[continued from previous message]

established several mathas (religious and spiritual
centers) including at Badrinath in the north (UP), Puri
in the east (Orissa), Dwaraka in the west (Gujarat), and
at Shringeri and Kanchi in the south. That is India, that
is Bharat, that is Hinduism.

These are some of the obvious serious objections,
inconsistencies, and glaring anomalies to which the
invasionists have no convincing or plausible explanations
which could reconcile the above facts with the Aryan
invasion theory and destruction of Indus Valley
civilization.

Now let us examine the facts about the so-called
evidences in support of AIT:

1. Real Meaning of the word Arya

In 1853, Max Muller introduced the word 'Arya' into the
English and European usage as applying to a racial and
linguistic group when propounding the Aryan Racial
theory. However, in 1888, he himself refuted his own
theory and wrote:

"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 Muller, Biographies of
Words and the Home of the Aryas, 1888, pg 120).

In Vedic Literature, the word Arya is nowhere defined in
connection with either race or language. Instead it
refers to: gentleman, good-natured, righteous person,
noble-man, and is often used like 'Sir' or 'Shree' before
the name of a person like Aryaputra, Aryakanya, etc.

In Ramayan (Valmiki), Rama is described as an Arya in the
following words: Arya - who cared for the equality to all
and was dear to everyone.

Etymologically, according to Max Muller, the word Arya
was derived from ar-, "plough, to cultivate". Therefore,
Arya means - "cultivator" agriculturer (civilized
sedentary, as opposed to nomads and hunter-gatherers),
landlord;

V.S. Apte's Sanskrit-English dictionary relates the word
Arya to the root r-,to which a prefix a has been appended
to give a negating meaning. And therefore the meaning of
Arya is given as "excellent, best", followed by
"respectable" and as a noun, "master, lord, worthy,
honorable, excellent", upholder of Arya values, and
further: teacher, employer, master, father-in-law,
friend, Buddha.

So nowhere either in the religious scriptures or by
tradition the word Arya denotes a race or language. To
impose such a meaning on this epithet is an absolute
intellectual dishonesty, deliberate falsification of the
facts, and deceptive-scholarship. There are only four
primary races, namely, Caucasian, the Mangolian, the
Australians and the Negroid. Both the Aryans and
Dravidians are related branches of the Caucasian race
generally placed in the same Mediterranean sub-branch.
The difference between the so-called Aryans of the north
and the Dravidians of the south or other communities of
Indian subcontinent is not a racial type. Biologically
all are the same Caucasian type, only when closer to the
equator the skin gets darker, and under the influence of
constant heat the bodily frame tends to get a little
smaller. And these differences can not be the basis of
two altogether different races. Similar differences one
can observe even more distinctly among the people of pure
Caucasian white race of Europe. Caucasian can be of any
color ranging from pure white to almost pure black, with
every shade of brown in between. Similarly, the Mongolian
race is not yellow. Many Chinese have skin whiter than
many so-called Caucasians. Further, a recent landmark
global study in population genetics by a team of
internationally reputed scientists over 50 years (The
History and Geography of Human Genes, by Luca Cavalli-
Sforza, Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza, Princeton
University Press) reveals that the people habitated in
the Indian subcontinent and nearby including Europe, all
belong to one single race of Caucasion type. According to
this study, there is essentially, and has been no
difference racially between north Indians and the so-
called Dravidian South Indians. The racial composition
has remained almost the same for millennia. This study
also confirms that there is no race called as an Aryan
race.

2. The voluminous references to various wars and
conflicts in Rigveda are frequently cited as the proof of
an invasion and wars between invading white-skinned
Aryans and dark-skinned indigenous people. Well, the so-
called conflicts and wars mentioned in the Rigveda can be
categorized mainly in the following three types:

A. Conflicts between the forces of nature: Indra, the
Thunder-God of the Rig Veda, occupies a central position
in the naturalistic aspects of the Rigvedic religion,
since it is he who forces the clouds to part with their
all-important wealth, the rain. In this task he is pitted
against all sorts of demons and spirits whose main
activity is the prevention of rainfall and sunshine.
Rain, being the highest wealth, is depicted in terms of
more terrestrial forms of wealth, such as cows or soma.
The clouds are depicted in terms of their physical
appearance: as mountains, as the black abodes of the
demons who retain the celestial waters of the heavens
(i.e. the rains), or as the black demons themselves. This
is in no way be construed as the war between white Aryans
and black Dravidians. This is a perverted interpretation
from those who have not understood the meaning and
purport of the Vedic culture and philosophy. Most of the
verses which mention the wars/conflicts are composed
using poetic imagery, and depict the celestial battles of
the natural forces, and often take greater and greater
recourse to terrestrial terminology and anthropomorphic
depictions. The descriptions acquire an increasing
tendency to shift from naturalism to mythology. And it is
these mythological descriptions which are grabbed at by
invasion theorists as descriptions of wars between
invading Aryans and indigenous non-Aryans. An example of
such distorted interpretation is made of the following
verse:

The body lay in the midst of waters that are neither
still nor flowing. The waters press against the secret
opening of the Vrtra (the coverer) who lay in deep
darkness whose enemy is Indra. Mastered by the enemy, the
waters held back like cattle restrained by a trader.
Indra crushed the vrtra and broke open the withholding
outlet of the river. (Rig Veda, I.32.10-11)

This verse is a beautiful poetic and metamorphical
description of snow-clad dark mountains where the life-
sustaining water to feed the rivers flowing in the
Aryavarta is held by the hardened ice caps (vrtra demon)
and Indra, the rain god by allowing the sun to light its
rays on the mountains makes the ice caps break and hence
release the water. The invasionists interpret this verse
literally on human plane, as the slaying of vrtra, the
leader of dark skinned Dravidian people of Indus valley
by invading white-skinned Aryan king Indra. This is an
absurd and ludicrous interpretation of an obvious
conflict between the natural forces.

B. Conflict between Vedic and Iranian people: Another
category of conflicts in the Rigveda represents the
genuine conflict between the Vedic people and the
Iranians. At one time Iranians and Vedic people formed
one society and were living harmoniously in the northern
part of India practising Vedic culture, but at some point
in the history for some serious philosophical dispute,
the society got divided and one section moved to further
north-west, now known as Iran. However, the conflict and
controversy were continued between the two groups often
resulting into even physical fights. The Iranians not
only called their God Ahura (Vedic Asura) and their
demons Daevas (Vedic Devas), but they also called
themselves Dahas and Dahyus (Vedic Dasas, and Dasyus).
The oldest Iranian texts, moreover depict the conflicts
between the daeva-worshippers and the Dahyus on behalf of
the Dahyus, as the Vedic texts depict them on behalf of
the Deva-worshippers. Indra, the dominant God of the
Rigveda, is represented in the Iranian texts by a demon
Indra. What this all indicate that wars or conflicts of
this second category are not between Aryans and non-
Aryans, but between two estranged groups of the same
parent society which got divided by some philosophical
dichotomy. Vedas even mention the gods of Dasyus as Arya
also.

C. Conflicts between various indigenous tribal groups
over natural resources and various minor kingdoms to gain
supremacy over the land and its expansion: A global
phenomenon known to share the natural resources like,
water, cattle, vegetation and land, and expand the
geographical boundaries of the existing kingdoms. This
conflict in no way suggests any war or invasion by
outsiders on the indigenous people.

3. It is argued that in the excavations at Harappa and
Mohenjo-daro the human skeletons found do prove that a
massacre had taken place at these townships by invading
armies of Aryan nomads. Prof. G. F. Dales (Former head of
department of Southasean Archaeology and Anthropology,
Berkeley University, USA) in his "The Mythical Massacre
at Mohenjo-daro, Expedition Vol VI,3: 1964 states the
following about this evidence:

What of these skeletal remains that have taken on such
undeserved importance? Nine years of extensive
excavations at Mohenjo-daro (1922-31) - a city of three
miles in circuit - yielded the total of some 37
skeletons, or parts thereof, that can be attributed with
some certainty to the period of the Indus civilizations.
Some of these were found in contorted positions and
groupings that suggest anything but orderly burials. Many
are either disarticulated or incomplete. They were all
found in the area of the Lower Town - probably the
residential district. Not a single body was found within
the area of the fortified citadel where one could
reasonably expect the final defence of this thriving
capital city to have been made.

He further questions: Where are the burned fortresses,
the arrow heads, weapons, pieces of armour, the smashed
chariots and bodies of in the invaders and defenders?
Despite the extensive excavations at the largest Harappan
sites, there is not a single bit of evidence that can be
brought forth as unconditional proof of an armed conquest
and the destruction on the supposed scale of the Aryan
invasion.

