Aryan Invasion Theory

by admin Mar 2, 2006 49 Comments

Filed under: Dharma,Knowledge

Every time I read another debate or article on the Aryan Invasion Theory(AIT), I start to fume, not because I am mad at their opinions, but at the fact that, so called historians and scholars are still debating this bogus theoryâ€â€?which was created by people who had a religious, colonial, and race agenda. Any Indian knows what the word Arya means, but Max Muller—the man behind the theory had no clue—which he later admitted when his Sanskrit and historian skills were challenged.

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.

Nowhere in India do you find an Aryan Race (today we have the power of DNA to prove this), and yet people continue to debate this theory. Generations of Indians, including my generation, have been taught this theory, and many still continue to believe it. Now this does not end here, school textbooks around the world has been pushing this theory, as the recent California school textbook controversy has shown.

Here is an interesting take on AIT by Swami Vivekananda:

The mind jumps back several thousand years, and fancies that the same things happened here, and our archaeologist dreams of India being full of dark eyed aborigines, and the bright Aryan came from – the Lord knows where. According to some, they came from Central Tibet, others will have it that they came from Central Asia. There are patriotic Englishmen who think that they were all black haired. If the writer happens to be a black haired man, then the Aryans were all black haired.

Of late there have been attempts to prove that the Aryans lived on the Swiss lakes. I should not be sorry if they had been all drowned there, theory and all. Some say now that they lived at the North Pole. Lord blesses the Aryans and their habitations. As for as the truth in these theories, there is not one word in our scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryans came from anywhere outside of India, and in ancient India was included Afghanistan. There it ends.

All the theory that the Shudras caste was all non-Aryans and they were a multitude is equally illogical and equally irrational. It could not have been possible in those days that a few hundred Aryans settled and lived there with a few hundred thousand slaves at their command. These slaves would have eaten them up, made “chutney” of them in five minutes.

The only explanation can be found in the Mahabharata, which says, that in the beginning of Satya Yuga there was only one caste, the Brahmanas, and then by difference of occupation they went on dividing themselves into castes, and that is the only true and rational explanation that has been given. And in the coming of the Satya Yuga all the other castes will have to go back to the same condition. The solution to the caste problem in India, therefore, assumes this form, not to degrade the higher castes, not to crush out the Brahmana.

The fact is, works like the Vedas were created using such ancient Sanskrit, that even though the information is still intact in the Vedas, the loss of contextual information, and changes to the language over time, could lead to misinterpretation, and inaccurate translations. And for someone like Max Muller, who hardly knew Sanskrit, to have interpreted it correctly, needs to be taken with a jar full of salt, especially since he had an agenda, which is evident in a letter to his wife in 1886:

The translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India and on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It is the root of their religion, and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last 3 000 years.

This is what I recommend, stop the debate on this theory, instead�throw it out the door. Hitler, World War II, and Aryan Supremacy groups should be proof enough to show the damage bogus theories like AIT can do? Indian historians owe it to the people who laid the foundation of our culture and religion, to tell their true story. They also owe it to the generations, like ours, that have been duped, to give us the truth, and to tell history as it happened�not only to us, but also to the generations to come. So stop wasting your time debating the Aryan Invasion Theory; instead, spend the time putting the pieces together which will give us the true history of ancient India and its people

Update: Dr. Nayanjot Lahiri turns down an interview on this blog.

Update: Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate

Update: A theory replaces a hunch – Sepia Mutiny

Update: Invasion of Bread People – chocolate and gold coins

Update: Incoherent Theories


  • DesiPundit » The AI&hellip

    Mar 2, 2006 | 2:45 pm

    [...] This time it is KarmaDude’s turn to throw out the Aryan Invasion Theory. [...]

  • oz

    Mar 2, 2006 | 5:26 pm

    “These slaves would have eaten them up, made “chutneyâ€Â? of them in five minutes.”

    …. Dude these don’t sound like words which Swami Vivekananda would have ever used. What source is this quote from?

  • KarmaDude

    Mar 2, 2006 | 5:46 pm

    I was surprised at first too, but when it comes to Swami Vivekananda, we should not be that surprised, he was after all—one of the most outspoken people—when it came to Hinduism and India

    This was from his Lectures from Colombo to Almora

  • oz

    Mar 2, 2006 | 7:46 pm

    KD, Gotta check that speech out, cause its left me… speechless. Any links online?

  • oz

    Mar 2, 2006 | 7:47 pm

    oops…. just realized you have that link.

  • Gaurav

    Mar 2, 2006 | 8:54 pm

    “This is what I recommend, stop the debate on this theory, insteadâ€â€?throw it out the door”

    Nobel sentiments, but it will never happen. Reason ?
    As in the past AIT fulfills some purpose

    1) To show that Hinduism was a foreign import, so Islam , Communism supercede it as import

    2) To show that Lower Caste/South Indians were oppressed by Upper Caste/North Indian Hindus and therefore Hinduism is evil


    PS. By the way I too posted here

  • KarmaDude

    Mar 2, 2006 | 9:08 pm

    GAURAV, why give up? If anyone can make it happen, it will probably be passionate Indian historians and scholars who really care about our past, and seek the truth. I am guessing you are being sarcastic about the purpose AIT has fulfilled.

    If we are headed down the wrong highway, and at some point we realize we are probably going the wrong way, then most of us would retrace our steps and find a diffrent road to go down.

    There is a good discussion going on over at erratic wisdom on studying history.

  • Gaurav

    Mar 2, 2006 | 9:41 pm


    Oh! I am not giving up, I intend to kick ass, unless reason prevails ;-)

    Yes, I was being sarcastic.

    By the way interesting link.


  • charu m

    Mar 2, 2006 | 10:11 pm

    how do you explain the fair skin ness of north indians and brahmins, when south indians (at least the vast majority of
    non-brahmins) and most of the non caste (tribals included) are dark skinned ?
    Do you say they are from the same racial stock ? How do you explain the dravidian language differences from sanksrit/prakrit derived languages of north india ? How do you explain the fact there is so much commonality between sanskrit , persian (iranian) and greek ?
    These may not necessarily prove AIT, but they definitely hint at it. Also, the fact the brahmins (usually fair skinned) lorded over lower castes (usually dark skinned) for millenia, do support some kind of usurpation in the past.

