature is Helmand of Afghanistan. But the Rg Veda (10.75.5-6) mentions the rivers in an east to west direction and it places Sarasvati between Yamuna and Sutlej. Hence the Sarasvati of the Vedas is the Ghagghar-Hakra of today. It is now known that this river dried up completely by 2000-1900 BCE. Eminent geologists, V. M. K. Puri and B. C. Verma, have demonstrated how the Sarasvati originated from the Himalayan glaciers and how subsequently its channel got blocked because of tectonic movements in the Himalayas, as a result of which the original channel dried up and its water got diverted to the Yamuna. It is due to this natural disaster that IVC centres were abandoned. Therefore, the Vedic literature must predate this period. (Excerpt from B.B.Lal’s paper ‘The Homeland of Indo-European Languages and Culture: Some Thoughts’) Moreover, the Sarasvati of Rg Veda (7.95.2) flowed from mountains to the sea. Helmand does not flow to the sea. It further confirms our theory that the Vedic land is Haryana (Kurukshetra) and the Vedic period is prior to 2nd Millennium BCE. There are certain ‘scholars’ who claim that the Vedic people did not know the sea. But this claim is ridiculous. No one can deny the fact that the Vedic Aryans knew the Indus plains. How is it possible that someone knew the Indus plains but not the sea, especially, when the people were great wanderers (as per those who subscribe to AIT/AMT). The Brahmanas (Panchvimsa Brahmana (XXV.10.16)) do mention about the drying up of Sarasvati. Hence, this is a very solid proof for the fact that IVC people must be Indo-Aryans. (Cited by B.B.Lal) The astronomical observations mentioned in the Vedic literature also point to an epoch which is very much earlier to 1200 BCE. Shataptha Brahmana refers to Pleiades (Krittika) on the celestial equator. This event occurred around 3000 BCE. (Narahari Achar in EJVS Dec, 1999::Vol. 5(1999), issue 2(December)). This, further, confirms our theory as it pushes back the date of the samhitas to 4th Millennium BCE. There is no evidence, whatsoever, in the Vedic literature to prove that Aryans came from outside. There is nothing in the Vedas which point to a foreign land. Finally, Koenraad Elst, Shrikant Talageri and Nicholas Kazanas have proved that there is no strong linguistic evidence for AIT/AMT and they have also shown that OIT(Out of India Theory) does not suffer from any linguistic evidence against it. Linguistics can also be used to propose the OIT. In conclusion, we may say, IVC people were Indo-Europeans (Aryans). Appendix: Horse: Generally, it is claimed by certain people that horses were unknown to India and that only Aryans brought horses into India. Evidence for horses in IVC has been given above. Still, a supplement is given here: “Horse bones have been reported as early as the 5th millennium BC at Mahagara and Koldihwa [Sharif and Thapar 1992:151] in Uttar Pradesh. The C-14 dates of these sites were at first doubted, but retests have only established that the earlier dates of 5th millennium BC were correct [Chakrabarti 1999:104-105]. Coming to the Mature Harappan period, horse bones have been found at several sites such as Kuntasi [Dhavalikar 1995: 116-117], Malvan [Allchin and Joshi 1995: 95], Shikarpur [P. K. Thomas et al 1995] etc. They have also been reported conclusively at Hallur in Karnataka, at levels dated securely at 1500-1700 BC. If the Aryans were just entering Baluchistan and NWFP at that time, Karnataka becomes too south a place for horse remains to surface so early!” (David Frawley in ‘Witzel’s Vanishing Ocean – How To Read Vedic Texts Any Way You Like’) The anatomy of the horse, as described in the Rigveda and other Vedic texts, is different from that of the Central Asian horse (supposedly brought to India by the Indo-Aryan speakers) and in fact similar to some extinct and modern tropical varieties of horses (like the Arabian horse). Spoked Wheels: The presence of spoked wheels in Rg Veda is cited as a proof for the AIT/AMT. The argument is that spoked wheels are not found in IVC. But B.B.Lal has disproved this argument. Spoked wheels have been found in Rakhigarhi and Banawali. Rakhigarhi: Terracotta wheel with painted lines has been found. The painted lines radiating from the central hub and reaching the circumference clearly represent the spokes of the wheel. Banawali: Terracotta wheels showing the spokes in low relief have been found. Moreover, Shrikant Talageri, in his reply to Witzel’s review of his book ‘The Rigveda – A Historical Analysis’, has clearly proved that ‘spoked wheels’ are not mentioned in the early books of the Rg Veda. [(III.4.e) of his reply to Witzel’s review deals with this issue] Sindhu – Sarasvati Civilization / Indus – Sarasvati Civilization: A great majority of the IVC/SSC sites have been found on the banks of Sarasvati and hence, it is time to rename the culture as ‘Indus Sarasvati Civilization / Sindhu – Sarasvati Civilization’. Some Marxist historians like Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib etc. oppose this. Such arguments have been dealt with in detail by the supporters of OIT. [E.g. See Kalavai Venkat’s ‘A Critical Review of Romila Thapar’s Early India – From The Origins to 1300 AD] References: B.B.Lal - ‘Why Perpetuate Myths? A Fresh Look at Ancient Indian History’ B.B.Lal - ‘The Homeland of Indo-European Languages and Culture: Some Thoughts’ B.N. Narahari Achar - ‘On Exploring the Vedic Sky with Modern Computer Software’ in Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies (Vol. 5 (1999), issue 2 (December)) S.R. Rao - ‘The Lost City of Dwaraka’ (1999, Aditya Prakashan) Shrikant G. Talageri - ‘The Aryan Invasion Theory A Reappraisal’ (1993, Aditya Prakashan) David Frawley - ‘Witzel’s Vanishing Ocean – How To Read Vedic Texts Any Way You Like’ (Open Page of The Hindu 25th June 2002). Kalavai Venkat - ‘A Critical Review of Romila Thapar’s Early India – From The Origins to 1300 AD Nicholas Kazanas - ‘A New Date For The Rgveda’ Nicholas Kazanas – ‘Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European’ Koenraad Elst – ‘Linguistic Aspects of Aryan Non-Invasion Theory’ Shrikant G. Talageri’s reply to Witzel’s review of ‘The Rigveda – A Historical Analysis’

