Comments on: Scientific Evidence = Hindu Conspiracy

By: Ravages

Ravages — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:18:33 +0000

Kings and JK: You both might want to read this post, that is if you haven't already. http://chocolateandgoldcoins.blogspot.com/2006/01/invasion-of-bread-people.html

By: Kingsley

Kingsley — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:44:14 +0000

I just saw that message, and will be replying to it. A theoretical construct it is, but so is evolution - it comes down to how strong the evidence is. And quoting the Wikipedia, " The existence of such a language is generally accepted by linguists, though there has been debate about many specific details". Even the archaeological evidence is pretty strong.

By: JK

JK — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 22:17:30 +0000

Kingsley, There are people who question this "Indo-European" label also. According to them it is a theoretical construct based on language similarities. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndiaArchaeology/message/2891

By: Kingsley

Kingsley — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:30:24 +0000

JK,
In scholarly circles AIT has almost never been about race or genotype (the kind of evidence that would be refuted by the Out of Africa study) but about language. The existence of Indo-Iranian speakers and Dravidian speakers are evident. The AIT or the more recent migration theory are merely explanations of how IndoEuropean speakers got to to India, because their language did not originate in India.

By: Ali

Ali — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 23:00:20 +0000

These grant old historians like Michael Witzel, Romila Thapar, Farmer are all using the old,outdated knowledge, which they had been grinding from their childhood and which was there bread and butter. If they really are historians should accept the science and latest DNA and Carbon dating, which proves AIT is an illusion created. THe time has come for their journey to grave but these people still lying.

By: The Palm Leaf

The Palm Leaf — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:00:06 +0000

What Aryan Invasion?

All evidence points to the fact that there was no Aryan Migration/Invasion to India

By: vadiar

vadiar — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 06:06:21 +0000

None of the present scientific studies deny Aryan Invasion or Aryan migration theories. However, what is becoming clear that the genetic make up of any castes donot support pre-historic exclusive Aryan markers. The Aryans who came to India didn’t bring any new male genetic markers(though European female markers could be present). There were multiple migrations to India and not all the migrations bringing the people sharing the same chromosome could be identified as Aryans. It’s more a cultural construct that genetics one.

However, point of contention is not Aryan invasion/migration but development of caste system. Was it solely perpetrated by Aryans or was it synthesis with native structure? Also, we can’t consider India as a whole while discussing imposition of caste system. The way it spread in South and East is different from the North-West Indian scenario.

By: JK

JK — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 15:55:17 +0000

Jaffna, Excellent summary of the history of Indology.

By: Jaffna

Jaffna — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:37:03 +0000

JK,

Thank you for this post.

The California Text Book controversy is an interesting one. It is key that the Board of Education rely on the same methodology while depicting Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism in school text books. If the Board chooses to present Christianity and Judaism as the believers of those religions see it, the same principle should apply to Hinduism. On the other hand, if it intends to apply the rigors of a detached historiography to Hinduism, it should use the same approach to portray Christianity and Judaism. This is the crux of the issue.

The Board’s initial approach entailed an “academic” presentation of Hinduism in contrast to a relatively “theological” presentation of Christianity and Judaism. This duality is inappropriate.

Turning to a related subject, the study of history in India since the 1970s has been hijacked by the ideological left. I refer to Romila Thapar, Sarvapalli Gopal, K.N. Panikkar, Gyanendra Pandey, R.S. Sharma and D.D. Kosambi. This Nehruvian school was outmoded in its interpretation and anti-Hindu.

Unfortunately, the Hindutva school was not trained in the rigors of historical research to effectively refute the Indian left. Their approach was flawed. We are reliant therefore on an earlier generation of Indian historians of the 1950s to salvage the truth. The evidence of archeology also serves to effectively refute the Nehruvian historiography.

There are good Indologists in the United States. They offer a refreshing alternative to the current leftist stranglehold of academia in India. I rely on them to better understand the latest research on Indian and Sri Lankan (my country) history.

However, Witzel (the Harvard affiliation notwithstanding), Heitzman and company are not part of that group. The latter are motivated by an anti-Hindu animus which explains their close links with Romila Thapar.

It is a pity that the study of Indian history has been so politicized. Truth is the first casualty. It is time to “de-politicize” the study of the past.

Returning to the California Text Book controversy, my preference would have been to have an academic approach to all religions. This would have questioned the very premise of Christianity and Judaism to begin with. But since the Board chose to present both religions in light of the believer’s perspective, the same should hold true for Hinduism. It is as simple as that.

Best regards