  • Gaurav

    Mar 2, 2006 | 10:40 pm

    To Anon,

    There is a difference between Hint and Science

  • Squared

    Mar 3, 2006 | 9:26 am

    Remember, history is always written by the winners. I have been so skeptical of whatever they taught me in India thats I have developed a history-phobia – anything historical now sounds like a fiction to me. So much so for the history.

    As for the AI theory, its for those suffering from inferiority complex, and want to be part of the winning fraction of history.

  • Atuk

    Mar 3, 2006 | 3:16 pm

    Very well covered karmadude. There is a website,

    “Voice of Dharma” which has lots of articles, books etc repudiating this AIT in detail

  • KarmaDude

    Mar 3, 2006 | 3:42 pm

    CHARU, long gone are the days of defining race through skin color, bone structure, blood type, hair color, and other physical traits. I recommend that you read, “What Differences Make a Difference“, by Larry Adelman, to gain a broader perspective on these things. Some of the other resources posted here, could provide insight into some of the invalidity of AIT, and it’s absurdness!

    SQUARED, well said; but don’t give up on history yet and neither fear it, we can’t give up on our past, we need to seek and find the truth.

    ATUK, thank you for the link, I will have to check it out.

  • Red

    Mar 3, 2006 | 7:44 pm

    I am yet to find any credible historian who supports the Aryan Invasion Theory. Thapar, Upinder Singh, Nayanjot Lahiri (Delhi’s ancient India specialists) all explain the pastoral culture in North India as arising from the migration of central Asian tribes over hundreds of use in gradual waves. The terms arya and dasa were fluid categories as both Thapar and Singh explain. Local groups could be incorporated in arya status, as the Rajputs were in later centuries. The Aryan Invasion theory is nothing but a bogeyman which has been serve very political ends.

    “Nowhere in India do we find an Aryan Race” true. But we have over two millenia of intermarriages, don’t we.

  • Deepali

    Mar 3, 2006 | 9:55 pm

    You’ve put in your arguments very well and I fully agree with you. I am glad I know of others who question and raise the same issues that I did in my mind.

    Excellent post!

  • BS

    Mar 4, 2006 | 8:46 pm

    I read this interesting piece on the AI Theory and other challenges of the same variety affecting the Indian psyche. Seems like, intelligent responses from people like B. R. Ambedkar on these issues have never gotten the kind of coverage and visibility that Imported Experts like Mad Max have managed to get.

  • KarmaDude » A Histo&hellip

    Mar 10, 2006 | 2:49 pm

    [...] After seeing the responses and interest in the Aryan Invasion Theory post, I thought it would be a good idea to get some expert opinion on the issue. So I send an email to Indian Historian, Dr. Nayanjot Lahiri, asking her if she would be interested in doing a blog interview on AIT, here is her response: My schedule simply doesn’t permit this currently. Have to finish teaching and essay corrections! All the best, Nayanjot Lahiri [...]

  • Juven Bachan

    May 28, 2006 | 5:28 am

    No Horse at the Indus
    Can anyone at this website prove that the horse was ridden at the Indus? Can anyone at this website prove that cremation was an indigenous rite of India? Can anyone on this website prove that the horse and chariot was part of the integration and interaction of the Indus people during their existence? Can anyone prove that the Indus people used the horse and chariot in their society, in their religion, in their culture and lifestyle? Can anyone on this website prove that the Indus and the Aryan people are one and the same and that the Indus kings allowed their wives to copulate with the horse before its sacrifice? Can anyone on this website prove archaeologically and in official documentation that the Indus was built by Aryan hands? Can anyone on this website prove that if these things were so point out any historical evidence on the seals of the Indus. If these things were facts why weren’t they recorded in the seals of the Indus people? And why such an important rite as cremation not noted in the seals? And the horse sacrifice. Since the revisionists consider the seals and scripts as the official language or lingua franca of the Indus people, then why among other things as important as those stipulated above are absent in its writings, especially the horse and chariot. I have never read or heard of any Aryan people in history that did not possess the horse. Without the horse there would have no conquest by the Indo-Europeans in world history. Any takers?

  • Juven Bachan

    May 29, 2006 | 12:57 pm

    Since there are no takers on my comments, I can only come to one conclusion and that is to support Prof Witzler’s evidence that the Aryans existed as a people and that they migrated along with their Iranian brothers to conquer India and Iran. The evidence stares us in the face in the Vedas and the Avesta. Revisionists should bear in mind that the Aryans composed of the Indo-Aryans and the Indo- Iranians who used to worship the same gods, practice the same customs, drink the same soma, ride chariots and horses, cremate their dead and sacrifice their horses. So if these people were one people in antiquity , it is only logical that the evidence depict this. The Aryans did conquer India , Iran and Afghanistan and pockets of their descendants still exist in the Kashmir and in the valleys of the Himalayas, such as the Dardic,Nuristanis and Kafirs among others. The attempt by the revisionists to use forgery and other means to prove their point that the Indus was of Aryan origin belies their dishonesty and as maverick academicians. The fraudalent insertion of the image of the horse exposes their weakness. This dishonest action is anagalous to a future historian trying to rewrite history by stating that the automobile never existed in America! Or like Martin Bernal the author of “Black Athena” who tried desperately to convince the academic world that the horse existed in Egypt before 1563 BC. Its amazing and appalling to bear witness to see such unqualified evidence coming from the minds of intellectuals like Rajaram and Frawley et al, men with degrees and PHD’s. Only one thing I would like to say to the revisionists: Invasion or migration, its all the same.

  • KarmaDude

    May 29, 2006 | 2:35 pm

    Juven: the fact is, the subcontinent used oral tradition, rather than written scripts to pass information from generation to generation. The earliest written evidence is form around 3 B.C, and the only stuff before that is from the Indus Valley Civilization. So how do you put the pieces of the puzzle together, when all you have is the Indus Valley information, which has not be deciphered yet, and then the information contained within the Vedas, which cannot be exactly dated or translated, because of the nature of oral tradition.

    Without concrete archeological evidence, or a Rosetta stone for the Indus Valley script, how do you go about filling the gaps from the time the Indus Valley Civilization ended to the first written evidence, around 3rd BC. You are talking about thousands of years here, and to speculate on what might have happened and to teach that as history is just wrong.

