 |
No Mention of any Aryan Dravidian Conflicts
There is no mention in any of the original Sanskrit and Vedic texts about the two opposing races called Aryan and Dravidian. The word Arya was used to designate a person as 'noble'. A wife will call her husband, 'O Arya' or 'O Arya-putra' meaning 'O my noble one' or 'O son of your noble father'. It was in this context that the word Arya was used in ancient Indian literature including Mahabharata. This appellation was given even if the husband belonged to the Rakshasa tribe. The word 'Dravida' was used to denote a tribe of people. In Mahabharata it was used to denote a tribe living some where in modern-day southern Andhara Pradesh. This tribe themselves used the appellation 'Arya' to denote nobility of a person. The appellation 'Arya' has some remote similarity with the appellation 'Ahura' (which cognates with the Vedic 'Asura') of Zend Avesta which also denote nobility of a person. In some occasions, the term Dravida is used as a collective term to denote the southern tribes of Chola, Pandya and Kerala, much like the noun Bahlika was used as a collective term to denote the western tribes like the Madra, Bahlika, Kekaya, Gandhara and Kamboja or the term Mlechcha was used to denote all the sea-trading tribes established on the sea shores of what is now Gujarat, Karachi, Bengal and Bangladesh. Even then, there was no instances where the Dravida tribe was mentioned as being opposed by an 'Aryan' tribe from the north. Usually the Dravida tribes were found to be allies of the northern tribes, for example the Keralas, the Pandyas and the Cholas were mentioned as allies of the Pandavas in their battle against the Kauravas.
The Conflict of Devas and Asuras
There was indeed an opposition as described in the Vedas between two tribes. But that was between the two similar tribes sharing many things as common in their culture, but had some difference in their ideologies that arose after some period of co-existence in the same territory. They were the tribes of Devas and Asuras. Their common territory is believed to be the Saraswati-Sindhu river basin and southern Tibet. In later stages, the Asura group generated the literature that culminated in Zend Avesta, while the Deva group held on to the Vedas. The Varuna and Mitra that belonged to the common pantheon, who were earlier designated as 'Asuras' / 'Ahuras' by both the Deva and Asura group became 'Deva' for the Deva group after this split.
The Dravida tribes mentioned in Mahabharata and other Sanskrit literature do not have any connection with Zend Avesta. None of their literature use the appellation 'Ahura' or 'Asura' for denoting nobility. So from where did this concept of Aryan-Dravidian divide come from? It is a myth created in the 19th century. This mythology of Aryan-Dravidian opposition was created to divide India on the basis of regional differences. This myth identifies people in southern India as Dravidian and people in northern India as Aryan and then wrongly portray the Dravidians as the Asuras or the descendants of Asuras. Asuras are mentioned predominantly in the Puranas (which is a post-Vedic, post-epic literature) as demons who were opposed by the Devas! The Devas, as per Puranic-lore, include Siva, Brahma and Vishnu whom the south Indians also consider as gods. Any southern Indian person who believed in these Devas; who now come to believe in this myth of Aryan-Dravidian divide will then identify himself first as a Dravidian; then as an Asura; and then without a doubt will reject his religion and will now become an easy target for religious conversion! Or he will now become an atheist!
Not only the southern Indians are thus deluded. The Aryan-Dravidian theorist went further to place the origin of the Vedas father and farther away from India. Thus the people in northern India, who were considered by these theorists and myth-makers as Aryans, themselves lost any interest in the Vedas. This was because, they were told they were not the pure Aryans but were a mixture of the pure Aryans from outside India and the Dravidians in India. It was then established that the pure Aryan race who came to India as foreigners authored the Vedas in a foreign land far away from India some where in the far north-west, before coming to India! Every Indian north or south was forced to believe that the Vedas were of a foreign origin and all that culture that Indians hold dear to them, all those revelations in the Vedas and in the Vedantas, everything now became foreign and alien.