Posted by: Malakpet Rowdy At: 8, Sep 2007 1:10:23 AM IST

Do you have any answers to the below text, guys?

Posted by: Malakpet Rowdy At: 7, Sep 2007 8:26:10 AM IST

The Myth of Aryan Invasion Theory June 28th, 2007 — Gurudev Aryan Invasion Theory has been proved to be a myth and as a wrong theory long back. But let me explain in detail the actual history and dirty politics behind this theory. Note that this theory was used as a basis by Hitler to advocate his theory of the supremacy of the Aryan race and to mindlessly kill whom he claimed to be non-aryans! Definition Let us first see what the Aryan Invasion Theory says. It calls the race which belonged to the vedic age as Aryans. It says that at around 1500 BC Aryans, (which it says was a tribe from the Europe) invaded north India plundering and pushing down the local Dravidians (who it says were the original natives of India) who lived there to down South India. In a nutshell, it says the North Indians of today belong to an Aryan race which came to India from Europe and today’s South Indians are the native Indians (called Dravidian Race!) who lived in North India before the Aryans came! The vedic people who lived in North India during the vedic ages were these Aryans, it says! First let us see how did they arrive at these dates! It was well known in India in the british period that Vedas pre-dated Christ, since they definitely pre-dated Buddha who lived some 400 years before Christ. Some scholars(!) then said that as per Bible the world was created in 4000 BC(!), and Noah’s flood took place in 2500 BC(!). So they decided that Aryan Invasion of India must have taken place only after this flood and before Buddha, and hence would be around 1500 BC! This is the funniest investigation I have ever heard about. I doubt if anybody can dare to call this a scientific investigation! This is what some call as, ‘adjusting history’ to be ‘compliant’ with ‘religious texts’ Now let us see some of the obvious proofs that have thrown this theory into dustbin. Aryan is not a race!First of all Aryan is not a race. No where in the vedas and other ancient Indian text is the terms Aryan used to refer to a race!! Aryan in Sanskrit means “Gentleman”. It is used in Sanskrit like how in English we use the term “Mr”, that’ s all about it! Even Max Muller who initially termed vedas as “childish” (only to be later criticized by other scholars as a person who doesnt know even basic sanskrit!), later tried to correct himself in many occassions about the Aryan race! He said: “I have declared again and again that if I say Aryas, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair, nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language…to me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar.” (Max Mueller, Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas, 1888, pg 120) Dravidians was not a separate race! The people of south India whom the Aryan Invasion theory says were the original natives, are NOT a race separate from the North Indians! They all belong to one and the same race. The ancient Indian vedic race. This is because, the languages of both, the so called Aryan and Dravidian people have their roots in Sanskrit language. Both worship the same Gods. Both have the same epics. Both have same philosophies. Both have histories which date back to BC.. Given these facts, how can then Aryans and Dravidians be two separate races? If Aryans had invaded India then why are Dravidians following the same customs and religion as aryans. How do they speak languages which originated from the same parental language? Why dont any dravidian folk lore or ancient texts or sayings or stories or epics exist which talk about the so called Aryan invasion? Also why do the vedic texts talk about locations in South India? The Ramayana, Mahabharatha all talk about South Indian locations even below and beyond the main land of India into the Indian ocean like Srilanka! If Aryans were from europe and if they invaded North India and pushed local people down to South India, where did these locations come from? This proves beyond doubt that there do not exist any separate Aryan and Dravidian races. Instead natives of both North India and South India belong to one single race called the Vedic Indian race! No mention of Europe! There is no mention of any location outside the mainland of India in any of the vedic texts! If aryans came from Europe, then why havent the so called aryans mentioned any of the european locations in any of the vedic or related texts? The farthest location away from India towards the west mentioned in the vedas is Kadhahar of present day Afghanistan, which was called Gandhar in the vedic texts and was said to be the kingdom of Shakuni. Why haven’t any of the texts mentioned about their European locations? Why is there no vedic text which talks about migration from Europe? No European Rivers! None of the vedic texts talk about rivers outside India! Everybody knows that rivers were the major sources of water for