    Here is a quote from British anthropologist, Edmund Leach,

    “Common sense might suggest that here was a striking example of a refutable hypothesis that had in fact been refuted. Indo-European scholars should have scrapped all their historical reconstructions and started again from scratch. But that is not what happened. Vested interests and academic posts were involved. Almost without exception the scholars in question managed to persuade themselves that despite appearances, the theories of the philologists and the hard evidence of archeology could be made to fit together. The trick was to think of the horse-riding Aryans as conquerors of the cities of the Indus civilization in the same way the Spanish conquistadores were conquerors of the cities of Mexico and Peru or the Israelites of the Exodus were conquerors of Jericho.”

    I suggest that you also read, ‘Edmund Leach on Racism & Indology’ by S Kak

  • Juven Bachan

    May 29, 2006 | 9:30 pm

    Karmadude, Thanks for replying to my subject. Your argument is , I might say is reasonable but Indians will have to accept the oral tradition since most people of antiquity do not leave written records. But that does not give the revisionists the right to forge history as in the case of Rajaram and the attempt to insert the horse in the Indus civilization. And since there is no Rosetta Stone to decipher the Indus script the revisionists are pushing some kind of agenda in order to please someone. To rewrite history you have to rely on documented evidence and that evidence is in the Vedas and the Avesta. In the case of the Indus, whatever information the seals and the scripts provide, historians will have to work with that, not try to insert false info. The evidence produced so far in the Indus does not speak nor provide the existence of the horse and chariot. One glance as a historian from the writings provided in the Indus digs one can see that the Indus people was not familiar with the horse and chariot nor were they of Vedic origin. Secondly, the incomplete and undeciphered writings of the Indus should not be incorporated into Indian history until the language as some people deem it , is deciphered. The Vedas is a complete history of the Aryans and is accepted by all Indians even though it is of an oral tradition. When the Indus script is broken and can be translated only then it officially becomes India’s history. It is no fault that the people of the Indus just used pictographs to do business in their cities nor likewise the Aryans. As a result , something has to be taught, either the incomplete findings of the Indus or the oral tradition of the Aryans. As a historian I would choose the latter.

  • KarmaDude

    May 29, 2006 | 10:34 pm

    Juven: if you took the time to read the link I posted, it would become obvious that both sides of the argument have obviously convoluted history, to push their own agendas and ideologies. The sad part is these are so called academics and historians!!

    “But that does not give the revisionists the right to forge history�

    The sad part is people do forge history, and that is pretty evident on both sides of the argument. Will historians take blame for the whole Hitler’s “Aryan Race� fiasco!?!

    “The Vedas is a complete history of the Aryans and is accepted by all Indians even though it is of an oral tradition.”

    Are you kidding me?! That is like saying the Old Testament is a history of life on the Earth. It is very difficult to translate oral traditions, especially when you have no clue of the context in which they were written, and especially when the language itself has evolved. As for all Indian’s accepting the Vedas as a complete history of the Aryans, never heard that one before. Probably Max Muller spoke on the behalf of all Indians in that case!

    “To rewrite history you have to rely on documented evidence and that evidence is in the Vedas and the Avesta.”

    How do you know the documented evidence itself is the truth, especially something that has gone around for thousands of years as an oral tradition? Just written work alone cannot rewrite history, it’s has to be a combination of several factors, including: archeology and anthropology.

    “When the Indus script is broken and can be translated only then it officially becomes India’s history.â€Â?

    What?!! The archaeological and anthropological evidence is proof enough to show that it’s part of India’s history. So you are going to ignore the archeological evidence, and keep it out of Indian history, till you can understand their language? Wow! That just blows me away, especially when you claim to be a Historian! Kind of justifies my argument about historians, doesn’t it? (not trying stereotype here, but you know what I mean)

    “As a result , something has to be taught, either the incomplete findings of the Indus or the oral tradition of the Aryans. As a historian I would choose the latter.”

    I can’t believe a historian is saying this, are you for real? Now I am not a historian, but logically, that does not make sense to me, and maybe it hints at the core of the problem: it’s not the historical evidence, but the problem lies with the person interpreting it. If they are biased, then the history they discover and teach is biased, and chances are it would result in forgery of history itself.

    So my advice to a historian will be: Kick biases out the door, if you are on the wrong path and not sure, then go back and start all over again. To get it right is important, when it comes to history, because you are our window to truth about the past.

  • Juven Bachan

    May 30, 2006 | 10:19 pm

    Glad for your reply, which makes healthy debate and argument. The quotes above you made of what I said is my fault. What I really meant is that I include archaeology etc, not just oral history. I accept the fact that the Aryans did not invade as in a military gesture but by migration and other means. But what the Vedic people has written down are not lies but things that they did , things that they saw, songs that they sang, rites and customs that they observed throughout their lives and gods that they worship in their life times etc. These are the things that the Indian people inherited and still observe and which turned out to be Hinduism and its various branches. On the subject of the Indus , my theory is that since it is incomplete and incomplete things that we cannot finish in our life time, we have a tendency to hold until we know the truth. The Indus discoveries are still ongoing and yet we have the revisionists hurrahing about how it is of Aryan origin. How can that be? There are absolutely no connections with Vedic history. Nothing discovered in the Indus is similar to the pages of the Vedas or even the Avesta. There are no signs of cremation or vestiges of a horse culture or a similarity in religion to the pantheon of the Hindu faith. But the revisionists keep telling the Internet and other media how they cracked the Indus script, that the script is from the Nighantu glossary, and they fill the pages of the Internet with graphemes, phonemes etc in an effort to prove that the horse and chariot existed at the Indus. If they want to prove that the horse and chariot existed at the Indus, they will have to show that the Indus people interacted and integrated with this animal. For example, the writings will have to show this, the seals will have to depict this and its religion will have to depict that its gods and the animal interacted. If the Indus possessed the horse and chariot they would have conquered India millenias ago. Sadly, they were confined to the north-west. It is the revisionist historians who are saying that cremation started with Hinduism. Padman Govindarajan in his articles foments this untruth. He conveniently forgets that cremation started with the Indo-Aryans. Is that what you call Indian history? They are twisting and turning words upside down in their quest to prove that the Indus is of Aryan origin. You say that the continent has had oral tradition as its history. True. That is what India inherited. The Indus , now that it is being discovered proves that it was before the Aryan migration but that does not mean that it is of Vedic origin as the revisionists wants us to believe. None of the discoveries so far has depicted this and you’re right that is the historian who is the window of the past. Those who are writing about the Indus are forgers and distorters. When the script is decoded we will see the true nature of the Indus and its skillful people. Thanks for replying.

