Kangana says sanskrit should be our national language. - Page 7

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

When I was in school, we were taught the Aryan invasion theory. Whether it was an invasion or migration, it seemed to make sense that there were waves of population movement from Europe. 

So I'm curious, how and why did people start challenging this theory? How did it come about? Did people find evidence that debunked AIT/AMT or did they want to debunk AIT/AMT and seek evidence to debunk it? Why do some folks seem to be strongly opposed to AIT/AMT? 

Probably to prove that Haplogroup R (Y-DNA) [Steppe aka Aryan] were the first migrants to the Indian subcontinent, not Haplogroup L or H (Y-DNA) [Dravidian]. (?) The latest discovery proved that the people of the Indus Valley had no steppe DNA.  Also, some steppe groups were known for their brutality. 

Anyway, we are all migrants. Eurasia didn't belong to Sapiens. We walked out of Africa, interbred with Denisovans, Neanderthals and still-unknown humans, drove them to extinction and took over their continent. Annihilation of native species and taking over their land -  isn't that invasion?

https://scroll.in/article/936872/two-new-genetic-studies-upheld-aryan-migration-theory-so-why-did-indian-media-report-the-opposite

https://www.thequint.com/voices/opinion/genomic-study-vedic-aryan-migration-dravidian-languages-sanskrit#read-more

Edited by radix - 1 years ago

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Linguistic analysis has actually been done, which is why Sanskrit is put in the Indo European group of languages while Tamil, etc, are Dravidian. That is one of the reasons that serious scholars do believe AIT/AMT. Whatever archeological evidence exists in fact suggests Indus Valley civilization did not belong to the Vedic people. So that's 2 out of the 3 claims you raised out. 

What the very loud opponents of AIT/AMT demand is definitive proof while conveniently ignoring the fact they also have completely failed to provide any evidence that large scale migration didn't happen. Nor have they been able to explain the differences between ANI and ASI DNA.

DNA is not just the last resort. It is the one piece of evidence no nativist will have a serious answer to.

Hence: 1) the total silence on the genetic diff between ANI and ASI 2) dismissal of any genetic evidence as one being one/few samples without trying to explain why these samples always seem to point to AIT/AMT. What will finally convince them? A sample of millions? 😆It won't happen, but even if it did, that will be dismissed oh, a million is not a big percentage. 

Anyway, this usually turns out to be a discussion which runs in circles. At one of my last attempts at these, one AIT/AMT opponent even claimed modern human originated in India separately from the species that originated in Africa. Before it devolves to that point, I'm out.

Wrong again, the only way this issue will be settled is if the Harappan script gets successfully deciphered, and that has not happened yet.  There are many theories and claims, and the Dravidian theory is just one amongst many, but there is no universal acceptance of any of these theories amongst linguists.  So until the script is successful deciphered, the identity of the Harappans remains a mystery, and any claims should be taken with a pinch of salt.  Again, genetic evidence cannot prove language and religious culture of a population, all it shows is mixing between different population groups, that no-one denies.  You need actual archaeological evidence to prove material culture, and archaeology has failed to throw up any evidence of invasion/migration into India in the specific time frame, this is also supported by leading western IVC archaeologists too, not just Indian experts.  This is unlike the European context, where there is massive amounts of archaeological evidence for the arrival of Indo-Europeans.  

The Rakigarhi study uses ONE female sample, we are talking about a civilisation of 5 million people representing 20% of the world population at the time, to assume that this one sample is representative of a civilisation of 5 million, is silly, especially when this is an on-going field of study, and yes, for scientific research we need more than one sample lmao, that's basic science 101, the more samples we have, the better our data, the better our understanding, and interpretation of the data.

So someone you spoke to previously claimed humans originated in India, and you assumed that I was going down the same route cause I also oppose the AIT/AMT? great logic!

Edited by Heisenberg17_ - 1 years ago

The Rakigarhi paper was intentionally misrepresented by Hindutva adherents because that was preferable to celebrating the fact that ancient Dravidians created a successful agricultural civilization that predated the Aryans in the Indus Valley - heaven forbid a successful Indian civilization pre-exist the Vedas!  And far more importantly heaven forbid having to explain where Aryans and the proto-Vedas came from… so of course better to ignore the linguistic and DNA evidence, better to forget the Mitanni people, better to pretend to not understand. 

It is obviously true all Indians came from people who originally migrated to India because humans originated in Africa. So what??? The real history of India and Indians and Hinduism (and Buddhism for that matter) in India is amazing. Why do some people need to pervert history and contradict science before they can be satisfied with what Indians have accomplished? Whether a relatively peaceful migration or (as the Vedas repeatedly suggest) a more militant invasion, genetics and linguistics confirm Aryans moved from Central Asia into India and encountered and interbred with Dravidians. They  brought their language and religion with them - why pretend that language and religion were not the foundation of Sanskrit and the Vedas? What is the big deal? It was still in India that the Vedas evolved into modern Hinduism and it was still in India that the genetic melting pot created modern Indians. Acknowledging history doesn’t detract what India and Indians have accomplished and it certainly doesn’t threaten Hinduism as I practice it. 

Originally posted by: Heisenberg17_

Wrong again, the only way this issue will be settled is if the Harappan script gets successfully decdian-media-report-the-opposite

ened yet.  There are many theories and claims, and the Dravidian theory is just one amongst many, but there is no universal acceptance of any of these theories amongst linguists.  So until the script is successful deciphered, the identity of the Harappans remains a mystery, and any claims should be taken with a pinch of salt.  Again, genetic evidence cannot prove language and religious culture of a population, all it shows is mixing between different population groups, that no-one denies.  You need actual archaeological evidence to prove material culture, and archaeology has failed to throw up any evidence of invasion/migration into India in the specific time frame, this is also supported by leading western IVC archaeologists too, not just Indian experts.  This is unlike the European context, where there is massive amounts of archaeological evidence for the arrival of Indo-Europeans.  