The stealing of Vedas
Recently we have seen the movie Avatar. We see in it how the culture of the Navi's are completely destroyed (or unsuccessfully attempted to be destroyed) by the invaders. In India, in 19th century, what we saw was not only the attempted destruction of the culture of the native people, but also an attempt to steal away that culture from the natives. The credit for the authorship of the Vedas was almost taken away from the Indians or the Vedas were often mis-interpreted and discredited. The stealing of the Vedas is a common motif found in many Puranas! An Asura is mentioned as stealing the Vedas from Brahma and then Vishnu is mentioned as recovering it from the Asura and restoring the Vedas to where it belonged. This motif is repeated in several Puranas in several forms. In 19th-century-India what we witnessed was the realization of this myth of stealing of the Vedas!
After the invasion, after the attempted destruction of the native-culture and after the attempted stealing of that culture in 19th century, the Aryan-Dravidian theorist went further and put all these three charges of invasion, destruction of the native-culture and stealing of the culture that they did to the natives during their period, upon the hypothetical (better word is mythical) 'Aryans'! Thus as per this Aryan-Dravidian mythology, the mythical 'Aryans' invaded the mythical 'Dravidians' and destroyed their culture and finally stole the culture from them! Instead of 19th century, they set the time period for this invasion to around 1200 BC to make it look more realistic! For those who asked for proof, they showed the ruins of the Indus Valley civilization, (which declined due to natural causes, like the drying up of the rivers that sustained them) and said it was all ruined by the (mythical) 'Aryan Invasion' that happened around 1200 BC!
In retrospect, the myth of the Aryan-Dravidian divide, and the myth of Aryan Invasion was a self-reflection of the creators of this myth on what they did to the natives of India in 19th century AD, attributed upon the mythical 'Aryans' who did a mythical invasion of India around 1200 BC.
Relevant Reading
- http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/ait/index.htm (Dr. Koenraad Elst's Book:- UPDATE ON THE ARYAN INVASION DEBATE; See what this Dutch speaking Belgian scholar has to say about this debate who analyzes the debate with a balanced view.)
Share:-
Created by Jijith Nadumuri at 16 Feb 2010 16:07 and updated at 31 Mar 2012 14:53
We can't discard the chances of Invasion or Migration of Aryans (Ignore the name - We can give a different name) from Central Asia.. due to DNA Haplogroups.. Facts, Histories, theories are not only based on literature.. but also on archaeology, Biology, written data..etc.. History is not based on astrology, traditional beliefs, etc..
Discarding of AIT / AMT / ATT (Aryan Tourism Theory) is overdue since half a century. Earlier it was an invasion! When no evidence for invasion is found, it became migration! When no evidence of migration is found it became tourism (a few tourists from central Asia visited ancient India and created all the Vedas and ancient Indian culture!). This theory is going in in its way into oblivion much like the great Geo-centric theory of Universe that was held high in medieval period (even by great scholars).
No archaeological evidence to support this AIT/AMT/ATT theory nor there is any genetic evidence. Current world history is centered around Europe, hence they say Columbus discovered America, as if the people who already existed there were not counted as humans! It will be best to say that Columbus was the first European to visit America. This is just an example of how much world history is biased and how much it needs correction.
While in the west, people were struggling with Roman numerals that cannot count beyond 4000, ancient India had decimal system that could count beyond billions and trillions. Hence I trust Indian traditional knowledge than western traditional knowledge in matters of historical antiquity. However I must acknowledge that the learned among the west had admired India's ancient skills. A case in point is Albert Einstein who opined that the wold won't have its scientific progress if Indians had not invented the decimal numeral system.
[[html]]
<a target="_blank" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AncientVoice-forum-posts/~6/1"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/AncientVoice-forum-posts.1.gif" alt="AncientVoice - forum posts" style="border:0"></a>
[[/html]]
The dravidan you have mentioned is a seprate tribe of people.it is not the cholas,pandiyas,cheras are the keralas.because the cholas,pandiyas,kerlalas are seprately mentioned in mahabharata in their own names as cholas,pandiyas,keralas,cheras.for ex a pandiyan king fought for pandava army and opposed aswathaama during a fight in elephant.another pandiya king fought for kauravas and was killed by pandiyas.so the term dravidans does not mention cholas,pandiyas,keralas,etc.dravidan are another people.in 1912 only the term dravidan was introduced by foolish politicians (who says there is no hindu gods)the hindu culture is bad.they said aryan invasion theory is correct.but the aryan invasion theory was invented by british to divide and conqure our hindu people.becaus they were astonished by reading vedas.the british didnt read all the hinduism related books but only a few.maxmuller who translated vedas doesnt know sanskrit.he has not even come to india.but how did he translate it.it clearly shows the translations were crap.