  • KarmaDude

    Jun 1, 2006 | 10:22 am

    Juven, from your arguments, I take it that you are all for AIT. And you are right, some of the people trying to disprove AIT is doing the same thing, fabricating facts. But what I am saying is AIT itself is a tainted representation of history, and the conclusion of my post asks historians to throw out AIT, and figure out history as it happened.

    Now, if you want to take what’s in the Vedas word for word, then you should know that the word Arya, does not represent a race and I would advise that the first step would be to stop using that word to mean a race. Have you read the Vedas?

    Now if India is the cradle of Vedic culture, and it’s influence can been seen all around, from Europe all the way to Bali, doesn’t it look more like the migration could have happened from the center outward? I mean one has to really understand Vedic culture to even grasp its complexity and appeal.

    I care less about mundane debates on this, what I care more about is the truth: what really happened, what was the real history, what are the vedas really trying to say? Such truth can only come from real historians—for whom the truth is what’s important, not their personal ideologies or agenda!

  • Matt V

    Jun 17, 2006 | 3:53 am

    iam no history buff; i have not studied the avesta or the vedas. But i want to look at this issue with pure logic.

    A less advanced group of people. Who had yet reach the stage of agricultural revolution can in no way ‘conquer’ or take a land, change language and family groups. These People are Europeans, even just 3000 years ago europe was a dump, the only civilisations around was the Persian (Elamites) the Indian, the greek, chinese and egyptian, there was also semi semite groups who had the names of assyrians, controlled mesopotomia etc.

    like i said nothing was in europe. The agricultural revolution did not hit germany/france/ england until 5000 years later after the central asian/persian groups started it.

    we also know that the first humans came from africa, the cradle of civilisation spanned from greece to india and everything in between. And not until roman times europe started to slowly catch up to the extraordinary acheivements of the greeks, persian, egyptians and indians.

    but 65 years ago something extraordinary is proposed, by Max Muller, a nazi, german with a aryan agenda… with only nazi conquest on his mind. He pulled out of thin air some remarkable evidence that the far less advanced europeans who still lived in caves, and hunted with stones managed to walk all that distance from europe – somehow knowing that land and people exsisted in india and iran, barge there way into these advanced nations, show them the tricks of the trade like horse riding (already invented by the persians) and other things and at the same time somehow changing the languages of these whole nations and breeding with everybody thus making them aryans like themselves.

    if i ever proposed that the aboriginals of australia 400 years ago, sailed across the seas, landed in england with a small group, and somehow advanced england further with what they knew, at at the same time breeded with so many people that engalnd became predominantly aboriginal – most sane people would dismiss that and obviously think of it as ludicrous.

    so how come the same thoughts are not emitted by certain european historians who would like a slice of ancient history by claiming to be the sole starters of 2 of the group of greatest civilisations ever on this planet.
    my aboriginal example is very similiar to the same situation thousands of years ago, the european and really anybody above the caspian sea could be represented by the aboriginals of 400 years ago, and the empires of persia, india, the medes and the assyrians could be compared to the england of 200 years ago…. shokingly that was the contrast between the two groups.

    i did not translate the avesta of vedas for this explenation, for me this was pure logic. There is far more arguements which i can put forward. Like the continious use of the word aryan, in particular in the persian scripts for describing themselves. Cyrus called himself aryan, herodotus persian arch nemisis in historical writing even reffered to the persians as aryans… the word has been in persian and indian scripts for thousands of years, yet in only arose in europe only a century ago.

    Too me logically the aryans spurted from the indo-persian area, or possibly in central asia. I dont think the aryans came out of india primarily, but in the region dividing the elamo-dravidians and the indians.

    but i can say this clearly – the aryans could not have possible came out of europe or the caucaus region. it makes absolutely no sense.

    Matt . V

  • Juven Bachan

    Jun 17, 2006 | 12:28 pm

    Karmadude, I have written a 95 page study paper on the Indus Valley Civilization. Its titled:

    “The Impracticability and Inconsistencies of the Indus Valley Civilization being the Derivative Source of the Aryan Occupation of India”

    If you can provide me with the address of a website , I can send a copy of the writing to be published on your website. I will also provide my address etc. You can keep the copy. It is free if you want a copy. Thanks . Hope to hear from you.

  • Matt V

    Jun 18, 2006 | 2:36 am

    I want to know what happened to my comment. I think my arguement was logical enough. to stop any further arguement from happening – like i said before, could the aborigines 400 years ago migrate, settle and change europe – i dont think so.

  • KarmaDude

    Jun 18, 2006 | 7:26 am

    Matt V, Your comments are online now, sorry it took a while for me to approve them, I was out of town. From now on you would not need my approval to post a comment, so keep the discussion going. Only if more people approached this issue logically. I think you are right on.

    Juven, I would be more than happy to post your article on here, I have sent you my email to your aol account.

  • seasons2006

    Jun 18, 2006 | 7:34 am


    Very good article.

    If the theory is so redundant, why young Indians still learn it from the textbooks? Is there any movement to change the text books?

    Matt V, very logical thinking and makes sense.

  • Matt V

    Jun 19, 2006 | 10:08 am

    cheers mate, i hope i could make spock proud.
    like i said before, im no history buff, but i do have my beleifs – and on countless forums i have seen this debate continiously drag on. This was logic which my father explained to me when i first told him about the topic. Makes sense to me.

    still im sure pro AIT peoples can still make an arguement, they are very good at making facts up, and disallowing logic and real facts. on the other hand Juven is a respectable person, as i can see he argues well and values proper consultation – good on ya!

  • Dan W

    Jul 6, 2006 | 2:37 pm

    Let me start by acknowledging that I am a complete novice on this issue.

    I don’t understand what all the fuss is about.

    Most of the languges spoken from the Indian subcontinent to the island of Ireland share a family resemblance. Today, they are usually called ‘Indo-European’, while in the 19th century AD they were referred to as ‘Aryan’. (Does a rose known by any other name not smell as sweet?) This language originated somewhere. Most of the saner-sounding commentaters variously suggest locations in the mountain ranges that stretch from the Hindu-Kush, through the Caucasus, into Turkey, surrounding the ‘fertile crescent’. What is so important about their precise location? Of course, I can understand people wanting to answer this question on a purely academic basis, but clearly, many people seem to think that much more is at stake than academics, but why?