Colin Renfrew, Prof. of Archeology at Cambridge, in his
famous work, "Archeology and Language : The Puzzle of
Indo-European Origins", Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988,
makes the following comments about the real meaning and
interpretation of Rig Vedic hymns:

"Many scholars have pointed out that an enemy quite
frequently smitten in these hymns is the Dasyu. The
Dasyus have been thought by some commentators to
represent the original, non-Vedic-speaking population of
the area, expelled by the incursion of the war like Aryas
in their war-chariots. As far as I can see there is
nothing in the Hymns of the Rigveda which demonstrates
that the Vedic-speaking population were intrusive to the
area: this comes rather from a historical assumption
about the 'coming' of the Indo-Europeans. It is certainly
true that the gods invoked do aid the Aryas by over-
throwing forts, but this does not in itself establish
that the Aryas had no forts themselves. Nor does the
fleetness in battle, provided by horses (who were clearly
used primarily for pulling chariots), in itself suggest
that the writers of these hymns were nomads. Indeed the
chariot is not a vehicle especially associated with
nomads. This was clearly a heroic society, glorifying in
battle. Some of these hymns, though repetitive, are very
beautiful pieces of poetry, and they are not by any means
all warlike.

..When Wheeler speaks of the Aryan invasion of the Land
of the Seven Rivers, the Punjab', he has no warranty at
all, so far as I can see. If one checks the dozen
references in the Rigveda to the Seven Rivers, there is
nothing in any of them that to me which implies an
invasion: the land of the Seven Rivers is the land of the
Rigveda, the scene of the action. Nothing implies that
the Aryas were strangers there. Nor is it implied that
the inhabitants of the walled cities (including the
Dasyus) were any more aboriginal than the Aryas
themselves. Most of the references, indeed, are very
general ones such as the beginning of the Hymn to Indra
(Hymn 102 of Book 9).

To thee the Mighty One I bring this mighty Hymn, for thy
desire hath been gratified by my praise. In Indra, yea in
him victorious through his strength, the Gods have joyed
at feast, and when the Soma flowed.

The Seven Rivers bear his glory far and wide, and heaven
and sky and earth display his comely form. The Sun and
Moon in change alternate run their course that we, O
Indra, may behold and may have faith . . .

The Rigveda gives no grounds for believing that the Aryas
themselves lacked for forts, strongholds and citadels.
Recent work on the decline of the Indus Valley
civilization shows that it did not have a single, simple
cause: certainly there are no grounds for blaming its
demise upon invading hordes. This seems instead to have
been a system collapse, and local movements of people may
have followed it."

M.S. Elphinstone (1841): (first governor of Bombay
Presidency, 1819-27) in his magnum opus, History of
India, writes:

Hindu scripture.... "It is opposed to their (Hindus)
foreign origin, that neither in the Code (of Manu) nor, I
believe, in the Vedas, nor in any book that is certainly
older than the code, is there any allusion to a prior
residence or to a knowledge of more than the name of any
country out of India. Even mythology goes no further than
the Himalayan chain, in which is fixed the habitation of
the gods...

..To say that it spread from a central point is an
unwarranted assumption, and even to analogy; for,
emigration and civilization have not spread in a circle,
but from east to west. Where, also, could the central
point be, from which a language could spread over India,
Greece, and Italy and yet leave Chaldea, Syria and Arabia
untouched?

And, Elphinstone's final verdict:

There is no reason whatever for thinking that the Hindus
ever inhabitated any country but their present one, and
as little for denying that they may have done so before
the earliest trace of their records or tradition.

So what these eminent scholars have concluded based on
the archaeological and literary evidence that there was
no invasion by the so-called Aryans, there was no
massacre at Harappan and Mohanjo-dara sites, Aryans were
indigenous people, and the decline of the Indus valley
civilization is due to some natural calamity.

4. Presence of Horse at Indus-Saraswati sites

It is argued that the Aryans were horse riding, used
chariots for transport, and since no signs of horse was
found at the sites of Harappa and Mohanjo-daro, the
habitants of Indus valley cannot be Aryans. Well, this
was the case in the 1930-40 when the excavation of many
sites were not completed. Now numerous excavated sites
along Indus valley and along the dried Saraswati river
have produced bones of domesticated horses. Dr. SR Rao,
the world renowned scholar of archeology, informs us that
horse bones have been found both from the 'Mature
Harappan' and 'Late Harappan' levels. Many other scholars
since then have also unearthed numerous bones of horses:
both domesticated and combat types. This simply debunks
the non-Aryan nature of the habitants of the Indus valley
and also identifies the Vedic culture with the Indus
valley civilization.

5. Origin of Siva-worship


[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)