Topic started by v (@ dialup-mum-188.8.131.52.bol.net.in) on Tue May 4 01:43:40 EDT 2004.
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.
There has been lot of Discussions on the net revoving around proving that aryans were native settlers and that of disproving that Dravidian civilization predates arrival of aryans.
For this the historians and linguist adopted two pronged approach:
1.Pooh-Poohing the efforts of early historians and linguistic findings as colonial-a policy of divide and rule, A composite missionary approach to malign hinduism.
2.To attach at best all the literary ,archeological, anthropological and linguistic findings to Aryans.
In their enthusiasm to take the credit away from the dravidians and to marginalise the dravidian culture and also to prove that aryans were orginal settlers of the land they had bypassed some of the basic questions which are enumerated below:
1.Who were Aryans?Were they white settlers.If so it is a popular scientific notion that whites first appeared in the poles and started spreading in all direction of the earth as nomads.Then they were outsiders to the land.
Were aryans cosmopolitan(comprising of all races)?If this be the case then literary evidences show conflict of civilization starting from Rg veda every bit of literature talks about glorifying one race against all that is supposed to have existed in this land.
2.Were they homogenous stock ?This means that they came from one genetic stock and settled more or less in the same period or in the same wave.It does not seem so even today The reference to aryan its usage is very vague and not definitive.Some induced meaning such as Noble which is an impersonal definition of quality also fails since literary evidences show it points to a particular race .
3.Rg veda points at several places to war between Indra and Dasayu(slaves) thereby pointing to indra stock encountering resistence prior to settlement to the lush lands.
4.Current demographic spread of population in India also points to the fact that the Blacks are heavily concentrated on the eastern coastal frontiers and deccan plateau where the lands are not very cultivable .Even the kokan coast has scanty population of dravids so is malabar.
5.While denying credit to tamil for harrapan script the aryologist are now trying to use arbitrary means to show the same as sanskrit.
6.Aryalogist are of the view of fixing tamils to the current land they occupy and prove that there is no material archeological and anthropological evidences tp prove their antiquity.This totally farce effort undertaken by them .It is a fact that sage agastya was sent south ,lord murugan left mount kailas and settled south even if were to believe that south is devoid of a civilization prior to 2500 years leaving aside great floods that swallowed vast lands that is addressed as leumaria today we can say south was having advanced civilization prior to arrival of agastya for he is supposed to have written the first tamil grammar. A grammar work always follws a literary tradition.
7.It is now being proved by linguistic evidence in absence of material evidence in the south (washed away due to floods) that the tamil language is Sumerian and the first tamil sangam might have been held some were in Iraq.
8.It is also getting proved that Rg krit is Tamil and consequently sanskrit.