    Let me make a comparison. Any English person with any kind of education at all knows that his or her language and other cultural features are the products of several invasions from people who, at the time, lived in regions outside present-day England, and even outside the British Isles as a whole. There were the Celts, in this case known as Britons. Was present-day England unoccupied at the time of the arrival of the Celts, or was there another people already there? There are different answers to that question, but nobody seems to get emotional or political about it. Then, there were the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings, and the Normands. (Just to add to the complexity, the Normands were descendents of Vikings that had settled in the north of France). Once again, nobody seems to think that this being the case is any kind of slight against English culture. Shakespeare (quoted or at least paraphrased above) was still Shakespeare.

    So the Proto-Indo Europeans either spread their language and culture from the Caucasus or the Hindu Kush. Either way, it is clear that they left their mark on the vast swath of the earth between India and Ireland, and, in turn, on areas colonized by people from these lands, such as the Americas. It also seems likely that in some cases some kind of civilization preceeded the arrival of ‘Aryan’ language and culture. One of the likeliest scenarios for such a pre-existing civilization is India, with the Dravidians.

    But why can’t Indians simply look at the Dravidians as being analogous to the Celtic Britons, and the Aryans, whether they were coming from near or far, as being analogous to the Anglo-Saxons? Why can’t the question as to which elements of Indian culture come from the Dravidians and which from the Aryans be left as a purely academic one, as it is in England, with respect to the Britons, Anglo-Saxons, and other groups?

  • Joseph Hannon

    Jul 9, 2006 | 10:16 am

    The previous comment is SPOT ON.

    The commentator has highlighted the fact that no culture is monlithic and that languages and cultures have been imported through invasion or otherwise for countless centuries. The Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain and the subsequent subjugation of the native British is a very similar example of what happened in India:

    ANGLO-SAXONS: Aryans
    WELSH: Dravidians
    CORNISH: Brahui

    However, the proof of the Aryans as a race and nation is not evidenced necessarily in India but in IRAN- the land of the Aryans- just to the west……this is proof , if ever concrete proof were needed of the Aryan migration to the the Middle East and Indian subcontinent.

    The only racists are the revisonists who reject the Aryan invasion theory and cling to this notion that India unlike all other nations has not imported anything.

    Btw, the Indus Valley people were clearly more advanced and civilized than the Aryans : however the warlike Aryans were militarily superior.

  • KarmaDude

    Jul 9, 2006 | 1:09 pm

    Dan W and Joseph Hannon, Your reasoning is fine, but it’s based on an assumption that the AIT is true. One of the big issues here is the mismatch between AIT and actual archeological evidence, and even erroneous deductions from the Rig Veda itself, from which the AIT theory was deduced.

    Does a rose known by any other name not smell as sweet?

    Well when some one like Hitler comes along and changes the connotation of a word, people are forced to change it. Just like Red Indians, being called Native Americans, blacks being called African American, so on. Now if things like this stayed sweet like a rose, then I guess your logic would apply!

    I don’t understand what all the fuss is about.

    Well I am making a fuss about it, because, I am an Indian, proud to be one, and passionate enough to want to know the truth about our past, especially when the current view is based on a FLAWED THEORY!?

    The only racists are the revisonists

    Well, I don’t think it takes much to realize that AIT is all about race. Do white Europeans what to be known as descendants of brown Indians, or brown Indians want to be known as descendants of white Europeans? I really don’t care much about the direction that debate goes, as long as we get to the truth about history.

    The British example is a really bad one to use here, because it was not a theory deduced from a religious text?!? The AIT is more like taking the Bible, and basing the entire human history on that. If vedic culture could spread east and south, as far as Bali and Fiji, why could it not have spread to the west? Religious and cultural changes, have erased a lot of that history form the west, but I am sure if people look without the confines of AIT, a lot more truth will come out. Why be confined by a theory when looking at history?

    I don’t want to repeat the discussion of why AIT is right or wrong, because my whole point is, find the truth. If a theory is flawed, take a different path, see if you can find what actually happened.

    Now if you want to find more about why AIT is flawed, and where the debate stands, here is a good resource:
    Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate

  • Dan W

    Jul 10, 2006 | 12:34 pm

    I don’t think that I assumed’AIT’ to begin with; I left it very open as to who contributed what to contemporary Indian culture, including the composition of the Vedas, the building of various ancient cities, etc.

    It seems to me that a key part of the problem is defining what is included under the term ‘AIT’.

    If this is taken to mean that there was no culture in the Indus valley more sophisticated than sticks and stones prior to an invasion of Swedish-looking people from the Caucasus or even further west, then it is clearly false.

    If, on the other hand, ‘AIT’ is simply taken to mean that there was a people speaking proto-Indo-Aryan/Iranian/European that ‘originated’ somewhere in the mountains between the Hindu Kush and Turkey, and that these people spread their language, one way or another, from India to Ireland, then it is clearly true.

    Instead of being beguiled into the false dilemma of either accepting AIT ‘in toto’ or rejecting in ‘in toto’, it seems to me that the task is rather to find the correct position between these 2 extremes.

    In the same vein, If AIT is by definition only suported by speculations about ancient religious texts, then it is on shaky ground, although not necessarilly patently false. But at the very least, AIT is also based on linguistic data, which helps shore it up a bit.

    “Well, I don’t think it takes much to realize that AIT is all about race. Do white Europeans what to be known as decendants of brown Indians, or brown Indians want to be known as decendants of white Europeans?”:

    If both parents are ‘white’, their children will be ‘white’. Likewise for any ‘race’. What is really at issue here would seem to be that modern-day Indians,like (almost?)all populations, are the product of ‘miscegenation’ at some level, whether this be ‘intraracial’ or ‘interracial’.
    Again, I don’t see what the problem is or why anyone would not would not “want to be known as the descendents” of such a mixture.

    Under any reasonable interpretation, AIT is not saying that Europeans descended from Indians or vice versa, but that there was a population that contibuted to some extent to the genetic composition of both groups,or at the very least to the languages of both groups, with many exceptions in both cases (Finnish, Hungarian, and of course the Dravidian languages). In Europe, in at least some cases, these ‘Aryans’ mixed with some pre-existing European peoples (e.g. Greece)[does Greece also have an AIT debate'?] There is the possibility that in some other cases, the Aryans were the first ones there. Likewise, in India, they mixed with the Dravididans, and possibly with some pre-Dravidian people.

