The Myth of Aryan Invasion in India - Dr. David Frawley

[BhagatSingh]

Watching these informative India Inspires talks. This clears up many confusions that apne have about Indian history.

 

 

[JustAnotherSingh]

While the colonial spin on the Aryan theory was pretty much bullshit (e.g., they didn't have blue eyes, weren't blond, etc), there are significant anthropological, historical, linguistic, and even genetic proofs for the Indo-Aryan theory. The OIT hypothesis is simply not true. 

[BhagatSingh]

19 hours ago, JustAnotherSingh said:

While the colonial spin on the Aryan theory was pretty much bullshit (e.g., they didn't have blue eyes, weren't blond, etc), there are significant anthropological, historical, linguistic, and even genetic proofs for the Indo-Aryan theory. The OIT hypothesis is simply not true. 

Do elaborate on that.

They used to think Aryan was a race.
They used to think these guys invaded India and our culture came from a race of people, Aryan, that invaded India.
Both of these assertions are false.
So what is the Indo-Aryan theory?

Btw what is the OIT hypothesis?

[dalsingh101]

This is one of the most detailed studies of this matter I've come across.

 

It really shows how certain Europeans were on really flimsy ground with their Aryan theories, which I believe was just an attempt to appropriate another previously advanced culture as their own, to bring world history in line with white supremacist thought. 

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Orientalism-Race-Aryanism-Cambridge-Post-Colonial/dp/0230507034/ref=la_B001HPQ61Y_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453882973&sr=1-5

[JustAnotherSingh]

So I think it's pretty well established in the current literature, based on historical, anthropological, linguistic, and even genetic evidence that there were an Indo-Aryan group of peoples who mixed with native Dravidians to produce the makeup of much of modern India. E.g., there are a ton of similarities between Latin and Sanksrit. What the Europeans did was appropriate this theory to their use, trying to show that these Indo-Aryans were European in appearance, potentially came from Europe, and provided their advanced civilization to India. What the OIT hypothesis, parroted primarily by Hindutvaists nowadays, is that the Indo-Aryans were from India and dispersed outside the region, and in fact brought this civilization to Europe. 

What's ultimately probably true is that:
 

-There was a group of Indo-Aryan people in central Asia/middle east who probably looked like a mix between what Indians and Europeans are today

-Some moved to India, some moved to Europe, each bringing their culture with them. 

-Similarities explained.

And I would think that the proper explanation for the origins of Hindu culture is not that it was cooked up by white people and then brought for the brownies to have a grasp at--but that after the Indo-Aryans came to India, it started the process of formation.

[dalsingh101]

Quote

So I think it's pretty well established in the current literature, based on historical, anthropological, linguistic, and even genetic evidence that there were an Indo-Aryan group of peoples who mixed with native Dravidians to produce the makeup of much of modern India

That's an illusion. It's not pretty well established by anyone other than certain motivated academics. And even then, the theory is becoming more and more discredited as politically and racially motiovated; the product of wishful thinking on goray encountering the remnant of a much older culture than theirs in India that was obviously more advanced. 

[JustAnotherSingh]

Look mate, I'm as apprehensive of British racial pseudoscience as the next guy, but I think it's really important here to parse the details between what theory may be authentic and what the Brits talked on to give themselves a feeling of racial superiority. We obviously don't buy into the junk spread by the Brits at one point that Guru Tegh Bahadur foresaw a power greater than the Mughals approaching from the West, but we don't reject that he underwent shaheedi, right?

There are lots of evidence pointing to a common root between Indic and European civilization. The linguistic roots are super strong-count up to 10 in Sanskrit and Latin to see what I mean. They're so strong, that there's generally no controversy over the term "Indo-European" referring to that broad language family. Where the Europeans inserted their nonsense was by claiming something along the lines of Sanskrit being descended by Latin, which would have been brought to India by people who looked like modern Europeans. That's nonsense, and it's just as much nonsense as the Indologists like Koenraad Elst who claim that Latin descended from Sanskrit. 

There's good genetic evidence too, considering there are two groups of ancestral Indians, ancestral North Indians and ancestral South Indians (https://hms.harvard.edu/news/genetics-proves-indian-population-mixture-8-8-13). However, this genetic evidence also conveniently trumps a lot of previous assumptions of the Aryan theory:
-the "Indo-Aryans" or whatever you wish to call them were not white in the modern sense
-they did not come from Europe, but can be seen as common ancestors of Indians and Europeans
-it's dubious whether this is even strongly correlated with Vedic civilization, considering the dates don't match up
-there was not necessarily a violent invasion where Aryans became the kings and the Dravidians their slaves. It was probably several waves of migration, most of which was probably peaceful mixture with the native populations (the latter of whom would have been responsible for the impressive civilizations like those in Harappa). I'd say most of Vedic religion was probably synthesized in this genetic cultural mixture within India itself, therefore having nothing to do with Europeans.

Again, I think one needs to be careful of avoiding all with motives, be it orientalists or Indologists with an agenda (see what Koenraad Elst has to say on Guru Gobind Singh if you're still convinced of his authenticity as a scholar). History is neither "the pure race brought civilization to India," nor is it, "the pure race was from India." Just like how Punjab is much a mixture of Persian and Indic cultures but that doesn't mean one side is more "pure."

I will say that this is sort of just a tangential and purely academic interest, and I would probably never disclose my beliefs on the topic to most Sikhs. I just had to say something here because I think Frawley is throwing away a lot of good evidence with his own motives. The reason I usually don't speak is because a lot of Sikhs are unfortunately complete racially obsessed freaks who keep trying to prove they're the pure Jatt/Scythian/European/Middle Eastern/Persian race. It's a disgusting mentality, built upon general ethnocentricity of many Jatts and enhanced by lessons from our Angrej overlords. Thankfully, I would think the mentality at this forum is a lot higher, but it still makes me uncomfortable to talk about it too much because of the half-sided conclusions someone can run away with.