all ancient civilizations and so all ancient civilizations were centered around the world’s major rivers. Why is there no mention of any European river or a river outside India anywhere in the vedic texts? Wouldn’t a race mention something or the other about its native place in at least one of its texts? Saraswati River This is a death blow to the Aryan Invasion theory. According to the Aryan Invasion theory the aryans who invaded India in around 1500 BC settled on the banks of Indus or Sindhu river in North India. The vedic texts talk about Ganga Yamuna Saraswati as the trio river , the three great rivers of their age. Ganga and Yamuna rivers exist even today in North India and till sometime back Saraswati was thought to be a mythological river. But vedas talk about Saraswati as a mighty river that flowed in the north India during the vedic ages! There is also the mention of the Ganga Yamuna Saraswati merging at a place called Prayag , which was also called the Triveni Sangam (the current Allahabad in North India where today only Ganga and Yamuna meet). It is said that the Saraswati that merged here with the other two rivers was a subterranean channel of the main river of Saraswati. The Mahabhartha talks about Saraswati river saying that it dried up in a desert! So it has to be noted here that Mahabhartha can be dated back to the drying up of the Saraswati river! Recent satellite images and geological excavations have proved the existence of a ancient river in North India, with exactly the same features of river Saraswati described in the vedas and Mahabharatha! Today Saraswati is a dried up river today. Before Saraswati dried up, the present Rajasthan was a lush green area! The drying up of Saraswati created the Thar desert in Rajasthan. Even the current dry beds of Sindh and Baluchistan (currently in Pakistan) were lush green fertile lands before the Saraswati river dried up! See Saraswati Darshan for a related video and explanation. Below is a image of the path of Saraswati river in ancient India. The source is http://www.aryashaadi.com/. Below is a satellite image of the dried up bed of Saraswati river. The source is http://www.stephen-knapp.com . Note that in some places the river is as wide as 7 kilometers! Why did the Saraswati river dry up? The plate tectonics of the Indian sub continental plate and the himalayan sources of this river are thought to be the main reason for that. Sutlej and Yamuna were the main sources of the Saraswati river. As the Indian plate moved up towards the main Eurasian plate, the course of Yamuna got altered in the Himalayas moving more water of Yamuna towards the Ganga river and that of Sutlej got altered to join Indus! This caused a major loss in terms of its water source for the river Saraswati and is thought to have been the cause for its drying up. Now what does Saraswati river have to say about the Aryan Invastion theory of 1500 BC? Well, the geological excavations give a date of about 4000 BC for the drying up of Saraswati river ! Why Aryan Invasion Theory? Then why was the Aryan Invasion Theory created? Well, more than saying created, it was popularized and promoted by the British without investigating its merits and demerits because it suited their divide and rule policy in India. The same way they divided the Hindus and Muslims in India based on religion, they also divided the Indians using this theory as Aryans (North Indians) and Dravidians (South Indians). This was the politics behind this theory. Conclusion In a nutshell, the ancient vedic people were settled in India much before 4000 BC and have nothing to do with the myth of 1500 BC invasion theory! There is no separate aryan or dravidian race. There is one single ancient Indian vedic race with roots IN INDIA. Indus valley civilization is NOT the most ancient Indian civilization. It was probably only a remnant civilization of an ancient Civilization that existed till the end of the Mahabaratha war. The most ancient Indian civilization was therefore the Saraswati valley civilization (or a Ganga-Yamuna-Saraswati civilization) of the vedic age. Aryan Invastion Theory - THE END

Posted by: Malakpet Rowdy At: 7, Sep 2007 8:22:01 AM IST

Ambedkar, an icon of the Dalit movement, was dismissive of the AIT: 'There is not a particle of evidence suggesting the invasion of India by the Aryans from outside India...The Aryan Race theory is so absurd that it ought to have been dead long ago.' Ambdekar also claimed that the racialist and invasionist interpretation of the Rig Veda is 'a perversion of scientific investigation' by western scholars who are on a mission 'to prove what they want to prove, and do not hesitate to pick such evidence from the Vedas as they think is good for them.' Reference: ^ Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Volume 7 edited by Vasant Moon, Education Department, Govt. of Maharashtra Publications, Mumbai, 1990. Who were the Shudras

Posted by: Malakpet Rowdy At: 7, Sep 2007 8:08:35 AM IST

< < Previous Page: 3 of 6 Next > >