    Is that the concern? that some people might be much more ‘purely’ Aryan than others? Why would this be a problem? Because the Aryans ‘proved’ their ‘superiority’ by invading other peoples’ territory 3000 Yrs ago? That seems silly. Peoples go through cycles of barbarism, civilization and decay all the time. Different peoples are superior in different ways at different times throughout their history. The barbarians are often better in war because of a bellicose, aggressive culture, while they might be inferior in terms of things like literature,architecture, painting, etc. And then they become civilized, become less aggressive and more sophistacated, and the cycle is repeated.

    “If vedic culture could spread east and south, as far as Bali and Fiji, why could it not have spread to the west? “:

    It seems quite clear that to the extent that Vedic culture = Aryan culture,it DID in fact spread westward. Even if we accept the western-most suggested point of origin for the Aryan/Proto-Iranian-Indo Europeans, it would still have had to have spread from there to Ireland and Spain and sundry points in between. If we situate this point of origin further east, in Persia/Iran or the Hindu Kush, that would indicate that much more westward movement.

    The bottom line is that instead of simply asserting the falseness of AIT as a whole, it would be more helpful if people made it clear which specific aspects of it that they are rejecting.

    (All of this was written before looking at the link provided by Karma Dude; I will do that tomorrow, for now, gotta run.)

  • KarmaDude

    Jul 10, 2006 | 3:03 pm

    All of this was written before looking at the link provided by Karma Dude; I will do that tomorrow, for now, gotta run.

    Dan W, there is plenty of information out there on this whole debate. The points you have raised, have been raised before, and debated over and over.

    The sad part is, most of this comes from either lack of information or misinformation. Here is a simple resource on facts about the archeological side of Ancient Indus Valley civilization

    Invasion of the Bread People is a funny example of: to what extent people will go to debate this issue,

    As for language, I am not an expert on Sanskrit, but the more I learn about it, the more it looks like a language made for a purpose. One event that really got me curious about Sanksrit, was when I was in college. I had a friend from Indonesia, and I was really surprised that I could kind of understand his language, because it had it’s roots in Sanskrit. I am from south India, and speak a Dravidian language, but even Malayalam has so much Sanskrit influence, that I am skeptical when someone claims that they can clearly make distinctions between Sanskrit and the Dravidian languages.

    The funny part is, Robert Caldwell coined the term “Dravidian” from the Sanskrit dravida. I wonder if being a bishop had something to do with all this :) I am glad he did not find the word Asura instead. You know, we do worship asura’s in the south. The famous story of Mahabali is a good example of the less discussed Asuras of south India. What is even more interesting is the fact that the dravidian asuras are interpreted as being barbaric and demonic!!

    The point I am trying to make is, there is a whole lot of information out there, and everything does not seem to fit in the little AIT box. So instead of starting with AIT, start with all the pieces of the puzzle, try putting it together, and then if it looks like AIT, then kudos to Max Muller for getting it right. If not, then atleast we know the TRUTH, and for me, that’s all it’s about. Like Rabindranath Tagore once said, “Facts are many, but truth is one”

  • Dan W

    Jul 11, 2006 | 12:38 pm

    I checked out KD’s link to Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate by KOENRAAD ELST. A few problems: In the 4.1.1 DEMOGRAPHICAL COMMON SENSE section, he acknowledges that a small number of invaders can impose their language and other features of their culture on a much larger population:

    “And just like a dominant Spanish minority managed to make its own language the mother-tongue of much larger populations which are genetically predominantly Native American,”

    but then he turns right around and assumes that the probability of AIT rests on the denial of such an impact by a minority upon a majority and that this denial should be held against AIT:

    “Saying that India had a large population may not sound -very revolutionary, yet in the context of the AIT, it is.

    The theory of the Aryan Invasions, complemented by the secondary theory of an earlier Dravidian invasion, assumes, as it were, that India was nearly empty. On the other hand, the steppes of Eastern Europe and Central Asia must have been a beehive of people.” (same text, 4.1)

    In addition to his own examples of the colonization of the Americas, we may think of the Germanic invasions at the fall of the Roman Empire: The Romans and romanized Celts far outnumbered the invading ‘Germans’ (Goths, Vandals, Franks, etc.), but they were soft and weak and fought amongst themselves, while the Germans were ‘lean and mean’.

    But more importantly, the fact that AIT is NOT based on the notion of a relatively empty India prior to the Aryan invasion is its defining feature, which is what I have been looking for when I asked if people could specify what it is that they are referring to when they say that they either accept or reject AIT:

    it seems to me that there are three (but as we will see, really only two) fundamentally different possible positions:

    Around 1500 BC,

    (1) India was was relatively underpopulated compared to central Asia, and the populous Aryans migrated into a relatively empty India, and are responsible for almost all of Indian culture.

    (2) There was a relatively sophisticated civilization in the Indus Valley, and a less sophisticated, barbaric, warlike people, the Aryans, swept down from the overlooking mountains, and established themselves as the new ruling class, and gradually became interested in the cultural activities that had preceeded their arrival.

    (3) There was a relatively sophisticated civilization in the Indus Valley, that gradually expanded outward as its population grew, and this civilization distributed various elements of its culture piecemeal, as various emigrations took place.

    I said that there were really only 2 positions here, because I don’t think anybody seriously upholds (1)

    This gives us (2)= AIT; (3)=anti-AIT

    This is the kind of fundamental argument I was looking for when I asked what the ‘fuss’ was all about. Haggling over which particular mountain range the Aryans came from doesn’t seem to touch on AIT vs anti-AIT (it seems to assume AIT), but that is much of what one hears about concerning the issue, which is only obfuscatory.

    Elst’s article is a good example: he sometimes argues against AIT as though it were (1) (which it isn’t) and sometimes as if it were(2) (which it is, if I’m right above)

    worse, his arguments against (2) work directly against him upon closer inspection. He points out later in the section on demographics that small groups of invaders attacking large civilizations tend to assimilate rather than impose their own culture. But I think this is exactly what AIT is saying: that the Aryans ‘took over’ the civilization that they found in the Indus valley, just as the germanic tribes ‘took over’ the remnants of Roman civ (which is the parallel he himself makes) But if we take into account the relativley dense population of the subcontinent compared to Europe that he himself has argued for (and which seems to fit in general), we see that where the Aryans were expanding into sparsely populated Europe, their language took root, while in densely populated India, the predecessor languages survived, the more so the further away from the GENERAL locus of the invasion, north (not necessarilly northwest; if we want to situate the point of origin of the Aryans as far east as Panjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh, that doesn’t seem to affect the ‘essence’ of AIT.

