Who were Aryans?

[queer]

Re: Who were Aryans?

@the_kaur

The entire history of Aryan Invasion was more promoted by the british historian as majority of north Indian looked different from Dravidians, the mention of Dravid desh in manusmritis clearly points out that they knew about superiority of Dravidians:), secondly aryans are considered to be martially inclined, but they entered in Punjab and wrote vedas without mentioning geography anything beyond hinduskush, again, vedas originated even before writing came into existence, so how can an illiterate tribe suddenly enter the region and produce such things suddenly:confused: without mentioning anything related to Persia or Caucasus montains ever:)

My request is for reading about the works of N Kazanas

im glad you said kazanas and not frawley or other nutjobs. kazanas makes interesting points, but imho there is a lot of evidence to contradict his claims since he made them. as for no mention of places or things beyond the subcontinent, it depends on how you look at the rig veda. look at the hierarchy of gods - indra’s father is dyaus. dyaus has a daughter named ushas, the goddess of dawn. look at the ancient greek gods - dyaus pitr → zeus pater. ushas → eos. even in the rig veda, you can see how dyaus loses prominence and the indian group/tribes of aryans move on to other newer more important gods based on local importance - remember the seal of shiva from the indus valley? suddenly the vedic rudra, who is a wind god, has been given new names and shiva is assimilated in.

but i do agree that the indus valley, the birth place of agriculture and civilization in the subcontinent suddenly had nothing to contribute and everything being attributed to migrant illiterate cattle-herds on horses? that is nonsense. panini’s standardized sanskrit grammar is all about a dravidian substratum, it is no longer very aryan/vedic. i’ve talked about this before too - the idea of karma, moksha, sansara etc are not aryan in origin.

even considering for a minute that the indus valley is the origin of the aryans, that still makes their identity outside of india and a political liability to those that rely on sanskrit for nationalistic appeal.

South Indian never accepted hindi but were very receptive of sanskrit, so sankritized hindi was used to make an appeal though tamilians still don’t teach hindi in their schools:D

this is a bit of a misconception. sanskrit does exist in several strongholds in south india. for eg., the namboothiri brahmins of kerala (adi shankaracharya was one). but these are not natives. these are migrants from the north, with well-documented arrival and settling patterns. their versions of hinduism are very very distinct from that of the natives even today. they perform homas and yagas, and are the first choice of priests for certain temples as far north as nepal.

as for hindi, after suffering thru 10 years of it in school i have to say - south indian languages are a lot simpler - they are like english, no confusing genders for words. i don’t see the point of learning hindi as a compulsory subject when we already have english. to a tamil, hindi is as useful as tamil is for a bihari. i’m sure you have seen punjabi hindus already trade in their native language for hindi, and punjabi muslims seem to have an inferiority complex with urdu. sikhs are the keepers of punjabi. languages are precious, they have countless generations of heritage in them, and to replace one’s native language with another from somewhere else is a very bad idea imho. but that is another topic.