The Rakigarhi study uses ONE female sample, we are talking about a civilisation of 5 million people representing 20% of the world population at the time, to assume that this one sample is representative of a civilisation of 5 million, is silly, especially when this is an on-going field of study, and yes, for scientific research we need more than one sample lmao, that's basic science 101, the more samples we have, the better our data, the better our understanding, and interpretation of the data.

So someone you spoke to previously claimed humans originated in India, and you assumed that I was going down the same route cause I also oppose the AIT/AMT? great logic!

But there have been studies which clearly show Steppe genes in Northern Indians. How do you explain it? 

No, nobody is claiming IVC were Vedic. They were clearly not. They also had no Steppe genes. Nobody also knows whether they were Dravidians either, because there is no evidence to that effect as well (although some Tamil nationalists claim similarity of the Harappan manuscripts with ancient Tamil script). 

Another proof of the Aryan migration is that Iranian Avesta and Rig Vedas mentioning same deities such as Yima (Yama) and Varuna. 

Read this link which shows how a section of Indian media purposefully misrepresented facts: 

Edited by Mahisa_22 - 1 years ago

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

When I was in school, we were taught the Aryan invasion theory. Whether it was an invasion or migration, it seemed to make sense that there were waves of population movement from Europe. 

So I'm curious, how and why did people start challenging this theory? How did it come about? Did people find evidence that debunked AIT/AMT or did they want to debunk AIT/AMT and seek evidence to debunk it? Why do some folks seem to be strongly opposed to AIT/AMT? 

1. Challenging the theory: sometime in the late 90s/2000s I believe. No, there is no evidence *debunking* AIT/AMT (asterisks because their term, not mine). Their point is that there is no direct evidence of AIT/AMT, therefore it cannot be true. Linguistic analysis, archeological differences between IV/Harappa structures an post Vedic India... not considered direct. Direct DNA evidence from Rakhigrahi, DNA differences between Ancestral North Indian and Ancestral South Indian... not enough quantity. Hence considered debunked.

2. Why: I used to believe it was because there was concern about thinking of Vedas originating outside India. It didn't make sense to me because wherever they originated, the people who wrote them came to India and populated the subcontinent.  We're all their descendants. 

Apparently, I was wrong. Or at least not completely correct.

I was told to stop making Hinduism also sound like an invading religion. Which is odd because the migrating Aryans only brought the thoughts contained in the Vedas with them. Hinduism developed once they started intermingling with the people already present here. Shiva, Kaali, et al. are thought to have been Dravidian deities originally. Indra was the original Vedic deity. Even Vishnu came later. The classical Sanskrit that we have now was developed by Panini. We don't really know what form of Sanskrit was spoken by the Vedic people. 

Maybe there is some other reason for some other opponents.

In any case, it's a triggering idea to some that Indian people might not have sprouted in India. To the point some have claimed human race originated separately in India. 

Edited by HearMeRoar - 1 years ago

It is a big coincidence that Vedic religion nd Aryans share the same symbol - The Swastic, which is considered offensive in the West because of it's Nazi connection (The master race theory of the Nazis who considered the Aryan race the pinnacle of human race)

but sacred in some eastern countries where certain religions are practiced

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

When I was in school, we were taught the Aryan invasion theory. Whether it was an invasion or migration, it seemed to make sense that there were waves of population movement from Europe. 

So I'm curious, how and why did people start challenging this theory? How did it come about? Did people find evidence that debunked AIT/AMT or did they want to debunk AIT/AMT and seek evidence to debunk it? Why do some folks seem to be strongly opposed to AIT/AMT? 

Yes they are searching for evidence against it. They are opposed because they want science and history to support their native, Hindu supreme nationalism and want to pretend absolutely everything good happened first and organically only in India.  

AMT hasn’t been debunked. There is clear genetic and linguistic evidence supporting Aryan migration/invasion yet *somehow* Indian media wrote stories saying the exact same studies supporting AMT actually showed the opposite. One single scientist claiming there was no Aryan “migration” but instead a “movement of people” - cause that’s way different ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Same one scientist is sure that the Harappans were speaking Sanskrit based on the very scientific “The Harappans were speaking Sanskrit since they were so advanced,” yeah and also the Mayans were speaking Sanskrit because they were so advanced. Up is down. Wrong is right.  

Meanwhile read how the scientists not bound to Hindutva interpreted the evidence:

 https://scroll.in/article/936872/two-new-genetic-studies-upheld-aryan-migration-theory-so-why-did-indian-media-report-the-opposite  

Versus Hindutva ‘Science’ https://www.science.org/content/article/hindu-nationalists-claim-ancient-indians-had-airplanes-stem-cell-technology-and

Originally posted by: aparnauma

Why should Sanskrit be our national language?Sanskrit is the language of Aryans. Dravidians and Protodravidians  existed on this sub continent long time before Aryans came to this land.

If one needs an ancient language as a national it should be of Dravidian origin

The Aryan invasion theory is absolute bullshit. We are one culture! British and west brought this theory to tear us apart and we bought it. It's time to let it go! Our vedas, upnishadas, Mahabharata, Ramayana, etc are written in Sanskrit. There should be no shame in respecting and spreading the use of that language. Ii holds the root of our ancient vedic culture. 

***

Edited by springkissed - 1 years ago

**

Edited by springkissed - 1 years ago