    If we go with his proposed model of the outward expansion of a 5000+yr-old Indus civ, we would expect their language to be evenly dispersed around its Indus valley epicenter, rather than only in the less pop areas.

    another, epiphenomenal problem with the 4.1.1 section is that out of nowhere, he starts talking about the color of people’s skin, which is exactly the kind of thing that makes this a political issue, and yet he casually throws it in there with the drier issue of linguistics:

    “And just like a dominant Spanish minority managed to make its own language the mother-tongue of much larger populations which are genetically predominantly Native American, so also the slightly darker emigrants from India may have passed on their language to the white people of Russia and Europe.”

  • Vinay

    Sep 6, 2007 | 7:04 am

    Arkaim , a settlement of around 1500 – 2000 people in central asia with bronze making ovens, properly placed fire altars etc. are found to have been totally burnt. Where as all IVC planned towns were just left deserted ( not burnt or show any sign of cruel invasion ). So, why there is discrepancy that aryan settlement of arkaim is burnt , but IVC settlements are not touched ?

    Cremation is told as Aryan mark , then why in central asia we find mostly remains of cemetry before period 1700 BC ?

    Why central asian settlements ruined after 1800 – 1700 BC ? Is it possible that all current USA citizens start living on the moon and leave the original homeland ?
    Then, why aryan civilization is not found in parent central asian area when the same aryan people are told to have done wonders in India ?

    Rig-Veda geometry starts from Gangetic plains and then it moves towards north – west India ( opposite to aryan migration from NW ). Dasa of Rig-Veda is not south indians but iranians. We find Daha people in ancient iran. Dasaranjan war of Rig-Veda was source of rivalry between aryan ( i.e. noble , truth abiding ) and iranians.

    Central asian aryan nomads did not bring any Iron age in India. In fact, it was India which was famous for Iron. Refer Damascus steel which was infact Indian steel ( or process was Indian ). When, nomad people didn’t have any superiority in terms of anything then what made them click ? Do you think that people of Green Land can impart such a change to USA people today.
    Example of above mentioned aborinals & britishers is perfectly logical.

    Indian knowledge was known as technically superior and hence arabs translted maths, algebra, trignometry, chemistry, metallurgy, astronomy related texts from Indians and then passed on that knowledge to European translators. IVC people used uniform bricks ratio ( still used the same ratio world over ), decimal system, weights & measure system over area bigger than western europe. They made dock comparing with current size and it required knowledge of astronomy. Average Indian uses astronomy much more than any people by way of Panchang.

    Spain captured native americans by way of cruel invasion. Also, they were militarily superior than natives with gun powder & pistols. Where as central asia was never superior to India. Even so called aryan BMAC area of central asia is not having horse remains before 1700 – 1600 BC ( in tune with Indian subcontinent ).

    I can elborate on many points, but illogical person will always think in `one way’ direction ( as if path from central asia to India was only `one way’ ) !

  • david

    Jan 13, 2008 | 8:15 pm

    i have question
    1. why the Aryan invasion happened reason?
    2. why the Aryan invasion did not happened reason?

    answer please
    help me
    thank you

  • Mansi

    Feb 12, 2008 | 4:03 am

    I definitely consider it a myth…have a look at some interesting articles on the above link

  • sathyanath

    Jan 22, 2009 | 4:05 am

    somehow we now know that aryans never invaded.
    So we should no think ho to stop the AIT from history books.

  • borneveryday

    Jan 30, 2009 | 2:58 am

    Any reasong why the discussion ended abrubtly??

  • KarmaDude

    Feb 1, 2009 | 8:42 am

    @borneveryday, it probably ended because I got side tracked with other projects, and it’s an older post too. Maybe people are not interested in it any more.

  • arun

    Feb 5, 2009 | 2:34 pm

    Genetic Research Supports Aryan Invasion Theory

    By Roar Bjonnes (PNA)
    In the fields of yoga and ayurvedic medicine, I have a great deal of respect for the scholarship of David Frawley and Georg Feuerstein. However, in their book In Search of the Cradle of Civilization, co-authored with Subash Kak, they may have ventured too far from the rigors of science. Their usual erudite research appears to be creating what they claim to debunk: another myth.

    In attempting to expose the Indian Aryan Invasion Theory, they have instead created a new, bogus theory based on overzealous and often inaccurate interpretations of Vedic philosophy, history, rites and (oh yes!) myth.

    But, who can blame them! It is not an easy task to make sense of Indian history, especially its prehistory.

    The first and main mistake these authors make (and they are not alone in doing so!) is to lump most all of Indian history and spirituality into the omnipresence of the Vedas. In reality, India is composed of two distinct, yet often co-mingling rivers of rites and spiritual practice: the Vedic and the Tantric.

    Unlike Frawley and Feuerstein, Tantric historians, such as N. N. Bahttacharya, and Tantric masters, such as P. R. Sarkar, draw a clear distinction between Aryan and Dravidyan culture and history. The Aryans were predominantly Vedic and the Dravidyans Tantric. Although over thousands of years, these two cultural rivers joined and became what we now call Hindu culture.

    And, yes, these scholars also claim that indeed there was an Aryan invasion. Not always violent, and not a sudden one either. The Aryans arrived from central Asia, Iran and Afganistan over thousands of years and settled first in what is today Kashmir. It was here, claims Sarkar, that the Vedas were first written down in the Sarada script.

    There are four Vedas, and according to tantric historians, the Rigveda is the oldest and was mostly composed outside of India. Frawley et al, however, maintains it was composed in India, of course. That the Rigveda contains material seemingly indigenous to India is likely because it was never written down before thousands of years later, after many linguistic and cultural changes throughout its long, oral history on Indian soil!

    One example of such indigenous Indian influence on the Aryan Vedas can be seen especially in the fourth and often neglected Atharvaveda. As Frawley et al writes: “…many Vedic thinkers have had an ambivalent attitude toward the Atharvaveda.” Yes, indeed. And part of the reason for that is that this Veda was greatly influenced by Tantra. P. R. Sarkar points out, for example, that the Nrsimha Tapaniiya Shruti of the Atharvaveda has been far more influenced by the non-Aryan Tantra than by the Aryan Veda.

    One important archeological fact mentioned in the book is the pashupati seal, found in the ancient Harappan valley civilization, and which depict God Shiva, the Lord of the Beasts. Sarkar points out that this seal is an example of the indigenous tantric symbolism of the Harappan culture. The esoteric Tantric meaning of this seal is that Shiva is the controller of the pashus, the animal desires of man.