Sorry , but according to Srimad Bhagavatam 8.24.13 it could not be a "separate tribe of people", because Manu Vaivasvata, the founder of the vedic society, is called a "king of the dravidians". So dravidian people cannot be separated from vedic people.
I forgot (but I think it would not be necessary to be mentioned for you): This also contradicts the AIT fundamentaly.
In terms of the AIT I agree with you, but I don't believe the so called "aryan people" to be indegenous to India, because according to the Puranas Manu Vaivasvata came to the Himalaya by ship. I think (and I got good reasons for that) the "aryan people" came from Kumari Kandam erroniously identified with the never existant Lemuria but in fact identical with Sundaland as can be seen with Google Earth very clearly because this area is within the range of the sea level rising after the last ice age.
aryan invasion theory was invented by the british.i can prove it in a single line.because according to europians the aryan invasion was done at 3500bc.but the greatest epics of the world mahabharatha occured 5500 B.C.this can be proved by the astronomical dates that are provided in mahabaratha.the europians think we hindus were dump to belive their false theory.but the real dumo were them.because they cannot lie even properly.they cannot even create single false proof originally.it had lots of loop holes in it .foolish dumpsters.
another example
according to euroipans alexander the great had largest heavily trained army.he could not even cross the sindhu river .our king ambhi helped alexander to cross the sindhu river my making elephant bridge. is here comes the truth
**according to europians aryans were horse nomads.they travel from place to place.
HERE COMES MY QUESTION
the sindu very river when comparing to saraswathi river that was running during mahabharatha period.
1. How could horse nomads cross such a big river and come to india??
2.how could they fight the dravidan(accoring to them)who knows their living places better than them?
3.how could the aryan defeat the dravidans who were heroic warriors?
ANSWERS
1.not even a mobilezed and well trained army like alexander could not even cross a river(sindhu) that was a branch river of saraswathi river.then how can the SO CALLED ARYANS CROSS THE SARASWATHI RIVER,SINDHU RIVER and invade india.the truth is they never invaded.but was invented
2.every one knows that the natives knows the places better than the new one.even a fool know it well
3.the horse nomads doesnot even have proper battle training .then how could they defeat the socalled dravidans .the mohedora,harapps sites shows the people living there were highly knowledeged ,modernized,skillful than any other people in the world.they should have a better army to fight the so calld invaders
The mahabharat is not from 5500 BC. According to puranas and other vedic scriptures it is from around 3000 BC . Mahabharat took place (from now) around 5000 years back.
After mahabharat many changes took place on earth.
The mleccha's are the descendants of Adam and Eve (beginning of the white Race) . This whole story you can find in the Bhavisya Purana.
Many Aryans after mahabharat came to Western Countries (europe) . A lot of Aryans later went back to India again. From here AIT theory. When they left India to Europe they brought the vedic knowledge with them and when they went back to India they again took it with them to India. Here in the west they only tell you the story when the Aryans went back from europe to India. They don't tell you that originaly they came from India with their vedic culture and after some time they went back.
The Aryans that didn't go , they mixed themselves with the mlecchas. You can see this in people in some country of Europe. Like turkish people , some of them look exactly like Indians with black hair and brown skin, some of them looks like white european people and some are between these two. The same also with Italians , Spanish , etc.
If you want to know the truth , the best is to follow the puranas and also look what is in reality . Both should match. In the Puranas, Mahabharata and other Vedic Scriptures every thing is written accurate. That is why Krishna in his Literaire incarnation as Vyasadeva he wrote all the Scriptures 5000 years back for the people of Kali Yuga. Because he knew that in Kali Yuga will be too much confusion , wrong interpretation end EGO.
I have a question.
I have read in the Srimad Bhagwatam about the pleanetary system, About Rasatal, palataal, talataal etc.. Now i am reading about this same but different. You are explaining about these names on the earth. Like mahatala is north america , rasatala is Australia. I know from the Srimad Bhagwatam that these are the lower planetary groups.
Can you explain me how you exactly came to the knowledge that lower planetary names you can use it also for the earth?
Sunil