    Contrary to Vedic scholars, Shiva was not just a mythological God, he was, according to the Tantric tradition, an historical person. Like Buddha and Krishna, he was a great spiritual leader who systematized yogic practices, invented the octave, Indian classical dance (thus he was called Nataraja, the great dancer) and systematized ayurvedic medicine. Shiva lived in India around 5000 BCE, the time when Aryans already had settled in the north of India.

    So, the great limitation of this book and all other scholars who claim there was never an Aryan Invasion of India, is that they completely discount this “other” aspect of Indian history. Indeed, they often claim that the historical struggle between Tantric and Vedic peoples, and their gradual co-mingling, never really took place at all.

    But, if the rich tantric history and tradition of India is unable to sway these scholars, maybe Western genetic science will.

    Recent genetic discoveries by Dr. Spencer Wells (well documented in his book Journey of Man) shows that there were at least two large migrations into India, one by dark skinned people from Africa via the coastal areas and then into Australia, and another much later migration by lighter skinned people from central Asia.

    By sampling DNA of people in a village close to Madurai in Tamil Nadu, Dr Wells spotted a genetic mutation that had been passed on to aboriginal people in Australia – thus offering the first biological proof that African ancestors of the Australian natives passed through India on the way to their new home. He also proved that later the people who moved into India indeed were of Aryan stock.

    There is also now some historical and archaeological evidence which suggests that as the Aryans came in, they intermarried with indigenous people and also absorbed many of them into their system of ranking.

    Frawley et al dismiss this theory as a myth, claiming it “devalues” India’s history. Now, however, another genetic study has produced strong evidence supporting the Aryan Invasion Theory. A team led by Michael Bamshad of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City compared the DNA of 265 Indian men from different castes with DNA from nearly 750 African, European, Asian and other Indian men.

    The researchers first analyzed mitochondrial DNA, which people only inherit from their mothers. When they looked at specific sets of genes that tend to be inherited as a unit, they found about 20 to 30 percent of the Indian sets resembled those in Europeans. The percentage was highest in upper caste males, which supports the theory of Aryans being upper castes. Overall, though, each caste resembled other Asians most.

    So, the proof of the Aryan Invasion Theory, as they say, is to be found in the genetic pudding.

  • Vinay

    Mar 20, 2009 | 5:35 am

    As per one genetical study , between 4500 BC to 500 BC, there was no change in genetic pool of indians from outsiders. So, there were no aryan invasion or migration in Indian Subcontinent.

    Wealthy nation can spread culture ( like USA ) and not savage like central asians of IVC time. Ancient India was not only wealthy , but also culturally very strong as Yoga is found in IVC terracota statues. And, Yoga tradition is just one aspect of Vedic philosophy. Yoga itself says that it’s derived from Vedas. So, we have proof that there were no Aryan invasion / migration. But, so called western indologists don’t want to risk their position and hence let them deny it. AIT was based only on twisted translations of some RigVedic verses and not some findings of genetic, archeology, anthropology. Also, before IVC excavation Aryans were white cultured people , but after 1920 Harappa excavations the same became white barbers. Wow what a 180 degree turn in assumptions.

  • silence doogood

    Mar 22, 2009 | 10:48 pm

    the out of india theory’ does not have enough scholarly credibility but never the less argues for a more rational and sound explanation of continuity of indian culture, from ancient times till present but 80% of the european gentic makeup of europeans is from paleolithic thus diminishing any impact of out of india theory.

  • silence doogood

    Mar 22, 2009 | 10:50 pm

    another thing read spencer wells discoverey on the aryan invasion of india you will see that it is true

  • crevo1

    Aug 11, 2009 | 2:42 pm

    Genetically most South Asians are the same people as they were 10,000 years ago. So genetically they cannot be from Andronovo. Language does not necessarily spread by blood. Most British are Basque Descendants and are quite similar to the Irish by blood, however linguistically they speak a germanic language and like to claim they are “Anglo-Saxons”.

    There was also at one point the Mitanni empire which had an indo-aryan linguistic superstate over parts of the near east, so it is quite possible for the language to spread over Europe. Especially considering that Europe (excluding parts of southern Europe) was vastly undeveloped and limited to tribal societies for quite sometime, these widely dispersed tribes could have developed their own subgroups of languages over that time.

    What does not make sence is the fact that the so-called Aryans invaded India (without any physical evidence), while at the same time you have a plethora of sanskrit words distributed over many other Indo-European languages.

  • BKB

    Mar 1, 2010 | 4:41 pm

    As said it is the historian who cares the past most rightly
    too. It is expected of the historians to tell the present
    generation strength and beautiful things of the past and
    its revance today.

  • Sujay Rao Mandavilli

    Apr 1, 2010 | 1:22 pm

    The AIT has already been abandoned by Romila Thapar, Witzel and others — let’s not flog a dead horse .. there is no living mainstream scholar who beleives in the AIT anymore

    Those who claim that the Indus was Vedic are politically motivated.. so are those who support the Dravidian hypothesis

    1. Sanskrit was a liturgical language not the language of the masses
    2. The IVC originated in Baluchistan – Vedic culture originated in the Vedic homeland
    3. IVC was based on contacts with Mesopotamia – Vedic culture was not
    4. We have to account for all aspects of Hinduism not Vedism alone

    the transfer of power happened through a series of acculturations . There are very detailed acculturation models proposed by the Allchins, Jim Shaffer. I have proposed a 150 page acculturation model -posted above.

    While most of those who beleive in the VIT are innocent, this is a part of the BJP’s greater plan to eliminate muslims and christians. As Indians lets be wary and keep the larger interests of the nation in mind

    Sujay Rao Mandavilli

    Here is the complete , comprehensive solution to the so-called Aryan problem
    Part one is a high level overview. Part two is much more interesting
    This is one of the longest research papers published in a peer-reviewed journal since independance.
    Part two is the most important

    Links to the journal
    Part one
    Part Two


OM T-shirt

OM T-shirt

OM T-shirt printed on an Organic Cotton T-shirt.
Price $20 USD, Buy Now

Affiliate Spotlight

Make Money Selling Links! ThemeForest Tweeple of India India 60


BooksCreativityDharmaKarmaKnowledgeLinks that MatterMeditationMoment of ZenNirvanaNow thats FunnyPeacePunyaStoriesYogaZen

Recommended Sites


Error. Page cannot be displayed. Please contact your service provider for more details. (12)